One major issue that I see with how people are moving towards big centralized data involves privacy. Still, it’s always because all the data is stored in a unique location that needs to be secured, like Fort Knox. It is not robust, and it is fragile. The methodology of storing everything on a central server has developed as people believe in the model of “never trust the client” (McGraw & Hoglund, 2004; De Francesco, 2019). This leads to centralized servers controlled by individual companies with all aspects of the data being locked down.
When things go well, this has advantages. However, the bunker approach creates an environment that is both inefficient and fragile. If a single compromise occurs on the server, then all the data is compromised. So, the approach I would recommend is to decentralize the data using more complex cryptographic algorithms that allow each individual peer to maintain their own data. This distributes the security and risk profile. Server-based solutions raise the stake and the cost of securing everything. On top of that, you have to trust the cooperation running the server. Next, this requires surveillance and monitoring.
The most significant mistake that people fall into is to assume that cryptographically secure foundations cannot be created that allows for trust at the client computer. Client computers can be trusted. This does require that solid cryptographic algorithms are deployed that guarantee the behaviour of the client. The use of digital signatures creates a powerful methodology and tool that help in defining the behaviour of the client system. This allows the individuals involved to leverage trust and even prevent client software from being modified.
McGraw, G., & Hoglund, G. (2004, August). Exploiting Software: How to break code. In Invited Talk, Usenix Security Symposium, San Diego (pp. 9-13).
De Francesco, G. P. (2019). The General Data Protection Regulation’s Practical Impact on Software Architecture. Computer, 52(4), 32-39.
The use of cryptography and cryptographic algorithms alone lays a foundation; it does not make everything completely secure. For instance, digital signatures require the use of a private key that must be kept secret for other methodologies for protecting identity to ensure that any impersonation can be limited. In any application, it is also important to note that only a certain amount of processing can be delegated to the client, and this needs to be maintained across the distributed systems.
One way to look at this is that machines should be thought of as extensions to the human and not the server. These are tools that aid individuals, and we should not be part of the central systems such as Google and Facebook of the world want to create.
The software on the user’s machine should be handling tasks on that person’s behalf. In this, if an individual instance wants to trade goods or items or ownership certificates (NFTs done correctly, for instance, that relate to real-world goods), then this should not need to occur through a central exchange and server. The use of cryptographic primitives and the distributed ledger that has been designed in bitcoin to ensure that double spending doesn’t happen and that all records are auditable is sufficient in most occurrences to ensure that people cannot cheat each other. However, this does not completely remove fraud. The real-world goods may not be the same as people have promised, but other methodologies for handling that.
CSW
Nov 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636461530003700?thread_ts=1636461530.003700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3343
When things go well, this has advantages. However, the bunker approach creates an environment that is both inefficient and fragile. If a single compromise occurs on the server, then all the data is compromised. So, the approach I would recommend is to decentralize the data using more complex cryptographic algorithms that allow each individual peer to maintain their own data. This distributes the security and risk profile. Server-based solutions raise the stake and the cost of securing everything. On top of that, you have to trust the cooperation running the server. Next, this requires surveillance and monitoring.
The most significant mistake that people fall into is to assume that cryptographically secure foundations cannot be created that allows for trust at the client computer. Client computers can be trusted. This does require that solid cryptographic algorithms are deployed that guarantee the behaviour of the client. The use of digital signatures creates a powerful methodology and tool that help in defining the behaviour of the client system. This allows the individuals involved to leverage trust and even prevent client software from being modified.
McGraw, G., & Hoglund, G. (2004, August). Exploiting Software: How to break code. In Invited Talk, Usenix Security Symposium, San Diego (pp. 9-13).
De Francesco, G. P. (2019). The General Data Protection Regulation’s Practical Impact on Software Architecture. Computer, 52(4), 32-39.
The use of cryptography and cryptographic algorithms alone lays a foundation; it does not make everything completely secure. For instance, digital signatures require the use of a private key that must be kept secret for other methodologies for protecting identity to ensure that any impersonation can be limited. In any application, it is also important to note that only a certain amount of processing can be delegated to the client, and this needs to be maintained across the distributed systems.
One way to look at this is that machines should be thought of as extensions to the human and not the server. These are tools that aid individuals, and we should not be part of the central systems such as Google and Facebook of the world want to create.
The software on the user’s machine should be handling tasks on that person’s behalf. In this, if an individual instance wants to trade goods or items or ownership certificates (NFTs done correctly, for instance, that relate to real-world goods), then this should not need to occur through a central exchange and server. The use of cryptographic primitives and the distributed ledger that has been designed in bitcoin to ensure that double spending doesn’t happen and that all records are auditable is sufficient in most occurrences to ensure that people cannot cheat each other. However, this does not completely remove fraud. The real-world goods may not be the same as people have promised, but other methodologies for handling that.
CSW
Nov 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636461530003700?thread_ts=1636461530.003700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3343
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Nov 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636461530003700?thread_ts=1636461530.003700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3343
Nov 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636461530003700?thread_ts=1636461530.003700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3343
Bitcoin as I designed it (BSV) IS the only thing working correctly in this entire industry.
CSW
Nov 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636475413036600?thread_ts=1636475413.036600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3345
CSW
Nov 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636475413036600?thread_ts=1636475413.036600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3345
No, Satoshi was Me.
Not a partnership. I own my role.
Ps... Dave never coded a line in his life, and documentation is not code.
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636500014074100?thread_ts=1636500014.074100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3346
Not a partnership. I own my role.
Ps... Dave never coded a line in his life, and documentation is not code.
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636500014074100?thread_ts=1636500014.074100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3346
Friendly Lawsuit. (And no, this is not Ira and I)
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/friendly-lawsuit/
But, this is the term for the day.
ADR does not give a binding legal oppinion
And, that Record means a lot in public company groups
It solves future Disputes
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636549760197500?thread_ts=1636549760.197500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3349
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/friendly-lawsuit/
But, this is the term for the day.
ADR does not give a binding legal oppinion
And, that Record means a lot in public company groups
It solves future Disputes
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636549760197500?thread_ts=1636549760.197500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3349
Uslegal
Friendly Lawsuit Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
A friendly lawsuit is a lawsuit brought about by the agreement of both parties involved. The parties bring the suit not as adversaries, but as collaborators for resolving a legal question or
We have arrived to 1400 subscribers to the channel.
Welcome and take a good place to see what's happening with BitCoin
You may chat here
Telegram - Slack Chat
https://t.me/CSW_SlackChat
Welcome and take a good place to see what's happening with BitCoin
You may chat here
Telegram - Slack Chat
https://t.me/CSW_SlackChat
Transfer in intellectual property.
There are multiple ways to transfer intellectual property. However, the only way that is a true sale is what is termed an exclusive transfer with an abrogation of rights for one party.
In the standard transfer of intellectual property, the property rights have not been removed but copied. It is analogous to copying a digital file. Both parties now have equal rights to the original. Any changes after the event create different rights.
For instance, if Alice has developed valuable intellectual property [A0] and transfers this property to Bob, then both Alice and Bob have simultaneous rights to exploit the intellectual property. Neither can preclude the use of the other. To preclude use would require an exclusivity deal, and even then, to ensure that nothing remains, a full abrogation of rights would need to occur.
In further developments, if Alice now builds upon original software or other intellectual property such that [A0] -> [A1], where [A1] is new intellectual property built to extend [A0], then Bob has no rights to the additional software that Alice has created.
Equally, where Bob extends development and takes [A0], which he has received and creates a new product that extends it, [B0], Alice still has rights to use and exploit [A0], but does not have any rights in the extended property of [B0].
In an exclusive transfer, if no abrogation is noted, both parties retain the intellectual property ownership. Still, the individual with the exclusive transfer has a right that limits the use by the first party in some manner. For instance, maybe Bob can act in some markets that exclude Alice.
If Alice enters into an abrogation, this is a complete relinquishing of all rights in the intellectual property. On this event, Alice can no longer build upon [A0] or even use it without the permission of Bob. For an abrogation of intellectual property rights to occur, a very specific clause mitigating all rights and abandoning them needs to be included.
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636550293201600?thread_ts=1636550293.201600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3355
There are multiple ways to transfer intellectual property. However, the only way that is a true sale is what is termed an exclusive transfer with an abrogation of rights for one party.
In the standard transfer of intellectual property, the property rights have not been removed but copied. It is analogous to copying a digital file. Both parties now have equal rights to the original. Any changes after the event create different rights.
For instance, if Alice has developed valuable intellectual property [A0] and transfers this property to Bob, then both Alice and Bob have simultaneous rights to exploit the intellectual property. Neither can preclude the use of the other. To preclude use would require an exclusivity deal, and even then, to ensure that nothing remains, a full abrogation of rights would need to occur.
In further developments, if Alice now builds upon original software or other intellectual property such that [A0] -> [A1], where [A1] is new intellectual property built to extend [A0], then Bob has no rights to the additional software that Alice has created.
Equally, where Bob extends development and takes [A0], which he has received and creates a new product that extends it, [B0], Alice still has rights to use and exploit [A0], but does not have any rights in the extended property of [B0].
In an exclusive transfer, if no abrogation is noted, both parties retain the intellectual property ownership. Still, the individual with the exclusive transfer has a right that limits the use by the first party in some manner. For instance, maybe Bob can act in some markets that exclude Alice.
If Alice enters into an abrogation, this is a complete relinquishing of all rights in the intellectual property. On this event, Alice can no longer build upon [A0] or even use it without the permission of Bob. For an abrogation of intellectual property rights to occur, a very specific clause mitigating all rights and abandoning them needs to be included.
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636550293201600?thread_ts=1636550293.201600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3355
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636550293201600?thread_ts=1636550293.201600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3355
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636550293201600?thread_ts=1636550293.201600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3355
Dave Kleiman & Craig Tulip Trading Trust -
https://t.me/KleimanVsCSW
https://t.me/KleimanVsCSW
Telegram
CSW. 301 Dave Kleiman & Craig Tulip Trading Trust
Dave Kleiman & Craig Tulip Trading Trust -
https://t.me/KleimanVsCSW
https://t.me/DaveKleiman
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/
CSW 300 Noviembre 2021
https://t.me/joinchat/d6LBrB6XrUNlMTg0
https://t.me/KleimanVsCSW
https://t.me/DaveKleiman
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/
CSW 300 Noviembre 2021
https://t.me/joinchat/d6LBrB6XrUNlMTg0
Interesting re Coinbase.
Technically, the letter is a material event. By not making a statement they are opening themselves to a class action lawsuit and leaving the directors and company officers personally liable for damages.
The issue extends to SEC action.
As a public company, the failure to report a material event of this size is a felony offence.
More, it is significantly large enough that we could push for their delisting from a public exchange and worse.
I hope people don't have Coinbase shares...
Rats.... boat...
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576609270200?thread_ts=1636576609.270200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3359
Technically, the letter is a material event. By not making a statement they are opening themselves to a class action lawsuit and leaving the directors and company officers personally liable for damages.
The issue extends to SEC action.
As a public company, the failure to report a material event of this size is a felony offence.
More, it is significantly large enough that we could push for their delisting from a public exchange and worse.
I hope people don't have Coinbase shares...
Rats.... boat...
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576609270200?thread_ts=1636576609.270200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3359
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576609270200?thread_ts=1636576609.270200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3359
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576609270200?thread_ts=1636576609.270200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3359
SEC Accelerates and Expands Reporting of Significant Events on Form 8-K
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers |
Last updated April 20, 2017
https://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/sec-accelerates-and-expands-reporting-of-significant-events-on.html
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576941274100?thread_ts=1636576941.274100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3362
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers |
Last updated April 20, 2017
https://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/sec-accelerates-and-expands-reporting-of-significant-events-on.html
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576941274100?thread_ts=1636576941.274100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3362
SEC Accelerates and Expands Reporting of Significant Events on Form 8-K
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers |
Last updated April 20, 2017
https://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/sec-accelerates-and-expands-reporting-of-significant-events-on.html
The letter is material and required an 8-k to be lodged by Coinbase.
You should NOTE this. That Coinbase is technically in default from withholding the SEC mandated 8-k form
It comes with possible felony charges. And, the CEO could be banned from operating an exchange or even a public company by not telling the market of this material event.
Funny how much h of this stuff I know.
Look up Rule 144, SEC.
Turn out, they (main pre-Ipo holders and officers) are legally bared and in criminal breach if they sell a single share or even take I lien on then for failing to disclose.
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576941274100?thread_ts=1636576941.274100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3362
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers |
Last updated April 20, 2017
https://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/sec-accelerates-and-expands-reporting-of-significant-events-on.html
The letter is material and required an 8-k to be lodged by Coinbase.
You should NOTE this. That Coinbase is technically in default from withholding the SEC mandated 8-k form
It comes with possible felony charges. And, the CEO could be banned from operating an exchange or even a public company by not telling the market of this material event.
Funny how much h of this stuff I know.
Look up Rule 144, SEC.
Turn out, they (main pre-Ipo holders and officers) are legally bared and in criminal breach if they sell a single share or even take I lien on then for failing to disclose.
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576941274100?thread_ts=1636576941.274100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3362
Findlaw
SEC Accelerates and Expands Reporting of Significant Events on Form 8-K - FindLaw
SEC Accelerates and Expands Reporting of Significant Events on Form 8-K. Find out more about this topic, read articles and blogs or research legal issues, cases, and codes on FindLaw.com.
Core can thank the ATO for the patents.
I was silly enough to have been planning on releasing my IP for nix.
But, the ATO attacks stated that I was not an enterprise as I did not file my research as patents, but rather between 2011 and 2015 ended up giving most of it away freely.
In fact, in that time, I gave away ideas, software and more that has ended as 1000s of shit ICO and NFT offers
Before 2015, I never planned on patenting. The idea came from the tax office and was driven by those in opposition who helped the ATO misunderstand bitcoin (Greg, you here?)...
If there was not a block cap bs "debate", and bitcoin was not hobbled by Core and their lies....
I would not have needed to.
It gives a small advantage where we can start from 2010 while losing 2010 to 2020...
Think of it as a one time redo for the 2010 events
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636579922293000?thread_ts=1636579922.293000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3364
I was silly enough to have been planning on releasing my IP for nix.
But, the ATO attacks stated that I was not an enterprise as I did not file my research as patents, but rather between 2011 and 2015 ended up giving most of it away freely.
In fact, in that time, I gave away ideas, software and more that has ended as 1000s of shit ICO and NFT offers
Before 2015, I never planned on patenting. The idea came from the tax office and was driven by those in opposition who helped the ATO misunderstand bitcoin (Greg, you here?)...
If there was not a block cap bs "debate", and bitcoin was not hobbled by Core and their lies....
I would not have needed to.
It gives a small advantage where we can start from 2010 while losing 2010 to 2020...
Think of it as a one time redo for the 2010 events
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636579922293000?thread_ts=1636579922.293000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3364
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636579922293000?thread_ts=1636579922.293000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3364
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636579922293000?thread_ts=1636579922.293000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3364