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
Computers don’t make decisions. The notion that contracts can be automated and seeking a legislative and judicial response to acknowledge that code is law is merely a means to shirk responsibility.[1] Individuals who create systems that profit through the operation of computer-based systems need to take responsibility for the effects of the systems they are running. The duties that go along with running a system associated with a profit-making activity include ensuring that the system acts within the laws that apply to its operation and the rules associated with the application being run.
[1] See Tim Wu; Lessig.
Whilst a node can come and go at will, the operator of the node decides to either follow the honest chain and support this against any attacker, to leave the network and come back at a later point in time, leaving any potential profit that is to be earned behind or sides with the attacker and becomes vicariously liable for the actions of the attacker.
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628589349449700?thread_ts=1628589349.449700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2869
[1] See Tim Wu; Lessig.
Whilst a node can come and go at will, the operator of the node decides to either follow the honest chain and support this against any attacker, to leave the network and come back at a later point in time, leaving any potential profit that is to be earned behind or sides with the attacker and becomes vicariously liable for the actions of the attacker.
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628589349449700?thread_ts=1628589349.449700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2869
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628589349449700?thread_ts=1628589349.449700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2869
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628589349449700?thread_ts=1628589349.449700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2869
DeFi is NOT automated - it is always and only set by HUMANS - ones who want to hide as they are all criminals!
There is not a single non-criminal use case that DeFi provides - every single thing DeFi does is more efficient and better when not controlled by anon hidden actors.
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628592091452500?thread_ts=1628592091.452500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2871
There is not a single non-criminal use case that DeFi provides - every single thing DeFi does is more efficient and better when not controlled by anon hidden actors.
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628592091452500?thread_ts=1628592091.452500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2871
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628592091452500?thread_ts=1628592091.452500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2871
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628592091452500?thread_ts=1628592091.452500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2871
There is no GAI, or general Artificial Intelligence.
We are not within 40 years of creating one, we have no idea what consciousness is, we have no idea where to start. And, AI as we have is is not a path to consciousness. Ever.
So, any AI is just an algorithm that people create, that is tuned to mostly deliver a statistically standardised result.
CSW
aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628595830458900?thread_ts=1628595830.458900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2873
We are not within 40 years of creating one, we have no idea what consciousness is, we have no idea where to start. And, AI as we have is is not a path to consciousness. Ever.
So, any AI is just an algorithm that people create, that is tuned to mostly deliver a statistically standardised result.
CSW
aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628595830458900?thread_ts=1628595830.458900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2873
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628595830458900?thread_ts=1628595830.458900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2873
aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628595830458900?thread_ts=1628595830.458900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2873
Most of us want the same common ends. We want people in poverty to have a way to achieve more to learn more, and become educated.
The majority of us want a clean and sustainable world, where forests will still be available in the future, and the air will be clean for our children.
Most people, and by this, I mean nearly everybody, want those underprivileged to have a means to work their way out of poverty and engage in society to gain benefits and experience social mobility as they achieve all they can.
Some people only want what they can for themselves. For those, I have nothing to offer. For the others who want to see a better world, what we should be doing is not fighting but openly addressing the questions that need to be addressed.
The issue is not race or white privilege or any of that other trash. It is poverty and how we address it through society at different levels. You cannot just say that someone is poor. You have to ask why they are poor. Is there something that is stopping them from gaining or doing more? Do they have opportunities to grow?
Can we compare that with other groups such as migrants? For example, in the USA, when we look at migrant groups from Africa or places like Haiti, they compare with migrants from India or other nations.
White privilege does not exist. Privilege because of wealth does. My children are not white but rather mixed. That does not mean that they have white privilege; it means that they have wealthy parent privilege. I was white trash despite the efforts of my mother. We were poor, and we had less than most people in poverty, which is a lack of privilege in itself. So, you cannot simply say privilege because someone is white or privilege because someone is anything else, but rather, you have to look at things on a case-by-case basis. You need to investigate what is impacting the individual, not the group.
Marks stated that the theory of Communist and Socialist regimes could be summed up in but one sentence - the abolition of private property in all forms.
When this occurs, they will want to make things better for their own children. That is the use of their capital. It is a better use than investing in a yacht or a holiday or more expensive bottles of wine. These are the trade-offs that people make, and paying for education for their children is one of those things that people do with the alternative of having another Aspen ski holiday.
To simply say that this is wrong is to downplay some of the other aspects of life. It is to ignore what people can achieve and to allow them to be rewarded for it. When we take away the ability for people to make their own wealth and capital then we take away the incentives for people to work hard and build a better society.
Equally, we don’t want people just going after money for money sake.
Markets are about the development of capital goods and services. There is this widescale confusion at the moment that exchanges and financial systems are markets. They are not. Markets involve the trade of goods and the trade of services. Markets involve delivery to the consumer. The intermediary systems may be necessary, but equally, when they become widely distributed and a part of society as a democratised ideal, these are no longer markets but a widescale universal casino.
CSW
Aug 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628711475027300?thread_ts=1628711475.027300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2875
The majority of us want a clean and sustainable world, where forests will still be available in the future, and the air will be clean for our children.
Most people, and by this, I mean nearly everybody, want those underprivileged to have a means to work their way out of poverty and engage in society to gain benefits and experience social mobility as they achieve all they can.
Some people only want what they can for themselves. For those, I have nothing to offer. For the others who want to see a better world, what we should be doing is not fighting but openly addressing the questions that need to be addressed.
The issue is not race or white privilege or any of that other trash. It is poverty and how we address it through society at different levels. You cannot just say that someone is poor. You have to ask why they are poor. Is there something that is stopping them from gaining or doing more? Do they have opportunities to grow?
Can we compare that with other groups such as migrants? For example, in the USA, when we look at migrant groups from Africa or places like Haiti, they compare with migrants from India or other nations.
White privilege does not exist. Privilege because of wealth does. My children are not white but rather mixed. That does not mean that they have white privilege; it means that they have wealthy parent privilege. I was white trash despite the efforts of my mother. We were poor, and we had less than most people in poverty, which is a lack of privilege in itself. So, you cannot simply say privilege because someone is white or privilege because someone is anything else, but rather, you have to look at things on a case-by-case basis. You need to investigate what is impacting the individual, not the group.
Marks stated that the theory of Communist and Socialist regimes could be summed up in but one sentence - the abolition of private property in all forms.
When this occurs, they will want to make things better for their own children. That is the use of their capital. It is a better use than investing in a yacht or a holiday or more expensive bottles of wine. These are the trade-offs that people make, and paying for education for their children is one of those things that people do with the alternative of having another Aspen ski holiday.
To simply say that this is wrong is to downplay some of the other aspects of life. It is to ignore what people can achieve and to allow them to be rewarded for it. When we take away the ability for people to make their own wealth and capital then we take away the incentives for people to work hard and build a better society.
Equally, we don’t want people just going after money for money sake.
Markets are about the development of capital goods and services. There is this widescale confusion at the moment that exchanges and financial systems are markets. They are not. Markets involve the trade of goods and the trade of services. Markets involve delivery to the consumer. The intermediary systems may be necessary, but equally, when they become widely distributed and a part of society as a democratised ideal, these are no longer markets but a widescale universal casino.
CSW
Aug 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628711475027300?thread_ts=1628711475.027300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2875
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628711475027300?thread_ts=1628711475.027300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2875
Aug 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628711475027300?thread_ts=1628711475.027300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2875