To give COPA the ability to verify this and to have a bit of fun with those who picking on me...

My mathematics is at an honours one level

for those in American schools, I have a 4.0 GPA in mathematics

but, you can wait for COPA to discover that the hard way

and now that I've just said that, I am sure that they will prove it

CSW
Ago 5, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628189929041100?thread_ts=1628189929.041100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2840

CSW
Ago 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628231087076300?thread_ts=1628231087.076300&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2842

Question:
Has anyone read/digested the various versions of the crypto clauses in the US infrastructure bill yet? If so thoughts?

CSW:
miners need to be known

the design of bitcoin is such that miners are known

the false narrative that people at home validate transactions as a load of crap

so, as no impact at all on bitcoin

BTC however is screwed

CSW
Ago 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628231087076300?thread_ts=1628231087.076300&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2842

CSW
Ago 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628232664080100?thread_ts=1628232664.080100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2844

Interesting, the coretards still think home systems validate transactions and pass the results on to be mined.

Are these idiots this dumb or that deceitful?

This is very simple, how do nodes (miners) trust home users?

The only system in PoW is PoW for concensus.

So, testing home user systems is a falsifiable thesis.

And, it is also a myth. Home systems do NOT validate anything.

So, tell me, where is the code for miners to wait for a consensus of home nodes who have validated by communist thought exchange?

How do nodes (miners) trust this exchange?

Are all home users to be trusted as they have PoC....

Proof of Core

CSW
Ago 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628232664080100?thread_ts=1628232664.080100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2844

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. BEYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on

llllllllllllll A BILL

To provide for the regulation of digital assets, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Digital Asset Market Structure and Investor Protection Act’’.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act are as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I—DIGITAL ASSET SECURITIES UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
Date Nov 24 2008 14:10
Jun 17, 2021

https://beyer.house.gov/uploadedfiles/beyer_028_xml.pdf

CSW
Ago 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628234524088500?thread_ts=1628234524.088500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2847

CSW
Ago 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628235193089700?thread_ts=1628235193.089700&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2848

CSW
Ago 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628237194097800

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2849

CSW
Ago 7,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628301920196500?thread_ts=1628301920.196500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2850

CSW
Ago 7, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628357866230700?thread_ts=1628357866.230700&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2851

CSW
Ago 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628488585314000?thread_ts=1628488585.314000&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2852

If a miner withholds transactions the other miners have a right to reject the block.

Transactions do not need to get to every miner instantly, but they cannot be withheld. A node that withholds a tx is in breach of contract and is also not exempt for the requirements to KYC each transaction. They have as much to do as a bank on every tx.

Every other node could sue for the FULL value of a block if they can show that the miner who wins a block has hidden even a single tx.

The simple answer is that if a node requests an inventory and the other doesn't send the FULL tx list, the node that loses has an argument to claim the full reward legally

It is one thing to take a tx directly, it is another thing to withhold it

Taal is not hiding txs

Hidden blocks don’t make money because other miners will take legal action. A hidden transaction depends on what you define as hidden. Does it mean that your miner hasn’t received it, or does it mean that someone is actively suppressing it? These are very different things.

People don't fucking operate nodes

corporations do, businesses do

the consensus of the system is purely economic

it is not about radical distribution, it is not about democracy and it is not about any of that other bullsshit that people are spouting about how it takes down banks

bitcoin is a commercial enterprise system

it was always designed to be a commercial enterprise system

commercial systems get lawyers

CSW
Ago 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628488585314000?thread_ts=1628488585.314000&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2852

CSW
Aug 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628492193320600?thread_ts=1628492193.320600&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2854

Let’s try and make this nice and clear and simple.
 
Bitcoin is not a system designed for radical decentralisation, anarchy, the democratisation of finance, or any other crap that people have piled on with.
 
Bitcoin is designed to end as an enterprise system. It was an enterprise system design when I released it in 2009 and talked about it in 2008. So when I noted that there would be a few small nodes in data centres, this does not mean home users are running systems and their mum’s basement datacentre.

The vision for bitcoin is, was, always will be and always has been as an enterprise system.

Quite frankly, I don’t give a fuck if you think you are disadvantaged because you can’t run a node at home. Boo fucking who.
 
Honestly, I’m sick and tired of whiny freaking victims who think they deserve something more without doing anything to obtain it.

Stop complaining about the evil elites and if you want to do something, get over it and do it.
 
Bitcoin has nothing to do with the mentality of silicon valley. I am proud not to be some arsenal who stood on the shoulders of others in a whiny circle jerk. I got here because I worked hard. I study a lot. I don’t give up try and make me no matter how close they push me to the edge.

Silicon valley can go suck a dick.
Bitcoin is an anti-silicon valley mentality, and it is based on competition. Made the best win.

None of the trying to make up for what you’ve achieved crap; it’s time to start being proud of actually doing something. I didn’t get anywhere because I’m white and male. I have absolutely no guilt because some woke idiot thought that getting a college degree in sociology and building a six-figure debt was a good idea when the average earning on graduation is around 30 K.
 
I’m sorry, people make their own bloodied choices.
 
Bitcoin is a commercial system.

You live in this world, you watch TV, you exist because we have a commercial system and people like me build things and create things and when not planning guilty about it and we don’t owe you anything for it.

Yes, I’m intelligent, and that is something that I can exploit because it’s beneficial.
 
I also have Asperger’s, making me socially as adept as a freaking slug with Alzheimer’s. So we all have our crosses to bear, and we all have the skills that would enable us.

So very simple, I really don’t give a shit and am not going to pander to you anymore if you don’t like the fact that bitcoin is not some circle jerk system for a bunch of frat boys to stand around saying how important they are but rather it’s a piece of freaking digital plumbing designed to make people’s lives better globally and not some system where people argue falsely and disingenuously about how much good they’re doing for the earth because of their anarchist lies and promotional fucking drugs.

If that’s what you want, piss off because no Blockchain will ever be like that.

CSW
Aug 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628492193320600?thread_ts=1628492193.320600&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2854

CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628576965427900?thread_ts=1628576965.427900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2856

CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2858

1/2
One CPU, One vote

           The bitcoin whitepaper (Wright, 2008, p. 3) notes that proof of work is “essentially one CPU one vote”. Unfortunately, for many, this has been falsely misconstrued out of context as a system providing democratic rights to all participants in the network. However, this majority decision is not democratic. The nature of proof of work and the limitations of the system don’t provide a majority decision for users but rather a majority for commercial nodes. It is not one vote per IP address or machine but rather one vote per unit of investment that decides the ordering of transactions. Additionally, this methodology doesn’t allow for protocol changes.[1]

           Further error is to assume complete autonomy. The longest chain represents the majority decision, but the error assuming that each node must follow this is to ignore the right for a node to follow what the node operator sees as the longest chain of valid transactions. Where a node believes that the chain is invalid, the node operator can manually override the system and select the alternative chain. As the proof of work section in the whitepaper notes, if “the majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains”.[2] Consequently, the argument that a node must automatically follow the longest chain is invalid. Node operators decide what they believe is the honest chain and risk losing profit in the short term to ensure the honesty of the network, which increases their profit in the long-term.

[1] Set in stone
[2] Ibid. p. 3.

The whitepaper references both honest and competing chains.[1] Hence, the argument that the system must be automated and that node operators cannot decide to risk losing profit by following the longest chain in seeking to build on the chain without double-spent transactions or other attacks are in error. The whitepaper notes that nodes vote with their CPU power. Nodes accept or reject valid blocks by working on extending and rejecting invalid blocks. Hence, the argument that the system must be automated can be easily falsified. Computers don’t make decisions. Human agency is required if the expression of acceptance or rejecting a block is to be incorporated into the system. Computers don’t vote; humans do.

[1] Ibid.

The argument that nodes must blindly follow the longest chain ignores the section of the White Paper defining bitcoin and setting the unilateral contract that allows nodes to decide what the node operator believes is the honest and correct chain. While nodes do not need to be identified, they remain identifiable because of proof of work. In particular, a large node with sufficient CPU power to determine a network change is visible and easily identifiable. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of the transaction, and hence this requires the public announcement of all transactions in the system.[1] Through this process, the nodes come to an agreement on a single history of the order of transactions received across the network. Each node operator may only trust the information they have independently obtained. The timestamp cannot be trusted, and only the receipt of a transaction can prove the time ordering.

[1] Ibid. p. 2.
So, I'm sorry for those individuals who like to believe that bitcoin acts without human intervention but machines do not make decisions, people do.

At any point in the Bitcoin White Paper where it discusses the voting or decision-making processes, the White Paper is referencing a human operator making a human decision.

In section 4 on pagge 3 of my paper,, I reference that a majority of CPU power when controlled by honest nodes will grow the honest chain faster than the competing chains.

CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2858

2/2
In section 4 on pagge 3 of my paper,, I reference that a majority of CPU power when controlled by honest nodes will grow the honest chain faster than the competing chains.

This does not mean that they will blindly follow the longest chain. That would allow an attacker to merely gain through luck, it would allow a short burst of transactions and not an ongoing process of making decisions.

The notion that the honest chain will grow faster and outpace competing chains does not imply that the honest chain is always and necessarily longer at all points in history

In acting as an honest node, the operator makes a decision.

They choose to follow one chain or to reject a chain if they believe that it is not following the rules.

This is not an automated process by definition.

computers don't vote

say this with me again

computers don't vote

computers don't decide

computers don't have an opinion

people make decisions

CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2858

CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628586677448000?thread_ts=1628586677.448000&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2865