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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Ago 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628232664080100?thread_ts=1628232664.080100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2844
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
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
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Ago 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628488585314000?thread_ts=1628488585.314000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2852
Ago 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628488585314000?thread_ts=1628488585.314000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2852
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628492193320600?thread_ts=1628492193.320600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2854
Aug 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628492193320600?thread_ts=1628492193.320600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2854
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2858
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2858
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2858
As nodes act to maintain the validity of the network, it would be possible for an individual who has been falsely deceived of funds to take action against a node that does not act to ensure the honest chain grows fastest. In this, node operators will be demonstrated to hold a fiduciary duty to the network users. Whilst this is limited to ensuring the validity of transactions, that process also requires that nodes reject invalid blocks such as those containing double-spent transactions. The user taking action against the node operator would need to demonstrate that the node operator knew of the transaction that was being received. The user could poll the various nodes and check whether the transaction had been received and whether other information concerning double-spent transactions had been seen. If the node responded that no double-spent transaction had been seen on the network, the user would have evidence that could be used in taking action against any node that continued to build on an alternative chain containing a subsequently double-spent transaction.
I covered this in my LLM thesis.
This is vicarious liability
The node operator who does not interact and does not take action can be held liable for the lossees of other individuals on the network.
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628586677448000?thread_ts=1628586677.448000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2865
I covered this in my LLM thesis.
This is vicarious liability
The node operator who does not interact and does not take action can be held liable for the lossees of other individuals on the network.
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628586677448000?thread_ts=1628586677.448000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2865
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628586677448000?thread_ts=1628586677.448000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2865
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628586677448000?thread_ts=1628586677.448000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2865
Forwarded from CSW. 300 Academic Degrees Diplome Certification Qualifications doctor title (Ramon Quesada.)
Northumbria Uni - LLM_ProposalA.pdf
203 KB
Security Basics: RE: Defamation and the diffculties of law on the Internet.
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008
This post goes to those cowards who sit behind anonymity on the web and cast
doubt and aspersions about people whilst hiding. I note that most defamatory comments are anonymous. Cowards!
An anonymous poster (not this list, but the person I suspect does subscribe to this one) stated that there are doubts with my qualifications. Anonymity is the shield of cowards, it is the cover used to defend their lies. My life
is open and I have little care for my privacy - so in my case this is an easy charge to defend.
SANS GIAC
This is the daftest to challenge and easiest to contest.
http://www.giac.org/certifications/gse-compliance.php or go to
http://www.giac.org/certified_professionals/and type in "Craig Wright" It is not difficult to check.
As I am the ONLY GSE-Compliance (verify if you like) it is an EASY validation.
I do not use it on my title - long enough, but I am a SANS/GIAC Technical Director as well. This is harder to check, but email Stephen Northcutt if you like.
I have about 25 GIAC Certs - so please pick on them all you like.
ISACA.
I do not know the process to validate with ISACA. However I have a CISA and
CISM.
My ISACA ID is 187312
. CISA No. 0542911
. CISM No. 0300803
ISC2
I am CISSP/ISSMP/ISSAP # 47304. This is also easy to check on the ISC2 site.
https://webportal.isc2.org/custom/certificationverification.aspx (Though I have misspelled my home address with Lasarow - not Lisarow Doh).
ISFCE
I am a CCE - see the site for verification.
http://www.certified-computer-examiner.com/list.htm
University
I also have a write-up on:
http://www.infoage.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1151410747;fp;32768;fpid;59732022
7
My CSU (Charles Stuart University) student number is 11293457 (and was as I
am on my 3rd masters and starting Psych) Http://www.csu.edu.au. I have a
Masters Degree in Management, but I try not to be too pointy haired. I also have IT degrees from here as well.
Yes - a small University, but accredited all the same.
May be it is my Statistics study at the University of Newcastle.
Student No. 3047661.
https://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/61
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008
This post goes to those cowards who sit behind anonymity on the web and cast
doubt and aspersions about people whilst hiding. I note that most defamatory comments are anonymous. Cowards!
An anonymous poster (not this list, but the person I suspect does subscribe to this one) stated that there are doubts with my qualifications. Anonymity is the shield of cowards, it is the cover used to defend their lies. My life
is open and I have little care for my privacy - so in my case this is an easy charge to defend.
SANS GIAC
This is the daftest to challenge and easiest to contest.
http://www.giac.org/certifications/gse-compliance.php or go to
http://www.giac.org/certified_professionals/and type in "Craig Wright" It is not difficult to check.
As I am the ONLY GSE-Compliance (verify if you like) it is an EASY validation.
I do not use it on my title - long enough, but I am a SANS/GIAC Technical Director as well. This is harder to check, but email Stephen Northcutt if you like.
I have about 25 GIAC Certs - so please pick on them all you like.
ISACA.
I do not know the process to validate with ISACA. However I have a CISA and
CISM.
My ISACA ID is 187312
. CISA No. 0542911
. CISM No. 0300803
ISC2
I am CISSP/ISSMP/ISSAP # 47304. This is also easy to check on the ISC2 site.
https://webportal.isc2.org/custom/certificationverification.aspx (Though I have misspelled my home address with Lasarow - not Lisarow Doh).
ISFCE
I am a CCE - see the site for verification.
http://www.certified-computer-examiner.com/list.htm
University
I also have a write-up on:
http://www.infoage.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1151410747;fp;32768;fpid;59732022
7
My CSU (Charles Stuart University) student number is 11293457 (and was as I
am on my 3rd masters and starting Psych) Http://www.csu.edu.au. I have a
Masters Degree in Management, but I try not to be too pointy haired. I also have IT degrees from here as well.
Yes - a small University, but accredited all the same.
May be it is my Statistics study at the University of Newcastle.
Student No. 3047661.
https://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/61
www.csu.edu.au
Home