If you think about it a little bit you can force people to do calculations to get paid.

These can be calculations that are complex.

If you add the required calculation into the digital signature component you now require the digital signature of the output key modified by the calculation.

Script allows you to do arithmetic operations on the signature itself.

The signature is constructed using a combination of the R,S components which are sent by a standard push data opcode

In an R Component of 32 bytes, we could have a value saved in the ALT stack that can be used in the calculation.
Analogously, this can be applied to the public key as well..

PubKey XOR Mask

For the public key to be valid, the mask needs to be solved.

This mask can be made secure using hashing algorithms and other forms of computation

The mask does not need to apply to the entire public key.

Many will tell you this is completely insecure if the mask is too large as alternative calculations may be able to result in payments to different public keys.

But, remember you also have OP_DUP

So, you could match the hash of the public key against the modified masked version and now allow only the person holding the public key to even know what the value of mask calculation will be as it's only their key.

Mask XOR PubKey - >
PubKey - checksig
+
Pubkey - Check hash

CSW
Jan 28, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611832292085400?thread_ts=1611832292.085400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2576

CSW
Ago 22, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1566504677450500

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2578

Are Electronic Signatures Counterparts?
An electronic signature, e-signature, or digital signature is a way to sign a document online. In some cases, you can use a mouse, while in other cases you type your name into the space.

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/counterparts-and-legally-binding-signatures-398169

Did you know, that you can type a signature....
And that a series of contracts can be digitally signed once and all others just initialled with type font...
electronic records and signatures carry the same weight and legal effect as traditional paper documents and handwritten signatures stating: A document or signature cannot be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/06/what-are-e-signatures-are-they-legally-valid.html

https://www.docusign.com/learn/are-electronic-signatures-legal

the term "counterparts" means "legally binding documents that are recognized in a court of law."

People are about to learn what:

_This deed may be executed in any number of counterparts. A counterpart may be a facsimile._
_Those counterparts together constitute one instrument._

... means


CSW
Ago 22, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1566504677450500

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2578

CSW
Sep 11, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1568196182464500?thread_ts=1568196182.464500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2580

I used DoshiGatai in the 90s

It was Reg’s signature exclamation, “Doshigatai,” from Made in Abyss? 

used it as a pseudonym?

Yes

Doshai@pip.com.au

And more

http://old.greatcircle.com/firewalls/mhonarc/firewalls.199610/threads.html

https://archive.is/kLaTg

http://old.greatcircle.com/firewalls/mhonarc/firewalls.199610/msg00653.html

https://archive.is/AHO71

CSW
Sep 11, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1568196182464500?thread_ts=1568196182.464500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2580

CSW
Sep 18, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1568814611336400?thread_ts=1568814611.336400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2583

There is a reason why I didn't use Schnorr, and it has nothing to do with the patent.

Even Hal Finney had *multiple* patents.

You can add signatures. So, adding keys leaves tou able to construct a group signatory system...

Which means you are always able to create an anonymous system that exists outside law

One you can always use to "prove" it is not your key

Keys are similar to ECDSA as a curve

Now, if you have

Pa = P1 + P2
There always exists a P.1.1 + P2.2 = Pa

So, there are always ways to say that it is not your key...

The Dread Pirate Roberts defense

Say,
P0 =(7)G
P0 =(6+1)G
P0=(4+6-3)G
P0=(2+5)G

Etc

So, there is always a way to avoid attributing the key to an identity

And, private means the parties are identified.

Schnorr is about the opposite side of bitcoin

CSW
Sep 18, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1568814611336400?thread_ts=1568814611.336400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2583

CSW
Sep 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569311834097900
3/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2585

1/3
We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending.

Bitcoin is far more complex than just digital signatures and has a complete scripting language, but the base is derived from the standard exchange of signed transactions. This follows the standard requirements under electronic commerce law and allows bitcoin to meet the requirements dictated in international monetary and commercial law for the provision of electronic signatures and all that entails.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Digital signatures worked well and as such I used them.
You will note though that I state that these provide strong control of ownership. This sentence is very important. Your keys do not say that you own your bitcoin.
Control and possession are not ownership. An exchange or custodial wallet controls access using keys. This does not give it ownership of your bitcoin. It allows it to secure your bitcoin. This is a common error made because of all the cyberpunk malaise spread concerning bitcoin. Their failed attempts to make an anarchist coin have fallen upon my creation as they attempted to make something different. The difficulty in making bitcoin was creating something that they could not twist to their desire. Bitcoin difficulty stems from removing the ability to make an anonymous, not this misplaced desire in bringing down the state.
All of these solutions require some means to prevent double spending. In digicash and Mondex a bank was used as a central party for this. The bank acted to stop double spending. If you understand the history of these organizations, you can start to see the lies that have been spread about bitcoin. In all of these systems, the control and ownership are separate things.
This remains the same in bitcoin. You own your bitcoin because of the legal construct an idea of property. You do not own bitcoin because of keys. There is nothing that I've ever said, there is nothing in the Whitepaper, and there is nothing in the code that even remotely implies that you own bitcoin because you have a key.

Again, I hate to be a pedant but I was extremely explicit in my choice of words. Digital signatures provide strong control of ownership. They do not substitute for ownership. This is an important and critical distinction. You do not own your car because you have a key. When you hand your key to the valet to park it, ownership does not change with possession. When your bitcoin is stored on an exchange or when you use a custodial wallet, you don't transfer ownership. You transfer control. Possession passes to another in the form of a bailment.
The Oxford English dictionary defines the word bailment in the following terms:
1. Delivery, handing over, or giving for a specific purpose; according to Blackstone, delivery in trust, upon a contract expressed or implied, that the trust shall be faithfully executed on the part of the bailee.
In this, when you hand control of bitcoin you own to another party, it remains yours. The delivery, handing over or exchanging of property for a specific purpose is not a transfer of ownership.

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/shareholder-ownership-and-control.htm
managementstudyguide.com
A Comparison between Shareholder Ownership and Control
Lets look at the distinction between shareholder ownership and control and see how this comparison plays out in the corporate world. CSW
Sep 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569311834097900
1/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2585

2/3
This seems to be a common misconception between the concept of ownership and control. They are not the same. Control of ownership is not the same as ownership. In company law, shareholders maintain ownership of a company but may not have control. Company law clarifies this position stating that only majority by percentage of shareholders can exercise control and even in this scenario, delegated control and corporate constitutions limit what people can do. Control defines the ability to have an effective say over the use of some form of property.
Where people go wrong is in this cyberpunk malaise of saying that all creation is wrong. In blaming the state for their own failings and problems. It's time people start to take responsibility. With bitcoin, control of ownership means that there is a way to effectively act either with or without third parties. The nature of how people interact with the ownership and property rights of bitcoin is not as simple as holding an address. That is a concept derived from erroneously stated misconceptions of contract law. One of the worst proponents of this has been Nick Szabo. His deep-rooted hatred of government has led him to twist and corrupt everything that he sees to do with law. He teaches people are corrupted version of society and life and one that does not in any way align with the reality of law that has been developed over centuries.

https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T5131H9JR-FNNEBQFTN/image.png

There are many ways as you can see to control and owned businesses. In a similar way, there are many ways to control and own money.
When you're talking about small day-to-day amounts, the level of control is directly linked to ownership. A scenario will develop with people hold their own keys and do little to control loss when compared to large values that can be easily taken.

We see this in the distinction between Handcash and Centbee on one end of the scale and more complex structures on the other that are designed to hold bitcoin under contractual agreements. It is important to see this distinction. You do not own your bitcoin because you hold the key. You own it because of defined property rights. You own it because of law and the interaction of the state. Without a government, without legal property rights that are enforceable in court, you do not own property at all and this applies to bitcoin.
Bitcoin simplifies the control aspects of property and allows the creation of audit trails that can be used to prove transactions and can act as evidence in court. But at no point does a key prove ownership. At best, it is a form of evidence and to say that keys prove ownership ignores the fact that we have keys for many systems and that merely having a key does nothing to transfer ownership of property. A digital key is analogous to a physical key in the real world. In time, physical keys will be replaced by digital keys. That no matter what replacement we see, the transfer of a key will never imply the transfer of property.

Air B&B, car rental companies and leasing all occur with the transfer of keys but not the transfer of property ownership rights. Property is multifaceted. Rights to property can be transferred in part in this applies to the control of those access conditions. Controlling property is not the same as owning property. This is a misconception that must be addressed. CSW
Sep 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569311834097900
2/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2585

3/3
In effect yes, and someone signing and saying that they possess your key then acts as a form of evidence in itself. If a second party comes forth to say that they really own a particular bitcoin address, you then have the standard processes within court. This is resolved not by signing a key or a message but by showing how you obtained that bitcoin. Was it purchased, do you have a record or do you have a nebulous idea of it's my key trust me.
There is a popular myth that possession is nine tenths of the law, and the reality is this is that crap myth and wives tale and the reality is exactly the opposite. Possession is not ownership and has never been under law.

CSW
Sep 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569311834097900
3/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2585

CSW
sep 25, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569388311345000

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2589

For the rest, read the conclusion in the White paper with a dictionary in hand.

Tell me, what does it mean

Miners fo not set law. They follow

Enforcement Never includes creating law.
A court, a parliament... these set law. Miners do what they are legally allowed

You don't need a key to prove ownership. There is a whole area of law called tracing.
If you read the Whitepaper it talks about control. The conclusion states that digital signatures provide strong control of ownership. Shares provide strong control. If you lose share certificates or computer records are altered there are methods that allow for the recovery of the shares.

No. The split will be covered

They cannot split as any fork asset is covered in law.
It is known as a dematerialism event

Devs can leave.
Miners can leave
But, acting to oppose the court order will be a contempt.
There is an area of law, sequestration

Remember the White paper
Miners can come and go

Disagree?
Stop mining
Sell up

CSW
sep 25, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569388311345000

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2589

CSW
Jun 14,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623655969264100?thread_ts=1623655969.264100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2591

Zero-Satoshi

There are two valid ways for zero Satoshi in bitcoin:

1. Alice pays Bob Alice has an input transaction of X tokens and all the X tokens are set as anyone can spend allowing the miner to take them as payment living and output to Bob of no tokens,

2. Alice pays Bob in tokens but also sends extraneous information as part of the transaction and it is associated with a token exchange even though there is no token on the secondary component.

There is no such thing as a non-token token exchange. Any miner taking Fiat money to do that would open themselves up to huge lawsuits from very small miners who could create a lawsuit against the miner or collusion and price-fixing. I keep stating that bitcoin is an economic system. The economics are baked in. The thing is, if a 1% miner who hated bitcoin wanted just to cause problems, they could take a lawsuit against anyone who forced them to keep on transaction transactions. They can do this just to destroy the system and the miners who are in the industry, so it doesn’t make much sense to do such a thing and on top of that there is no economic valid reason nor technical justification.

If you spend two seconds thinking about it, you’ll realise that there are absolutely no benefits to having zero transaction transactions.
All the benefits can be done where Alice sends Alice her own token and makes a marker to Bob - that is okay.
Every exchange in bitcoin needs to result in the exchange of one or more tokens.

A UTXO is a coin. Coins by definition are made up of minted tokens.
 
If there is no Satoshi value included, then it is not a coin or a UTXO.
 
It is data that is sent by one node that has nothing to do with the network. There is nothing forcing a node to broadcast this, or send it are included and nor is there anything in the system that makes it even remotely secure. Security wise, this is like putting up notices on a brick wall randomly in a city and stating in a years’ time that five years ago these are definitive proof that you own the Brooklyn Bridge. They are completely utterly no more than a marker made by a single miner. They have no real value and no real use.
 
They have no ability to act as a security marker. They are less secure than a webpage because most webpages end on the way back machine.

To be secure, you need to have a chain of transactions. Putting a hash marker on a block does not make it instantly secure and representative of anything.

CSW
Jun 14,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623655969264100?thread_ts=1623655969.264100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2591

No Sat, no reason for keeping the entry

CSW
Jun 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623657639271900?thread_ts=1623657639.271900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2593

CSW
Jun 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623673269281100?thread_ts=1623673269.281100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2596

CSW
Jun 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623675296284400?thread_ts=1623675296.284400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2597

CSW
Jun 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623679139297400?thread_ts=1623679139.297400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2598

A UTXO is a coin.

token-based computiing is forty years old

it works

bitcoin is an incentive system

it is an economic system

accounting systems that are based on mere account ledgers are not

proof of work does not make something a security or not

Ethereum is an account based system

Ethereum is insecure and will never scale and will have problems because of the nature of the system

it decided to abandon the economic constructs that make bitcoin function

CSW
Jun 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623679139297400?thread_ts=1623679139.297400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2598