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
The paper below demonstrates some of the problems with much of academia https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08092
Throughout the day I'm going to deconstruct this part by part.
Right from the beginning it starts with
"In a decentralised setting these measures are limited by two underlying physical network attributes:
communication capacity and speed-of-light propagation delay."
Then of course the authors introduce the real reason for the paper which is often overlooked.
The authors introduce Prism
So in effect, the entire purpose of the paper is not to understand bitcoin or any other system for that matter but rather to promote their own system.
It is a marketing paper that is deceptively promoted as if it is an academic paper. This is an example of first-year science students will be taught to reject as being self-serving and biased.
They make a claim that they deconstruct bitcoin but I will demonstrate that this is not been done anywhere in this paper and rather the authors are intentionally promoting a false concept in order to promote their own system.
This is something that should be a subject of an academic integrity review for the authors especially given the nature of where they come from
1.1 Performance measures
These are not the fundamental performance measures of a Blockchain.
The amount of hash power it is not relevant to the performance operations in any way. Rather it is an indicator of an economic process.
No mention is made of the propagation of block headers.
The distribution of block headers is the most crucial aspect of the bitcoin security function. Note, I have stated block headers and not blocks. So the authors have already set up a false view designed to deceive the reader prior to even getting into the first section.
In order to sell their own product, they talk about a throughput of only a few transactions per second.
This of course is false.
BTC has intentionally limited throughput which is not the capability of bitcoin, but then, the purpose of this paper is not to analyse bitcoin but rather again to deceptively promote an alternate form of Cryptocurrency system that the authors seek to promote rather than digital cash because they want their names to be associated with it.
They have a financial interest in deceiving the reader
In the same calculations, the authors intentionally introduce false calculations about the latency and throughput building on the already erroneous claim of only a few transactions are second to say that the requirement to wait six blocks as part of a transaction process as well
The definition of confirmed latency it is completely made up in the way that they have proposed that. For a given probability that a transaction will be removed from the ledger is simple hogwash
There is no basis for this in any way rather the authors have a false claim of authority and I definitively say false here because this is a example of incredibly low academic integrity
By low I mean pond scum, but this is not the analysis of the paper
A process where blocks are orphaned does not lead to an attacker removing transactions from the ledger as they are falsely describing. Again, anyone who understood or took the time to analyse the protocol would also see that there is a 100 block maturity level required for miners to get paid. So it is in the interest economically of miners to build a system that will not have their blocks rejected within that timeframe.
Buterin is a child without any formal education. He has never been trained in basic mathematics little and cryptography. He has never been trained in security. He's never been trained in risk. He has no concept of these disciplines so why would anyone in their right mind take anything that he states about it with any level of seriousness
CSW
Mar 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616135820145000?thread_ts=1616135820.145000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2514
Throughout the day I'm going to deconstruct this part by part.
Right from the beginning it starts with
"In a decentralised setting these measures are limited by two underlying physical network attributes:
communication capacity and speed-of-light propagation delay."
Then of course the authors introduce the real reason for the paper which is often overlooked.
The authors introduce Prism
So in effect, the entire purpose of the paper is not to understand bitcoin or any other system for that matter but rather to promote their own system.
It is a marketing paper that is deceptively promoted as if it is an academic paper. This is an example of first-year science students will be taught to reject as being self-serving and biased.
They make a claim that they deconstruct bitcoin but I will demonstrate that this is not been done anywhere in this paper and rather the authors are intentionally promoting a false concept in order to promote their own system.
This is something that should be a subject of an academic integrity review for the authors especially given the nature of where they come from
1.1 Performance measures
These are not the fundamental performance measures of a Blockchain.
The amount of hash power it is not relevant to the performance operations in any way. Rather it is an indicator of an economic process.
No mention is made of the propagation of block headers.
The distribution of block headers is the most crucial aspect of the bitcoin security function. Note, I have stated block headers and not blocks. So the authors have already set up a false view designed to deceive the reader prior to even getting into the first section.
In order to sell their own product, they talk about a throughput of only a few transactions per second.
This of course is false.
BTC has intentionally limited throughput which is not the capability of bitcoin, but then, the purpose of this paper is not to analyse bitcoin but rather again to deceptively promote an alternate form of Cryptocurrency system that the authors seek to promote rather than digital cash because they want their names to be associated with it.
They have a financial interest in deceiving the reader
In the same calculations, the authors intentionally introduce false calculations about the latency and throughput building on the already erroneous claim of only a few transactions are second to say that the requirement to wait six blocks as part of a transaction process as well
The definition of confirmed latency it is completely made up in the way that they have proposed that. For a given probability that a transaction will be removed from the ledger is simple hogwash
There is no basis for this in any way rather the authors have a false claim of authority and I definitively say false here because this is a example of incredibly low academic integrity
By low I mean pond scum, but this is not the analysis of the paper
A process where blocks are orphaned does not lead to an attacker removing transactions from the ledger as they are falsely describing. Again, anyone who understood or took the time to analyse the protocol would also see that there is a 100 block maturity level required for miners to get paid. So it is in the interest economically of miners to build a system that will not have their blocks rejected within that timeframe.
Buterin is a child without any formal education. He has never been trained in basic mathematics little and cryptography. He has never been trained in security. He's never been trained in risk. He has no concept of these disciplines so why would anyone in their right mind take anything that he states about it with any level of seriousness
CSW
Mar 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616135820145000?thread_ts=1616135820.145000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2514
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616135820145000?thread_ts=1616135820.145000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2514
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616135820145000?thread_ts=1616135820.145000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2514
The purpose of bitcoin is to make a digital cash system that enables micropayments and can be used for other extensions that people create.
Individuals exchanging one to the other over SPV is decentralised.
the protocol is not
the protocol is set
the protocol was created by me and doesn't change
the issuer is not decentralised but rather happens to be the people who launched a particular system
CSW
Apr 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618134617024500?thread_ts=1618134617.024500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2516
Individuals exchanging one to the other over SPV is decentralised.
the protocol is not
the protocol is set
the protocol was created by me and doesn't change
the issuer is not decentralised but rather happens to be the people who launched a particular system
CSW
Apr 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618134617024500?thread_ts=1618134617.024500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2516
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Apr 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618134617024500?thread_ts=1618134617.024500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2516
Apr 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618134617024500?thread_ts=1618134617.024500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2516