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
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
Managementstudyguide
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.
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2585
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jun 14,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623655969264100?thread_ts=1623655969.264100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2591
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/p1623657639271900?thread_ts=1623657639.271900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2593
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jun 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623679139297400?thread_ts=1623679139.297400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2598
Jun 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623679139297400?thread_ts=1623679139.297400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2598
I recommend that people stop using the word infinity. Infinity doesn't exist. In mathematics when we talk about a process that tends towards infinity what we really meaning is that it's unbounded.
Approaches
It never is
The correct mathematical description is to say that 1/x Approaches infinity at the limit as x goes to 0
In effect, the function is undefined at x=0
Time extends
Matter never forms a point
The closer to bring a point, the longer it takes to change, the process diverges. It never approaches infinite
Black holes evaporate faster than they collapse
CSW
Jun 15, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623737482363600?thread_ts=1623737482.363600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2600
Approaches
It never is
The correct mathematical description is to say that 1/x Approaches infinity at the limit as x goes to 0
In effect, the function is undefined at x=0
Time extends
Matter never forms a point
The closer to bring a point, the longer it takes to change, the process diverges. It never approaches infinite
Black holes evaporate faster than they collapse
CSW
Jun 15, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623737482363600?thread_ts=1623737482.363600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2600
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jun 15, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623737482363600?thread_ts=1623737482.363600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2600
Jun 15, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623737482363600?thread_ts=1623737482.363600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2600
Bitcoin tokens are not keys.
Keys are not the property. If a key was the property in bitcoin, than after sending the tokens to the recipient you would retain value.
The tokens are exchanged, not the keys. Keys are supposed to link identity. If you do not have identity, you don't have a digital signature.
A negotiable instrument is the document
It is the property
To transfer it, you sign it over
In time, you end with a chain of signatures on the original document
No.
Tokens do not have signatures
Tokens have nothing at all to ever do with signatures.
The signature is on the (virtual) envelope.
The envelope holds tokens.
The tokens and envelopes are not the same.
The envelopes are registered. This is on a ledger (the blockchain) that all people can read.
The ledger records how many tokens are in each envelope at the time of registration.
You can move and exchange tokens without registration, but this can be risky as it allows the other person to commit fraud easily.
CSW
Mar 15, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584263168429300?thread_ts=1584263168.429300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2602
Keys are not the property. If a key was the property in bitcoin, than after sending the tokens to the recipient you would retain value.
The tokens are exchanged, not the keys. Keys are supposed to link identity. If you do not have identity, you don't have a digital signature.
A negotiable instrument is the document
It is the property
To transfer it, you sign it over
In time, you end with a chain of signatures on the original document
No.
Tokens do not have signatures
Tokens have nothing at all to ever do with signatures.
The signature is on the (virtual) envelope.
The envelope holds tokens.
The tokens and envelopes are not the same.
The envelopes are registered. This is on a ledger (the blockchain) that all people can read.
The ledger records how many tokens are in each envelope at the time of registration.
You can move and exchange tokens without registration, but this can be risky as it allows the other person to commit fraud easily.
CSW
Mar 15, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584263168429300?thread_ts=1584263168.429300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2602
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Mar 15, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584263168429300?thread_ts=1584263168.429300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2602
Mar 15, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584263168429300?thread_ts=1584263168.429300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2602
A private key must be unique to the individual or it cannot be associated with a digital signature
If you ever share the key, it is no longer valid to use in signing.
CSW
Mar 17, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584451791060700?thread_ts=1584451791.060700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2604
If you ever share the key, it is no longer valid to use in signing.
CSW
Mar 17, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584451791060700?thread_ts=1584451791.060700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2604
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Mar 17, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584451791060700?thread_ts=1584451791.060700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2604
Mar 17, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584451791060700?thread_ts=1584451791.060700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2604
You cannot get a chain of proof of work information and make an identity.
I wish people would stop this bull shit about code is law. There is no digital signature and no identity without people.
A key can be signed - by a register - with evidence of ID
Vote - horrible
Voting systems are complex
I designed some
CSW
May 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1588775667184100?thread_ts=1588775667.184100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2606
I wish people would stop this bull shit about code is law. There is no digital signature and no identity without people.
A key can be signed - by a register - with evidence of ID
Vote - horrible
Voting systems are complex
I designed some
CSW
May 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1588775667184100?thread_ts=1588775667.184100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2606
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
May 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1588775667184100?thread_ts=1588775667.184100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2606
May 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1588775667184100?thread_ts=1588775667.184100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2606