1/2
One of the primary problems with social media, including Twitter and Facebook, is that they create a space that allows individuals and trolls to think that because they are anonymous, or at least they believe that they are anonymous to attack people in a way that they would never do either in a face-to-face meeting or in a public space.
This is not a new problem and has even been addressed philosophically by Plato. In the Ring of Gyges, we see the effects of what happens when a person gains the power to remain anonymous.
Most of the effort on Twitter remains in the realm of logical fallacies. It includes the Ad hominem attack and that of using the Genetic fallacy.
The logical fallacy evolves around attacking another person’s character or personality in ad hominem. This is done not to create a valid response but to attack the argument by ultimately attacking the person.
In the genetic fallacy, an equal basis of creating a judgement around an argument and whether it’s right or wrong is derived from attacking who the argument comes from. This rhetorical method is no less a fallacy. And, in neither case does it come to truth.
Many people in social media circles do not understand that the validity of an argument or the truth of something has no relationship to the individual unless the argument is about the individual’s character.
Consequently, there is no place to argue the person or the person’s personality or similar rhetorical constructs in creating a valid logical argument. Rather, the argument needs to be based objectively on the truth. That is the evidence.
When individuals use these personalised attacks, they generally start to fall into other forms of logical fallacy. The use of special pleading or is it is also called moving the goalposts, may apply.
We see the use of special pleading as a logical fallacy throughout the digital asset industry. People change the story and create exceptions whenever the evidence demonstrates that their premise has been demonstrated to be false.
A prime example is derived from the attacks on me as the creator of bitcoin. The argument is that I’m nothing like Satoshi. Whereas the alternative that BTC is anything like bitcoin should be addressed.
A simple example of this is the definitions presented in the whitepaper that I released and distributed in 2008. In section 5, I noted how nodes (aka miners or pools) create blocks, and this is the only consensus mechanism used in bitcoin.
Yet, the argument is presented that 14,000 nodes can exist, have existed, or may exist in the future. Therefore, calculating how many nodes exist on the bitcoin network can be conducted in any difficulty adjustment period. Nodes create blocks.
This is public. Only 2016 nodes could exist in a difficulty period. However, even that is far higher than what exists because of the unequal node power distribution. 3 to 4 nodes control over 50% of the network at any time.
Next, the argument is presented that I intended block size to remain small. Even that it wasn’t Hal Finney’s idea as a temporary change. One which I documented how to change to ensure that the block size was never reached. Ever.
That is an argument that has nothing to do with who I am. It is an argument based on historiography. It can be answered by looking at the primary source material. That is publicly available and not too difficult to analyse.
I won’t link it here on Twitter; I’m sure other people can find it.
Equally, the block size position was documented when I argued with James Donald in 2008. In a series of exchanges in November of that year, I stated that bitcoin was designed to evolve into a few server farms. My position was always very clear.
CSW
Feb 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644083928151099?thread_ts=1644083928.151099&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3925
One of the primary problems with social media, including Twitter and Facebook, is that they create a space that allows individuals and trolls to think that because they are anonymous, or at least they believe that they are anonymous to attack people in a way that they would never do either in a face-to-face meeting or in a public space.
This is not a new problem and has even been addressed philosophically by Plato. In the Ring of Gyges, we see the effects of what happens when a person gains the power to remain anonymous.
Most of the effort on Twitter remains in the realm of logical fallacies. It includes the Ad hominem attack and that of using the Genetic fallacy.
The logical fallacy evolves around attacking another person’s character or personality in ad hominem. This is done not to create a valid response but to attack the argument by ultimately attacking the person.
In the genetic fallacy, an equal basis of creating a judgement around an argument and whether it’s right or wrong is derived from attacking who the argument comes from. This rhetorical method is no less a fallacy. And, in neither case does it come to truth.
Many people in social media circles do not understand that the validity of an argument or the truth of something has no relationship to the individual unless the argument is about the individual’s character.
Consequently, there is no place to argue the person or the person’s personality or similar rhetorical constructs in creating a valid logical argument. Rather, the argument needs to be based objectively on the truth. That is the evidence.
When individuals use these personalised attacks, they generally start to fall into other forms of logical fallacy. The use of special pleading or is it is also called moving the goalposts, may apply.
We see the use of special pleading as a logical fallacy throughout the digital asset industry. People change the story and create exceptions whenever the evidence demonstrates that their premise has been demonstrated to be false.
A prime example is derived from the attacks on me as the creator of bitcoin. The argument is that I’m nothing like Satoshi. Whereas the alternative that BTC is anything like bitcoin should be addressed.
A simple example of this is the definitions presented in the whitepaper that I released and distributed in 2008. In section 5, I noted how nodes (aka miners or pools) create blocks, and this is the only consensus mechanism used in bitcoin.
Yet, the argument is presented that 14,000 nodes can exist, have existed, or may exist in the future. Therefore, calculating how many nodes exist on the bitcoin network can be conducted in any difficulty adjustment period. Nodes create blocks.
This is public. Only 2016 nodes could exist in a difficulty period. However, even that is far higher than what exists because of the unequal node power distribution. 3 to 4 nodes control over 50% of the network at any time.
Next, the argument is presented that I intended block size to remain small. Even that it wasn’t Hal Finney’s idea as a temporary change. One which I documented how to change to ensure that the block size was never reached. Ever.
That is an argument that has nothing to do with who I am. It is an argument based on historiography. It can be answered by looking at the primary source material. That is publicly available and not too difficult to analyse.
I won’t link it here on Twitter; I’m sure other people can find it.
Equally, the block size position was documented when I argued with James Donald in 2008. In a series of exchanges in November of that year, I stated that bitcoin was designed to evolve into a few server farms. My position was always very clear.
CSW
Feb 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644083928151099?thread_ts=1644083928.151099&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3925
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644083928151099?thread_ts=1644083928.151099&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3925
Feb 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644083928151099?thread_ts=1644083928.151099&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3925
👍2
2/2
It is possible that you may not agree with my position. However, whether you believe that I’m Satoshi or not, the simple answer is that when I posted a Satoshi, I stated it (I am, but then again, people believe the earth is flat and all sorts of other crazy things).
So, in arguing the nature of bitcoin, it becomes very simple to see that it was a micropayment system with a block-based structure that grew into gigabytes and then terabytes per block. It was a system designed for fees that were next to nothing at scale.
It was a system that will change the world because it introduces low transaction fees, creates new opportunities, and removes economic friction.
The existing incumbent actors, Facebook, Twitter et cetera see this as a threat. To them, this is a system that destroys their advertising based empires.
Why do you think both Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are suing me? It is not because I’m saying I’m Satoshi. I may happen to be, and I am. They are suing me because I am a threat to their business model.
Facebook is a system that will collapse like all other corporations throughout history. It has a lifespan. Already, they have hit their limit and will start to diminish as other players, including tik-tok become more widely disseminated.
The social media trolls will attack me. The reason for this is that they cannot attack my arguments. We still have a series of institutions that are purely based upon logical arguments and fact (truth). These are common law courts.
Luckily, the power of individuals like Facebook and Twitter in court is diminished. They don’t realise this yet, but in taking me want in court they will not only conclusively prove that I am the creator of bitcoin.
They will prove how asinine their concepts and understanding of bitcoin really is. They will demonstrate how BTC is not bitcoin and is passing off as my creation.
To understand that, I would look at the common law tort of passing off.
To that claim, to the false claim that developers can change the protocol and that it is still the same protocol or system, I will simply again point to the historiography. In documenting that bitcoin is set in stone, I created evidence that the system cannot change.
Why they attacked me as Satoshi is to distract you from looking at the evidence. In a court of law, logical fallacies don’t apply.
Welcome to the end of social media as you knew it. I am Satoshi. I am the creator of bitcoin. And, in this current battle with both Zuckerberg and Dorsey, I’m going to rock social media to its foundations and bring it crashing around them.
CSW
Feb 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644083928151099?thread_ts=1644083928.151099&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3925
It is possible that you may not agree with my position. However, whether you believe that I’m Satoshi or not, the simple answer is that when I posted a Satoshi, I stated it (I am, but then again, people believe the earth is flat and all sorts of other crazy things).
So, in arguing the nature of bitcoin, it becomes very simple to see that it was a micropayment system with a block-based structure that grew into gigabytes and then terabytes per block. It was a system designed for fees that were next to nothing at scale.
It was a system that will change the world because it introduces low transaction fees, creates new opportunities, and removes economic friction.
The existing incumbent actors, Facebook, Twitter et cetera see this as a threat. To them, this is a system that destroys their advertising based empires.
Why do you think both Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are suing me? It is not because I’m saying I’m Satoshi. I may happen to be, and I am. They are suing me because I am a threat to their business model.
Facebook is a system that will collapse like all other corporations throughout history. It has a lifespan. Already, they have hit their limit and will start to diminish as other players, including tik-tok become more widely disseminated.
The social media trolls will attack me. The reason for this is that they cannot attack my arguments. We still have a series of institutions that are purely based upon logical arguments and fact (truth). These are common law courts.
Luckily, the power of individuals like Facebook and Twitter in court is diminished. They don’t realise this yet, but in taking me want in court they will not only conclusively prove that I am the creator of bitcoin.
They will prove how asinine their concepts and understanding of bitcoin really is. They will demonstrate how BTC is not bitcoin and is passing off as my creation.
To understand that, I would look at the common law tort of passing off.
To that claim, to the false claim that developers can change the protocol and that it is still the same protocol or system, I will simply again point to the historiography. In documenting that bitcoin is set in stone, I created evidence that the system cannot change.
Why they attacked me as Satoshi is to distract you from looking at the evidence. In a court of law, logical fallacies don’t apply.
Welcome to the end of social media as you knew it. I am Satoshi. I am the creator of bitcoin. And, in this current battle with both Zuckerberg and Dorsey, I’m going to rock social media to its foundations and bring it crashing around them.
CSW
Feb 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644083928151099?thread_ts=1644083928.151099&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3925
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644083928151099?thread_ts=1644083928.151099&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3925
Feb 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644083928151099?thread_ts=1644083928.151099&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3925
❤3👍3👎2🎉1
Forwarded from CSW. 300 Articles (@RamonQuesada 🌷)
The Right to Run a Node
By Craig Wright
05 Jun 2020
https://craigwright.net/blog/economics/the-right-to-run-a-node/
By Craig Wright
05 Jun 2020
https://craigwright.net/blog/economics/the-right-to-run-a-node/
Bitcoin addresses are not designed in the same form as PGP keys. There is a lot of cypherpunk mentality that has seeped into my invention. People argue this online and social media to demonstrate the ownership principles of possession created by cyberpunks and criminals. However, this was not how bitcoin is designed.
The same goes for issues such as paper wallet and keys.
The answer to much of this is very simple.
I was not the owner of 1Feex… Rather, as I’ve stated a corporation is the owner of the tokens held in that address. Note how I have said that. Not the company owns the address but rather the company owns the tokens. Addresses should not be reused and when I bought it; it wasn’t that valuable. The transfer was done to a single address. That was how I received it. I received from a third-party and did so for valid consideration.
When I received it, I recorded it on my tax for my company. Not mine personally but, the trust had a couple entities in Australia that linked to it and managed the trust and the Seychelles company.
When you are holding assets for a corporation, you have a fiduciary duty. The duty is not to protect the address but rather the tokens. The transfer of that amount was kept in a paper wallet for years. However, paper wallet can easily be lost or damaged. They can fade even when stored in a safe deposit box. Yes there are alternatives now based on metal and all sorts of other things but even safe-deposit boxes can get damaged. In moving this into a digital format the idea is not to protect the address but rather to protect the contents.
The address is not valuable, the tokens are.
People need to stop thinking cypherpunk PGP mentality and understand that bitcoin is not analogous to these and that the system described in the whitepaper is not similar in any way to PGP.
CSW
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139009928599
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3928
The same goes for issues such as paper wallet and keys.
The answer to much of this is very simple.
I was not the owner of 1Feex… Rather, as I’ve stated a corporation is the owner of the tokens held in that address. Note how I have said that. Not the company owns the address but rather the company owns the tokens. Addresses should not be reused and when I bought it; it wasn’t that valuable. The transfer was done to a single address. That was how I received it. I received from a third-party and did so for valid consideration.
When I received it, I recorded it on my tax for my company. Not mine personally but, the trust had a couple entities in Australia that linked to it and managed the trust and the Seychelles company.
When you are holding assets for a corporation, you have a fiduciary duty. The duty is not to protect the address but rather the tokens. The transfer of that amount was kept in a paper wallet for years. However, paper wallet can easily be lost or damaged. They can fade even when stored in a safe deposit box. Yes there are alternatives now based on metal and all sorts of other things but even safe-deposit boxes can get damaged. In moving this into a digital format the idea is not to protect the address but rather to protect the contents.
The address is not valuable, the tokens are.
People need to stop thinking cypherpunk PGP mentality and understand that bitcoin is not analogous to these and that the system described in the whitepaper is not similar in any way to PGP.
CSW
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139009928599
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3928
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139009928599
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3928
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139009928599
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3928
👍1
It is essential to understand that bitcoin is not designed for anarchy or many of the uses that people replying to BTC. In this, it is important to note that ownership is not possession. It is further important to note that under existing financial legislation and accounting standards the maintenance of assets in corporations happens to be important. If you are storing addresses for a corporation then you should not leave paper wallets about and if you transfer them to a digital format these should be stored without leaving copies of the paper wallet.
This is not a bitcoin issue but rather an accounting issue.
I am not the owner of the tokens in this address. I stated that many times. I am the Chief executive and controlling body/mind behind the corporate entity. That does not give me rights to the assets of the corporation. I do not have the ability legally to use these as I decide. Rather, as with all corporations there are rules. There are applications in tax law. There are implications in contract law, corporations law and much more. Despite all of the arguments that are bandied about, bitcoin remains the system defined in the whitepaper.
This is not a system that is anarchist or designed to work outside of rules. When you think about the control of assets, note here at the tokens and not the address, you need to consider this from a corporate law perspective. This is not new and it is not something has changed at all because of bitcoin. This is merely the same sort of token as you would find on other databases including an Oracle database in a bank.
If you for instance have bearer shares or bearer bonds and you transfer these into a new medium, you do not leave the originals and you destroy them. That is the correct practice.
CSW
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139473508739?thread_ts=1644139473.508739&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3931
This is not a bitcoin issue but rather an accounting issue.
I am not the owner of the tokens in this address. I stated that many times. I am the Chief executive and controlling body/mind behind the corporate entity. That does not give me rights to the assets of the corporation. I do not have the ability legally to use these as I decide. Rather, as with all corporations there are rules. There are applications in tax law. There are implications in contract law, corporations law and much more. Despite all of the arguments that are bandied about, bitcoin remains the system defined in the whitepaper.
This is not a system that is anarchist or designed to work outside of rules. When you think about the control of assets, note here at the tokens and not the address, you need to consider this from a corporate law perspective. This is not new and it is not something has changed at all because of bitcoin. This is merely the same sort of token as you would find on other databases including an Oracle database in a bank.
If you for instance have bearer shares or bearer bonds and you transfer these into a new medium, you do not leave the originals and you destroy them. That is the correct practice.
CSW
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139473508739?thread_ts=1644139473.508739&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3931
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139473508739?thread_ts=1644139473.508739&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3931
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139473508739?thread_ts=1644139473.508739&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3931
👍3👎2
Social media can be pseudononymous, but there is not way anonymous accounts should exist - ever.
Rather, you could have a pseudonym, but if you post something defamatory, something malicious, something fraudulant - you should be able to be traced and you need to be held to account - up to and including incarceration.
Free speech is not the right to say anything. It is limited by truth and when you defame, this is not free speech - it is anti-social and malevolant, it in fact STOPS free speech.
Those with a real view, with a real arguement stop under ad hominem and more and those doing this should forgo any and all rights - as rights come with duty and obligation. As a citizen, you are not free to do anything you like, you act in a society and there are rules. If you do not like this, do to a desert, a jungle etc and live outside society as a hermit. You can. Move to Seira Leon and like in Anarchy. See what it is really like.
CSW
Fen 8, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644318104187939?thread_ts=1644318104.187939&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3938
Rather, you could have a pseudonym, but if you post something defamatory, something malicious, something fraudulant - you should be able to be traced and you need to be held to account - up to and including incarceration.
Free speech is not the right to say anything. It is limited by truth and when you defame, this is not free speech - it is anti-social and malevolant, it in fact STOPS free speech.
Those with a real view, with a real arguement stop under ad hominem and more and those doing this should forgo any and all rights - as rights come with duty and obligation. As a citizen, you are not free to do anything you like, you act in a society and there are rules. If you do not like this, do to a desert, a jungle etc and live outside society as a hermit. You can. Move to Seira Leon and like in Anarchy. See what it is really like.
CSW
Fen 8, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644318104187939?thread_ts=1644318104.187939&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3938
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Fen 8, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644318104187939?thread_ts=1644318104.187939&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3938
Fen 8, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644318104187939?thread_ts=1644318104.187939&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3938
👍4❤1
It is going to be interesting for all the court roles when they get into court. In court, social media approval doesn’t matter. When they sit there going on about how BTC exactly follows the whitepaper and how changes such as SegWit should never of happened and introduce UASF or Sybil systems that bitcoin was designed to stop as a part of bitcoin, the court will analyse this logically. And when you analyse it logically, despite people say that this is a argument that is so 2017, I win.
The trolls can claim what they think the meaning is all they like and they can even cherry pick aspects of comments out of context and put them on Twitter. That doesn’t work in a court of law. In fact, that’s of action goes against you. If you want to lose in court, behave like you do on social media.
When it comes to trolls, I am a big blocker
CSW
Feb 9, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644388875836209?thread_ts=1644388875.836209&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3941
The trolls can claim what they think the meaning is all they like and they can even cherry pick aspects of comments out of context and put them on Twitter. That doesn’t work in a court of law. In fact, that’s of action goes against you. If you want to lose in court, behave like you do on social media.
When it comes to trolls, I am a big blocker
CSW
Feb 9, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644388875836209?thread_ts=1644388875.836209&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3941
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 9, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644388875836209?thread_ts=1644388875.836209&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3941
Feb 9, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644388875836209?thread_ts=1644388875.836209&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3941
👍2