1/4
What people need to understand.
It is more important for the concept of bitcoin that I developed to be understood than anything else to survive. Over time, BTC will go the way of eGold and eCash. The reason being the same reasons each of those failed. There is no more decentralisation in BTC than there is in a recent small IPO. In fact, Facebook has over a thousand times more decentralisation than BTC will ever achieve. This is what people fail to understand; decentralisation is not the distribution of power or control.
Bitcoin is not about your keys. Your keys in reference to the private keys and that are associated with certain types of locking scripts are equivalent to the key to a safe deposit box.
Bitcoin is a series of tokens.
It is not an account, each individual digital token is a separate item. Each individual Satoshi is a token. Those tokens are put together in an envelope that is referred to as a UTXO. That is locked in the virtual safe-deposit box in a massively large wall full of safe-deposit boxes.
The safe-deposit box number is the equivalent of the identifier for the public address or public key associated with most locking scripts. This information can be used to hold multiple envelopes that I referred to above as the UTXO’s. Each envelope holds a series of tokens. Thus, the safe-deposit box can be used multiple times. Reusing the safe-deposit box means that people can view you going to it, and you lose privacy. There are around ten with eighty zeros possible safe-deposit boxes that all have multiple means of being accessed. Note, collisions always exist between locking scripts, but finding those collisions is infeasible. For instance, they could be a 3 of 3 locking script that matches a single hash puzzle locking script and has the same hash but finding that is an infeasible exercise.
Bitcoin tokens are never lost. As a result, the system always has the same number of tokens as when it was first created. Tokens can be replaced. This can be done in a variety of ways as the ledger is updated. Remember, the decentralisation in any Blockchain is never more than the decentralisation in a small listed firm. In fact, like all of these, a few entities on the board choose the direction of the system. There is no possible way to change how that works in a Blockchain system with you using PoS or any other hybrid.
If you lose your keys, it is the equivalent of losing your keys to a safe deposit box. You can gain access to the safe-deposit box, but that cost money, time and effort. For example, if your safe-deposit box contains five dollars and you lose the keys, and the cost of regaining access to the keys is $5000, it is very unlikely that you will try and regain access unless you are completely insane.
Bitcoin is not encrypted, and it cannot be made to be encrypted. The system was designed this way to differ from previous digital cash and digital currency systems, making it a digital or electronic cash system and not Cryptocurrency.
Lightning is an attempt at a Cryptocurrency, but the problem is that it’s built on top of bitcoin, and the system within bitcoin can be repointed, and the tokens can be moved to new safe-deposit boxes. Doing this breaks lightning. This is not a problem with bitcoin but rather a problem with lightning that they don’t want to admit, and their answer is to lie about how bitcoin functions.
Lost tokens don’t break the system. What they do is require people to keep records for large amounts of tokens. The cost to miners and the implementation of changes such as those three court orders to regain access will preclude the use of recovery for small amounts and leave it to those with large addresses. This is because bitcoin is designed to be cash, and cash is not designed to be a system that you have billions of dollars sitting in a room.
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023
What people need to understand.
It is more important for the concept of bitcoin that I developed to be understood than anything else to survive. Over time, BTC will go the way of eGold and eCash. The reason being the same reasons each of those failed. There is no more decentralisation in BTC than there is in a recent small IPO. In fact, Facebook has over a thousand times more decentralisation than BTC will ever achieve. This is what people fail to understand; decentralisation is not the distribution of power or control.
Bitcoin is not about your keys. Your keys in reference to the private keys and that are associated with certain types of locking scripts are equivalent to the key to a safe deposit box.
Bitcoin is a series of tokens.
It is not an account, each individual digital token is a separate item. Each individual Satoshi is a token. Those tokens are put together in an envelope that is referred to as a UTXO. That is locked in the virtual safe-deposit box in a massively large wall full of safe-deposit boxes.
The safe-deposit box number is the equivalent of the identifier for the public address or public key associated with most locking scripts. This information can be used to hold multiple envelopes that I referred to above as the UTXO’s. Each envelope holds a series of tokens. Thus, the safe-deposit box can be used multiple times. Reusing the safe-deposit box means that people can view you going to it, and you lose privacy. There are around ten with eighty zeros possible safe-deposit boxes that all have multiple means of being accessed. Note, collisions always exist between locking scripts, but finding those collisions is infeasible. For instance, they could be a 3 of 3 locking script that matches a single hash puzzle locking script and has the same hash but finding that is an infeasible exercise.
Bitcoin tokens are never lost. As a result, the system always has the same number of tokens as when it was first created. Tokens can be replaced. This can be done in a variety of ways as the ledger is updated. Remember, the decentralisation in any Blockchain is never more than the decentralisation in a small listed firm. In fact, like all of these, a few entities on the board choose the direction of the system. There is no possible way to change how that works in a Blockchain system with you using PoS or any other hybrid.
If you lose your keys, it is the equivalent of losing your keys to a safe deposit box. You can gain access to the safe-deposit box, but that cost money, time and effort. For example, if your safe-deposit box contains five dollars and you lose the keys, and the cost of regaining access to the keys is $5000, it is very unlikely that you will try and regain access unless you are completely insane.
Bitcoin is not encrypted, and it cannot be made to be encrypted. The system was designed this way to differ from previous digital cash and digital currency systems, making it a digital or electronic cash system and not Cryptocurrency.
Lightning is an attempt at a Cryptocurrency, but the problem is that it’s built on top of bitcoin, and the system within bitcoin can be repointed, and the tokens can be moved to new safe-deposit boxes. Doing this breaks lightning. This is not a problem with bitcoin but rather a problem with lightning that they don’t want to admit, and their answer is to lie about how bitcoin functions.
Lost tokens don’t break the system. What they do is require people to keep records for large amounts of tokens. The cost to miners and the implementation of changes such as those three court orders to regain access will preclude the use of recovery for small amounts and leave it to those with large addresses. This is because bitcoin is designed to be cash, and cash is not designed to be a system that you have billions of dollars sitting in a room.
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023
2/4
Each address is the safe-deposit box. Remember, any person can have as many safe-deposit boxes with nearly nothing as they wish contains as many UTXO’s which are the envelope containing the bitcoin as an individual wishes to put in them and that they own.
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
2/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023
Each address is the safe-deposit box. Remember, any person can have as many safe-deposit boxes with nearly nothing as they wish contains as many UTXO’s which are the envelope containing the bitcoin as an individual wishes to put in them and that they own.
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
2/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023
3/4
The simple analogy for you is to imagine a wall of safe deposit boxes that are locked using a key.
The safe-deposit box is the bitcoin address or rather the locking script.
The private key or unlocking process is the key to the safe-deposit box. Some safe-deposit boxes use multiple keys.
Each safe-deposit box works like a night deposit box. Any person can send money into the box. That deposit is made in an envelope that contains a defined number of indivisible tokens. Each token is one Satoshi. There is no such thing as ½ Satoshi.
If you lose a key to a safe-deposit box, you can still gain access even if it’s a Swiss safe-deposit box. This requires not having a key to prove your identity but rather having other things to prove your identity. The thing people seem to be missing is that keys don’t prove identity. Keys aren’t ownership. Holding the key to your car doesn’t mean that you own the car; the ownership rights may allow you to use the key that they are not the other way round.
Safe-deposit boxes can be drilled.
Bitcoin addresses can be reassigned. The tokens can be reassigned. Just as individuals such as Peter Todd said bitcoin from Satoshi would be burnt, it can be reassigned. This is not a community vote. It never was. There is no democracy in bitcoin. More importantly, they cannot be a democracy in bitcoin. Bitcoin countered Sybil attack. It did not build in demagoguery.
If all that mattered to me was keeping my money, I wouldn’t be saying this. For instance, the court can order bitcoin addresses to be reallocated.
More importantly, there is around 2 million bitcoin to be mined. These still belong to me technically. The question I’ve been asked in court is how many bitcoin did you mine. The answer to that one is practically none. If you ask me alternatively how many bitcoin did the company that I founded and ran mine in 2009, that is a far larger answer. The company I set up in 2009 was registered in Australia. That company had a share registry and it was started in January 2009 not only to mine bitcoin but to build on the system.
The difficulty is that people keep asking the wrong questions. The question is not how many bitcoin did you mine. It is how many bitcoin did your company or any company you own mine in 2009 and 2010. This
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212057386400?thread_ts=1632212057.386400&cid=C5131HKFX
3/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3026
The simple analogy for you is to imagine a wall of safe deposit boxes that are locked using a key.
The safe-deposit box is the bitcoin address or rather the locking script.
The private key or unlocking process is the key to the safe-deposit box. Some safe-deposit boxes use multiple keys.
Each safe-deposit box works like a night deposit box. Any person can send money into the box. That deposit is made in an envelope that contains a defined number of indivisible tokens. Each token is one Satoshi. There is no such thing as ½ Satoshi.
If you lose a key to a safe-deposit box, you can still gain access even if it’s a Swiss safe-deposit box. This requires not having a key to prove your identity but rather having other things to prove your identity. The thing people seem to be missing is that keys don’t prove identity. Keys aren’t ownership. Holding the key to your car doesn’t mean that you own the car; the ownership rights may allow you to use the key that they are not the other way round.
Safe-deposit boxes can be drilled.
Bitcoin addresses can be reassigned. The tokens can be reassigned. Just as individuals such as Peter Todd said bitcoin from Satoshi would be burnt, it can be reassigned. This is not a community vote. It never was. There is no democracy in bitcoin. More importantly, they cannot be a democracy in bitcoin. Bitcoin countered Sybil attack. It did not build in demagoguery.
If all that mattered to me was keeping my money, I wouldn’t be saying this. For instance, the court can order bitcoin addresses to be reallocated.
More importantly, there is around 2 million bitcoin to be mined. These still belong to me technically. The question I’ve been asked in court is how many bitcoin did you mine. The answer to that one is practically none. If you ask me alternatively how many bitcoin did the company that I founded and ran mine in 2009, that is a far larger answer. The company I set up in 2009 was registered in Australia. That company had a share registry and it was started in January 2009 not only to mine bitcoin but to build on the system.
The difficulty is that people keep asking the wrong questions. The question is not how many bitcoin did you mine. It is how many bitcoin did your company or any company you own mine in 2009 and 2010. This
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212057386400?thread_ts=1632212057.386400&cid=C5131HKFX
3/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3026
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212057386400?thread_ts=1632212057.386400&cid=C5131HKFX
3/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3026
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212057386400?thread_ts=1632212057.386400&cid=C5131HKFX
3/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3026
4/4
The critical aspect people miss in all of the false mantra around your key is your bitcoin is a safe-deposit box can be accessed by people who don’t own the safe-deposit box and this can be done legally. For instance, a company that has a night deposit box can authorise staff to collect the money. If those staff members take the money it is theft. They may have a copy of the key but that doesn’t mean they own the contents or the box. I’m not sure why this is a difficult concept.
You cannot access an encrypted file without the key because it is not physically, logically or otherwise possible. You can access and change digitally signed system. My digitally signed I mean system that uses a digital signature algorithm with or without identity in a format that creates a value that can be checked using that digital signature algorithm and not the legal aspect of a signing process involving identity which is a superset of the other.
Bitcoin is mirrored on an accounting system. In traditional paper-based accounts, I know I am old; people would keep paper ledgers because this would demonstrate any changes. Changes can be made, but these are visible. To make a change you don’t go back and change the original entry you add an addendum. This is easy to do on any Blockchain and in fact is impossible to stop. There is no way to stop governments ordering the implementation of a change. There is no way to stop reallocating the tokens.
One way is to create new tokens and devalue the originals. A digital token with no associated use has no value. So, creating a token that is not registered on the Blockchain or holding that after a reallocation has occurred is meaningless. As I’ve said, you can easily devalue and recreate tokens, and this can be done as simply as getting a court order.
The requirement to get access to property through a court order requires evidence in court.
Again, this should noot be a difficult topic to understand
As soon as you stop thinking that bitcoin is encrypted, it is not, you start to realise that the only control that people like or have is illusionary. They create a fraudulent and misleading view of reality and, in a religious fervour, have people make the claim of something that is not based on evidence.
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212979387800
4/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3028
The critical aspect people miss in all of the false mantra around your key is your bitcoin is a safe-deposit box can be accessed by people who don’t own the safe-deposit box and this can be done legally. For instance, a company that has a night deposit box can authorise staff to collect the money. If those staff members take the money it is theft. They may have a copy of the key but that doesn’t mean they own the contents or the box. I’m not sure why this is a difficult concept.
You cannot access an encrypted file without the key because it is not physically, logically or otherwise possible. You can access and change digitally signed system. My digitally signed I mean system that uses a digital signature algorithm with or without identity in a format that creates a value that can be checked using that digital signature algorithm and not the legal aspect of a signing process involving identity which is a superset of the other.
Bitcoin is mirrored on an accounting system. In traditional paper-based accounts, I know I am old; people would keep paper ledgers because this would demonstrate any changes. Changes can be made, but these are visible. To make a change you don’t go back and change the original entry you add an addendum. This is easy to do on any Blockchain and in fact is impossible to stop. There is no way to stop governments ordering the implementation of a change. There is no way to stop reallocating the tokens.
One way is to create new tokens and devalue the originals. A digital token with no associated use has no value. So, creating a token that is not registered on the Blockchain or holding that after a reallocation has occurred is meaningless. As I’ve said, you can easily devalue and recreate tokens, and this can be done as simply as getting a court order.
The requirement to get access to property through a court order requires evidence in court.
Again, this should noot be a difficult topic to understand
As soon as you stop thinking that bitcoin is encrypted, it is not, you start to realise that the only control that people like or have is illusionary. They create a fraudulent and misleading view of reality and, in a religious fervour, have people make the claim of something that is not based on evidence.
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212979387800
4/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3028
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212979387800
4/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3028
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212979387800
4/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3028
If you read the above - you can come to understand what a digital signature is.
The formation of electronic contracts subsists as a subset of all contractual formation. By their very nature and as it is expressed in a large number of contractual disputes which occur every year without dispute as to the content of the contract, contracts are uncertain. Thus it must logically follow that there will always remain a level of uncertainty in electronic contract formation. At best, if all uncertainty associated with the electronic nature of a contract was removed leaving no dispute between the natures of formation whether written, verbal or electronic; there remains room for uncertainty.
from Doc above.
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632222030399200?thread_ts=1632222030.399200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3036
The formation of electronic contracts subsists as a subset of all contractual formation. By their very nature and as it is expressed in a large number of contractual disputes which occur every year without dispute as to the content of the contract, contracts are uncertain. Thus it must logically follow that there will always remain a level of uncertainty in electronic contract formation. At best, if all uncertainty associated with the electronic nature of a contract was removed leaving no dispute between the natures of formation whether written, verbal or electronic; there remains room for uncertainty.
from Doc above.
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632222030399200?thread_ts=1632222030.399200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3036
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632222030399200?thread_ts=1632222030.399200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3036
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632222030399200?thread_ts=1632222030.399200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3036
Advanced Electronic Signatures are defined as an advanced form of electronic signature, which are defined to meet the ensuing requirements as defined in the act:
1- it is "uniquely linked to the signatory;
2- capable of identifying the signatory;
3- created using means that the signatory can maintain under his sole control; and
4- linked to the data to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change of that data is detectable. "
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632222034399400?thread_ts=1632222034.399400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3038
1- it is "uniquely linked to the signatory;
2- capable of identifying the signatory;
3- created using means that the signatory can maintain under his sole control; and
4- linked to the data to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change of that data is detectable. "
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632222034399400?thread_ts=1632222034.399400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3038
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632222034399400?thread_ts=1632222034.399400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3038
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632222034399400?thread_ts=1632222034.399400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3038
Payment Channels and finalisation:
Hyde v Wrench[1]demonstrates that a counter-offer amounts to a rejection of the original offer. In contracts formed by email, it is essential to ensure that the contract has been concluded and not that a counter offer remains. Stevenson v McLean[2]shows us that a counter-offer should be distinguished from a mere request for information as occurs commonly in email requests.
[1] Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334
[2] Stevenson v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632223262400500
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3040
Hyde v Wrench[1]demonstrates that a counter-offer amounts to a rejection of the original offer. In contracts formed by email, it is essential to ensure that the contract has been concluded and not that a counter offer remains. Stevenson v McLean[2]shows us that a counter-offer should be distinguished from a mere request for information as occurs commonly in email requests.
[1] Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334
[2] Stevenson v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632223262400500
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3040
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632223262400500
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3040
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632223262400500
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3040
The reason that I called my trust and some of the companies Tulip is directly related to the change in a commodity to a speculative derivative. The truth of the Tulip bubble was that the contracts being issued were a pure future contract on a commodity. The government officials who had speculated on these looked to lose a lot of money. Consequently, those officials changed the nature of the contract from a futures contract into an option. In doing this, they had the right not to pay.
If you think about an options contract is worth far far less than a futures contract. I won’t go into the pricing models, but a paper by Amin and Jarrow (1992) documents some of the issues.
Amin, K. I., & Jarrow, R. A. (1992). Pricing Options On Risky Assets In A Stochastic Interest Rate Economy 1. Mathematical Finance, 2(4), 217-237.
The introduced legislation altered the value of saving the government official from bankruptcy but equally collapsed the entire market.
Few people understand this, but as Thompson (2007) demonstrates, tulipmania was just a period when futures contracts had been converted into option exercise contracts worth a fraction of the original value.
Thompson, E.A. The tulipmania: Fact or artifact?. Public Choice 130, 99–114 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9074-4
From the myth about tulipmania, the lie and falsities that people promote, when you look at this, you start to see how important stable commodities really are. Changing commodities and the contracts around them can collapse economies.
CSW
Sep 23, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632413758013600?thread_ts=1632413758.013600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3042
If you think about an options contract is worth far far less than a futures contract. I won’t go into the pricing models, but a paper by Amin and Jarrow (1992) documents some of the issues.
Amin, K. I., & Jarrow, R. A. (1992). Pricing Options On Risky Assets In A Stochastic Interest Rate Economy 1. Mathematical Finance, 2(4), 217-237.
The introduced legislation altered the value of saving the government official from bankruptcy but equally collapsed the entire market.
Few people understand this, but as Thompson (2007) demonstrates, tulipmania was just a period when futures contracts had been converted into option exercise contracts worth a fraction of the original value.
Thompson, E.A. The tulipmania: Fact or artifact?. Public Choice 130, 99–114 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9074-4
From the myth about tulipmania, the lie and falsities that people promote, when you look at this, you start to see how important stable commodities really are. Changing commodities and the contracts around them can collapse economies.
CSW
Sep 23, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632413758013600?thread_ts=1632413758.013600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3042
SpringerLink
The tulipmania: Fact or artifact?
Public Choice - The famous tulipmania, which saw the reported prices of several breeds of tulip bulbs rise to above the value of a furnished luxury house in 17th century Amsterdam, was an artifact...