[ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision - page 10.

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote

⚠️ the trading ticker BTC is not Bitcoin

Did you know that the features dismantled in BTC since 2017 as well as the additions Segwit, Segwit2X, Lightning Network, Liquid, Taproot are not in the white paper that defines what bitcoin is. The maintainers of Blockstream and Core have permanently modified BTC so that it can no longer legally be called Bitcoin.

Check it out

DYOR: https://craigwright.net/bitcoin-white-paper.pdf

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote

Bitcoin as a security

This article was first published on Dr. Craig Wright’s blog, and we republished with permission from the author.

In today’s post, I shall endeavour to explain some of the reasoning behind how I created Bitcoin and why I released it in the manner I did. Unfortunately, innumerable false myths have been created around Bitcoin and blockchain technology. They exist to promote concepts that have nothing to do with the system and that are antithetical to the concepts that I envisioned. For example, few people seem to recognise that even the widely promoted concept of “censorship resistance” was never a component of Bitcoin’s design. Such terminology started in 2011, when a journalist and writer associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) falsely described Bitcoin.

Even the promoted definition of ‘decentralisation’ stands in opposition to what Bitcoin was designed to be. Bitcoin, or any blockchain or distributed ledger technology for that matter, is issued, maintained, and controlled not by distributed parties, but by individuals. In the case of Bitcoin, the issue was completed by myself. Using the same terminology, I said that nodes were given and distribute coins (bitcoin) and not that they issued the coins. The reason for it is that Bitcoin was issued completely—with all 21 million bitcoin being created when it was launched. In other words, in January 2009, I owned every single bitcoin that technically existed.

Technically, every bitcoin that has not been distributed to a miner (aka node) is still my property. Yet, the situation doesn’t matter to me, both from the point of view of tax laws and from the point of view of security laws. The reason is that when I issued Bitcoin, the absolute value of all 21 million tokens I owned was negative. The cost of creating the system exceeded any value made through bitcoin for a long time. But, the only way I could keep any number of bitcoin that I wanted to keep was to follow the system and the rules that I had constructed. When I built Bitcoin, the offer to nodes to validate transactions was made under what law students and lawyers would understand as a unilateral contract.

Since I had constructed Bitcoin with an inbuilt agreement to distribute all of the bitcoin I owned at cost, there was no tax liability. You see, you only pay tax on profit. So if I have expended money building a system and then issue all of the assets I have created as part of the contractual arrangement, there is no direct profit and no tax liability. The unilateral contract that is issued under the rules of Bitcoin binds me. It does so both through a contractual liability and under the financial regulations associated with the issuance of assets.

Because I was setting up Australian companies designed to build solutions on top of Bitcoin, the financial benefits would be indirectly earned—not through the actions of other individuals, but through my own, and through the actions of the companies I was constructing. I set up multiple companies. Yet, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and I had many disagreements about the nature of what I was doing. The ATO, or at least a small subset of members in the audit teams, saw the construction of a technology platform that was given away without a direct methodology to earn money as a hobby.

The nature of how I was going to build wealth was not derived from holding bitcoin but rather through the construction of applications that would use Bitcoin, which required the token. The company I set up in January 2009 called Information Defence aided in managing the Bitcoin network by running nodes. The company ran computers in several locations, which acted as the initial Bitcoin nodes from 2009 and until 2010. I never understood that bitcoin or any derivative could be worth the value at which it is now traded, to tell you the truth. Even now, billions of dollars remains a figure that is incomprehensible in many ways.

The difficulty I had from July and August 2009 followed the filing of my tax returns. I claimed the transfer of intellectual property, which included rights to the database and other aspects of Bitcoin, from an overseas company and associated trust to the Australian company. I paid the GST on both sides of the transactions. I valued the intellectual property and database at around US$1.3 million. The amount was transferred to two companies. My accountant applied the required GST amount, with Information Defence having a balanced amount with the registered trust entity. The resulting argument was based on rather obscure laws, concerning transfers between hobbies or organisations that are not designed for profit and ones that are profit-making and hence have to pay GST.

The ATO argued that the wash transaction led to a positive requirement to pay goods and services tax. They argued that the trust could not claim on the intellectual property (Bitcoin), as no methodology existed for the entity to make a profit. The transfer to Information Defence, conversely, involved a profit-making entity, even if it was obscure—the ability to sell bitcoin at the time did not exist. So, when I say “wash transaction”, I’m saying so because the transfer of assets (being the intellectual property that was the construction of Bitcoin) was said to be a hobby.

I can be rather irascible. Consequently, when the ATO effectively said that I owed money for a transaction that led to no taxable outcome, I was rather upset. Unfortunately, I did not handle the situation very well, which caused me many of my ongoing problems. Few people seem to understand that Information Defence and Integyrs each had staff. Contrary to the popular opinion that seems to be foating around, I was not acting alone in 2009. I had people working for me. And no, Dave Kleiman was not one of them. They were paid under audited accounting records, in Australia.

Luckily, through an insane amount of perseverance, and a great amount of personal cost, in 2012, the ATO, under the direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, reversed their earlier decision. In March 2013, I received a judgement in my favour. Unfortunately, the continuous actions and persecution by the same government department destroyed both companies.

The difficulty that occurred was that Andrew Sommer of Clayton Utz and his team needed to be paid. Andrew is a partner in an expensive law firm. Although he is an incredibly good tax lawyer, he is also incredibly expensive. As a consequence, the several million dollars of continued expenditure that had been invested in defeating the tax office (and I did win) would wipe out all the savings that I had available for the companies. One part derived directly from the tactics of the ATO. One of the auditors at the ATO issued a bankruptcy notice against me, and my companies, and investigated my family.

The insolvency proceedings were based upon the false premise that my companies and I owed money to the ATO for the transaction that I had completed and the deductions I had made in 2009. The methodology that was used is quite insidious. Many people may not understand that the ATO can issue bankruptcy notices without the case having been through court, even when it is in dispute. They can request money to be paid even when it is a disputed amount. Thus, there is an additional component. If an individual or company is now bankrupt, the tax office can appoint a receiver, who can cancel the court case. In the same manner, the tax office had hoped to force me into bankruptcy and, from there, to be able to take control of my companies and appoint a receiver of my assets. In doing so, they would have been able to stop the court case I eventually won and, thus, divert the course of justice.

Some people may have sensed my slight, residual hostility towards this branch of the government. I’m working on it.

Having said so, when you win a court case, you don’t get all of your fees back. All of the money that you invest in having accountants and lawyers go through accounts is not part of the fees that you reclaim from the opposition. As a consequence of the action, the court case cost me over $1.7 million, which doesn’t include several other ancillary costs, that come with having to close down businesses or rebuild new companies. I don’t even want to think about the total cost.

I mentioned that I personally could not allocate any of the bitcoin that I had issued. My inability to allocate bitcoin stems not from technical issues, as some people try to claim. It is a legal issue, under the unilateral contract defined through the rules. If I reallocate the amount of bitcoin, or if I change how my system works, then there is the issue of my being liable, and even if I was pseudonymous, which I wasn’t as much as people believed, I could be sued. As some people have recently discovered, pseudonymity is not a protection from lawsuits.

Yet, there was a problem that I had not foreseen. I have rectified it now, and through the creation of overseas companies in trust, I can no longer be targeted as the issuer of Bitcoin. The system is now past any limitations that would cause me any other problems. In 2009, that was not the case. The action between 2010 and 2012 by the ATO in seeking to bankrupt me threatened the very existence of Bitcoin. The rights to the Bitcoin database had been listed in the asset register of an Australian company, at which point the allocation of intellectual property lay with the Australian tax jurisdiction.

In other words, if the ATO had managed to successfully file for my bankruptcy, the assets I personally held in trust would have been available for redistribution. It would have provided ownership of the intellectual property forming the basis of Bitcoin to the Australian government. But, luckily for everyone, in several industries, the plan by the ATO failed dismally. As a result, the insolvency proceedings were dismissed, and I won the main tax case with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Between January 2011 and September 2012, I was incredibly focused on the various actions taken against me by the ATO. People don’t understand how much work can go into a tax case. In total, we had to put together around 11,000 pages of documents. There were electronic copies and paper copies, although I don’t have any of them now. In hindsight, I should have kept them, but the reality is that after years of dealing with lawyers and accountants and the tribunal in court, I wanted nothing to do with any of it.

Silk Road made my life a complete hell. You see, I had been pushing for the development of commercial applications to ensure that Bitcoin would grow. Yet, the first real application people started using stemmed from the stupidest concept imaginable: a drug market on a completely and utterly traceable system. Other idiots started talking about assassination markets. When it all came together by the end of 2010, I had already been spending a year fighting auditors who didn’t understand anything I was doing regarding Bitcoin, or any of the related components that I was building.

I could have managed things better had I talked to people. In my defence, I have Asperger’s, but that should not be an excuse.

I had told the government about Bitcoin, and tried to demonstrate that it was a viable system, one that would help encourage and enforce regulations and rules across the internet. Unfortunately, concurrently, the first use of my publicly and widely available system was associated with the sale of illegal weapons, illegal drugs, and worse. You can guess that such use did not endear me to any of the individuals in the government, but I was dealing with it. I have been working on my Asperger’s, but I don’t deal with people who are not exactly what you would call smart very well. I made everything worse. I got into an argument with several people from different branches of the tax office, and to say that I called them idiots would be an understatement. I regret it in many ways, because it made my life far more difficult than it should have been.

I was a lay pastor at this point in my life, and I was also a trustee of the Uniting Church Organisations (Uniting Financial Services). I’m not a good chaplain or pastor, and before Mark, who ran the various churches in the Central Coast where I was, retired, he had managed to keep me in check. Mark was the chaplain for the police and military in the region, and three churches in Tumbi Umbi and Ourimbah. I led ‘Coffee Church’, and I was involved with a few other activities in the region.

I have been involved with the Burnside charity and group from Uniting Church for many years. I was associated primarily with the people in Port Macquarie, helping them gain experience and putting them through some vocational and college courses. The other aspect of what the group did, outside of the primary work of helping single-parent families to cope, was drug rehabilitation. There were many families affected by drug abuse—in both of the regions where I was involved.

The launch of Silk Road threw me. I had delivered courses for the New South Wales Police Academy, been contracted and helped in numerous forensic cases in Australia, and helped train the Australian Federal Police. I was also involved with the drug rehabilitation programmes, that helped people in my community, as part of the pastoral duties I tried to perform. I left the church in 2011. I didn’t say goodbye, and I didn’t make sure that the roles I had been assigned to were taken care of. I didn’t resign my position in the Uniting Financial Services trust; I just walked off. I am ashamed of doing so. I owed a duty, and I abandoned it, I abandoned people who needed me.

Mark had cancer of some type; I didn’t follow up. That was cruel. I had had cancer in my 20s, and although Mark was way older than that, I knew he needed support. So at a time when people needed me, I abandoned everything. Having created Bitcoin and hence the system (Bitcoin) used to build the payment system for Silk Road, I blamed myself for everything that happened. Between the stress resulting from trying to keep my companies alive, my failing marriage that fell apart, and the guilt I felt about building a system used to sell drugs to teenagers, I failed many people. I don’t even know if they understand, because I never spoke to them again. I didn’t talk to any of the people in my parish who had been friends for years. I didn’t talk to the people of Burnside who had been helping for years. I didn’t help any of the communities or talk to them before leaving; I moved house, and I started again.

Yes, it is true, I worked with internet casinos, and developed security solutions and software for them. Yet, all the operations that I was associated with were legally licensed and managed, and they monitored the activities of individuals who might have been addicted to gambling. I still don’t see it as a problem. The real issue comes with illegal operations—acting outside of the law. One reason why I created Bitcoin is directly linked to the nature of payments and the fact that the traditional internet payment mechanisms using credit cards didn’t work for small-value transactions. Whilst large-value transactions in Bitcoin, and any related system, can be reversed, it is economically and computationally unfeasible to do so with small transactions.

I never envisioned billion-dollar transactions as the use case of Bitcoin, for which it is a rather terrible system by itself. Instead, I saw the use of micropayments as small as a fraction of a cent and the ability to create small casual payments for systems such as online-gaming platforms. Such a methodology had value then, and it has value now. The arguments about reversing transactions that are commonly made are utterly false. Bitcoin is not encrypted at any point. Hence, the only protection against a court order forcing the reallocation of bitcoin relates directly to the economic cost of doing such a transaction. Nobody in their right mind is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting a $100 transaction involving a casino, or any other site for that matter.

As explained, if the ATO had won and forced me into bankruptcy between 2011 and 2012, they would have taken over control of the Bitcoin blockchain. I still don’t think they understand the details of it, but all they would have done is close it. Governments are not good at understanding or aiding the development of innovation and new technology. To say that a government is conservative is an understatement. Governments move at the speed of cold tar.

The Plan as it was originally envisioned

Bitcoin was never as “super secret” as people like to think. I talked about what I’d been building with people I knew, and filed claims on my work for years. I started working on the basis of what I saw as the Metanet or Blacknet and the required token system in 1999. At the time, it was a complete and utter mess, that wasted lots of money. But I am a tenacious individual, and I don’t believe in pivoting.

By the time I had launched Bitcoin, I’d studied financial services law and international commercial law for several years. I obtained my master’s degree in Law in 2008, before the launch of Bitcoin, and my dissertation was based on the system that I had been building. Bitcoin was always designed to be, first and foremost, a micropayment system that could be extended beyond digital cash to the operation of other digital assets. Bitcoin was not designed as a “store of value”, and it was not a built-in response to the global financial crisis. If somebody says it is, they are either an idiot/moron, a conman, or both. Given the state of the “cryptocurrency industry”, both are the likely outcome.

When I say “cryptocurrency” concerning any blockchain-based system, I am doing so in quotation marks because Bitcoin and any derivative system are in no way cryptocurrency. Whilst it is commonly misreported and factually misrepresented, there is no encryption used in Bitcoin. Bitcoin transactions are transacted, sent, created, and signed without encryption at any point. Bitcoin is anti-encryption. The public nature of the blockchain precludes any encryption. If you truly understand how my system works, you will come to understand that it differs significantly from all the previous attempts to make a digital cash system. In the past, eCash and related money-transfer systems were all based on a model of anonymity, aiming to make it private through encryption.

I completely turned the model on its head, by not using encryption at any point within Bitcoin. In some of my early posts, you will note that I talk about building Bitcoin from source code without the encryption components of OpenSSL.

Why open source?

The idea of developing Bitcoin using open source is important and even necessary. Yet, it does not mean that there are no rights associated with it, and it is important to note that Bitcoin was not released under a GNU General Public License. The MIT License is incredibly patent-friendly, and it doesn’t cover any of the associated files such as images or white papers. To cover such files, it would be necessary to use the Creative Commons license in association with the MIT License, which was never done with Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a critical system, and it is a security platform. When software is created that needs to be resilient to attacks, it also needs to be widely tested and verified. Whilst some people can do static testing and black-box testing and conduct tests based on reverse-engineering the code, none of them are ever as effective as a complete walk-through using the open protocol. At the same time, Bitcoin is a protocol. To be utilised, it needs to be treated like TCP/IP for the internet. In other words, it needs to be publicly available. When I created Bitcoin, I had no idea that it would be worth so much money now. In addition, I constructed it in such a way that allowed no direct method for me to exploit the amount I owned without actively mining to regain the bitcoin I had created. Under the terms of the rules and the associated contracts with the node operators and the people using the system, I was bound to distribute all of the bitcoin I had issued. The amounts that I was allowed to distribute at any time were all preset, and there was no money for me to make.

For some reason, Ethereum supporters believe that they need to pre-mine. You don’t. Bitcoin, any system for that matter, including Ethereum, could have been designed to allocate a set amount of coins and distribute them to anyone they want at any point, including before creating the genesis block (which is not mined, and if you understand Bitcoin at all, you will understand that you cannot mine the genesis block of a blockchain).

The initial database and the formulation of the database are covered under the sui generis rules, which exist in a sensible country such as the UK. Simply put, many databases are offered under open-source agreements. For example, Oracle releases MySQL under such an agreement, and the code is provided freely under open-source arrangements. Yet, anybody who uses MySQL and creates a database does not lose the right to own the database. Rather, the database rights under copyright and the associated intellectual property rights are all maintained by the owner, unless otherwise assigned. The rights to the intellectual property of Bitcoin have never been assigned outside my control.

Why Bitcoin is not a security

The test by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that most people rely on is known as the Howey test (SEC v. W. J. Howey Co.), which follows the outcome of prior litigation. It is not the extent of the law, but it is used as a test because regulators know how the courts will rule. If you find an instance where a breach seems to match the existing organisation that you are investigating, you do not need to worry about understanding the complex securities law applying to the company that you are investigating, but rather, you can follow the preset example. The truth is that any complete application of the Securities Act of 1933 extends far beyond the existing test. Still, regulators are reluctant to take on cases they may lose, and the legislation is complex.

When I launched Bitcoin, the protocol was set. The way I put it was that the protocol was “set in stone”. Consequently, there was no requirement for other people to improve or change or modify or update or screw up the protocol whatsoever. Rather, the intention was that nobody would ever change the protocol. Not now, not in 2140 when the block subsidy ends, and if it is still going, not in 2222 or beyond. The continuing distribution was based on a pre-existing issue.

So, in the simple Howey test, Bitcoin fails because I set the protocol such that it did not need to be changed, and the development and maintenance should have gone to a nonprofit organisation. The Bitcoin Foundation was formed in 2010, while I was still acting as Satoshi. Most people don’t realise it occurred while I was there. Then again, many of the current Core developers have different views than I do, and want to create a system that is friendly to things like Silk Road, as they want to create a system that aids money laundering, so they will happily lie. Luckily, everything I’m saying can be tested.

So, Bitcoin is not a security because it is firstly a commodity system—defined without an account—and acts, even though digitally, as a fixed, static standard commodity offer. Ethereum is not. Ethereum is an account-based system and not a token-based system. Next, there is no requirement to invest money in a common enterprise, because Bitcoin nodes act competitively. The bitcoin I issued is distributed following my issue in 2009, under a set agreement where no profit ensues. Here, in part, lies one of the major reasons I did not keep any bitcoin or pre-mine. If I had done so, the result would have been a system where I would have profited from the efforts of a promoter or third party. Remember, before the launch of Bitcoin, I had studied international commercial law, specialising in international financial law, and completed my Master of Laws (LL.M.). I knew what the obligations were. I had also been working as a director at the audit firm BDO, giving presentations on the very same topic.

As such, bitcoin is a commodity that is exchanged under standard contractual trade conditions. Of course, as it is also used as money, it can come with different legal protections, but that’s a different issue, for a different post.

The issue of digital assets is NOT decentralised

The only consensus mechanism within Bitcoin exists between the nodes. It is conducted through the distribution of blocks. When a node finds a valid block and proof-of-work solution, the block is published and becomes valid when other nodes build upon it, reaching maturity through the addition of 100 further blocks.

Next, software groups and even the internet are not politically decentralised, as people keep making out, in the sense of the rather socialist mantra of everybody having complete equality. Bitcoin is not aligned with such an ideology. And yet, people such as the Core developers want to lie to you and falsely tell you that Bitcoin is politically decentralised. They do so as they are in control of the BTC code.

The primary difference between users and nodes in the network is that while users can retain privacy and be pseudonymous, nodes cannot. The proof-of-work mechanism in Bitcoin corresponds to a deanonymisation strategy. Nodes can’t hide. In the entire Bitcoin network and all the derivative networks, including the BTC network, there are only around thirty nodes, only four of which matter. So when you look at all the claims made about decentralised finance (DeFi), about the democratisation of finance and all the claims that DeFi operates without human intervention, you need to start thinking and not just trust the individuals making such claims.

There is no such thing as a decentralised finance token built upon Bitcoin. Every token has an issuer. They are not computers, and they are not anonymous groups. They do not act outside the control of the government. Remember, as I’ve said, Bitcoin is at no point encrypted. Whilst I may get fed up with government officials from time to time, because of the actions of individuals in the government, I’m not an anarchist, and I don’t believe that a world can survive and grow and flourish without an effective government. When you come to understand Bitcoin, or any blockchain for that matter, you will start to understand that they are aligned to my mindset. Thus, they will not, in the long term, be used outside government control.

Just as bitcoin has an issuer in me, every other digital asset has an issuer. And, the requirement for assets not to be encrypted removes the ability for nefarious actors to create systems that are outside the reach of government control.

Footnotes

[1] United States Supreme Court SEC v. W. J. Howey Co. (1946), No. 843 Argued: May 2, 1946; Decided: May 27, 1946

Source Dr. Craig Wright https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-as-a-security/

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote

☞ IPwe Blockchain Smart Pool taps into AI to handle patent analytics

IPwe is using blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the patent industry. By using AI to handle patent analytics, IPwe has found a way to cut costs and increase efficiency associated with acquiring patents; and by turning patents into NFTs and allowing NFT patents to trade in a blockchain-based marketplace, IPwe is paving the way for transaction growth and increased transparency in the patent industry.

“We realized technologies like AI and blockchain could bring better information and more transparency to the system. This increases productivity, investment, and transaction volume in the patent space,” said Lavinia Meliti, the Global Head of Business Development at IPwe.

“IPwe has accumulated analytics, investments, and data of approximately $40 million, so that our smart pools can provide advanced analytics and data-oriented insights that will help organizations identify, research, evaluate, and transact in patents. With these AI tools that we have on the platform, companies can easily learn where their patents are best utilized and gather all of the information they need to improve productivity,” she added.

Beyond giving Blockchain Smart Pool members the tools and resources they need to improve their business innovations, IPwe Blockchain Smart Pool members also have free access to a blockchain library, access to the Blockchain Defense Fund—a fund administered by the founders, members and IPwe to deter abusive patent behavior—and permission to build on the world’s most innovative blockchain patents, including the 1,250+ patents in nChain’s patent portfolio.

“The Smart Pool makes intellectual property available on really simple terms to most of the market. The pool lets enterprises and individuals innovate and have access to a large portfolio of patents and patent applications either for free or an incredibly low price,” Will Chelton, the Chief Legal Officer at nChain, said.

The Blockchain Smart Pool makes the process of finding and acquiring patents cheaper and easier than the conventional process that enterprises and developers go through when they are looking to build technology. Instead of raising money or hunting for a patent owner with the technology you need, paying search and acquisition costs, and negotiating royalty fees, with IPwe, all you have to do is join a smart pool, and IPwe takes care of the licensing process for you.

IPwe offers free membership to SMEs with less than $1 million of annual revenues, $500 annual memberships for SMEs with under $10 million of annual revenues, and $225,000 annual members for companies with over $10 billion in revenue.

The difference between IPwe and other patent pools

An increasing number of patent pools are being created; this forces enterprises and individuals to decide which pool is the best for their business. IPwe sets itself apart from other pools by giving its founders and members more freedom and the opportunity to generate revenue. The Blockchain Smart Pool does not require SMEs to give up their innovations to be a member. If a founding member decides to leave the Blockchain Smart Pool, it gets to take its patents with them, and unlike other patent pools, the Blockchain Smart Pool patents are publicly available on our website for everyone to see.

“In the coming days, we will add thousands more to the list of 1,280 that nChain brought to the Blockchain Smart Pool from companies that are recognized blockchain tech leaders that truly want to encourage adoption and improve the blockchain ecosystem,” said Meliti.

“If [you are a] member [of another patent pool] or a company that [is] thinking of joining [another patent pool] that would like to join the Blockchain Smart Pool and make their patents available for free to our Members, we would welcome [you] and gladly add [your] IP to our public list so everyone could understand exactly what they are committing to,” Meliti added.

Why should I patent innovations?

Although open-source software can be a great fit for members of a community of independent developers, it does not provide a clear path to commercialization or revenue generation. Without revenue and a plan to persist into the future, it becomes difficult to sustain a business.

“You can’t really do deep technological innovation without investment,” said Chelton.

“You can’t ask people to invest in technology without them seeing some kind of return. The blockchain smart pool provides that balance for founders. Its accessibility for all, but it also [provides a] fair return to the guys who came in early and frankly, invested big. Open source is great for community, but for real deep technical innovation that requires investment and that requires ROI,” he noted.

When innovations are patented, it allows an entity to license the patent and generate revenue on their creations.

Open access to spark adoption

Giving the world access to some of the world’s groundbreaking blockchain-based innovations can catalyze blockchain adoption globally. Instead of burdening enterprises and developers with the legal and opportunity costs associated with researching and developing, the blockchain smart pool handles that strenuous work for its founders and members so that they can devote all of their resources to building platforms and services that could change the world.

“Innovation today is complicated, it lacks anything resembling transparency, it’s expensive and largely benefits only the wealthiest companies in the world. IPwe is trying to change that by leveraging its AI and blockchain technology to make innovation easier, more transparent and accessible, and far less expensive,” explained Meliti.

“The nature of IP is changing—it is no longer a thing you only occasionally use as a defensive or offensive weapon. IP is now being used to encourage adoption and expand commercial opportunity,” she pointed out.

To learn more about IPwe’s blockchain smart pool and how you can join the pool to gain access to one of the world’s largest blockchain patent portfolios, head over to https://ipwe.com/smartpools/blockchain/.

Also read: Frost & Sullivan report, When data can’t be trusted: The importance of data integrity and executives’ reluctance to trust it

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.

Source Patrick Thompson https://coingeek.com/ipwe-blockchain-smart-pool-taps-into-ai-to-handle-patent-analytics/

Do_zzze

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 39

Quote

Craig Wright at IEEE UAE Blockchain Symposium: Bitcoin and IPv6 will create security and wealth for everyone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BRZbEQeKo

Bitcoin creator Dr. Craig S. Wright has given another explanation of how Bitcoin could work with IPv6 to create a more secure internet. This model would see hundreds of billions of connected devices, with users knowing their data is safe from hacks or snooping.

Dr. Wright re-presented the IPv6/Bitcoin recommendations he recently made to the IEEE standards committee, at the University of Dubai recently. IPv6 has been central to his model for Bitcoin for a long time. For some more background on why it’s important, take a look at CoinGeek’s The Bitcoin Bridge interview on IPv6 here.

Bitcoin, ‘cryptocurrencies’ and underlying value

He opened his presentation by explaining how he had some knowledge of Islamic Finance before he created Bitcoin. While some have a shallow understanding of IF as being all about its prohibition of interest rates and usury, there’s more to it than that—it’s about a system that doesn’t create wealth underlying capital.

Adding that “Bitcoin’s not a cryptocurrency,” he said the network was IPv6 enabled in its first version in 2009—but that this capability was turned off after he left the development team. He also noted that Bitcoin technology is not “peer-to-peer” in the way most people describe it (like Napster or BitTorrent) but rather “end-to-end,” between individuals.

Rejecting the Silicon Valley model

And that’s where IPv6 comes in. 100 billion machines will be connected to the internet over the next couple of years, and they will need to communicate in a secure way with unique addresses. Leaving all data to large corporations, with centralized databases that can be hacked, is the wrong way to do it.

“You’re always going to have big Silicon Valley companies sitting there in the middle, sucking your data. I don’t like that model,” Dr. Wright said.

These 100 billion devices include products with RFID tags, disposable communications tablets, smart home devices… everything. This proliferation of connections would actually make the internet more secure, because of the impossible time it would take to brute-force scan the entire network looking for vulnerabilities.

A well-defined cloud-and-IPv6 system will be far more secure than the existing “shell-firewall” model, Dr. Wright said.

Bitcoin provides the base layer to this network. For it to work, you can’t have multiple ledgers (i.e., blockchains). To maintain security and prevent fraud you must have a single ledger, a single set of records that everyone trusts. VISA is expensive; BTC’s Lightning Network is unreliable and off-chain.

Silicon Valley companies may resist Bitcoin’s model, but “If the Americans don’t want to do it, I don’t care. It’s a big world,” Dr. Wright said.

How IPv6 and Bitcoin create a secure internet

With IPv6 we will have the ability to connect every device and user directly. IPv6 has its expanded address space, extended routing, improved scalability, simplified headers and faster processing, support for authentication and privacy, support for source routes, and quality of service capabilities.

IPv6 will see the death of the current internet’s SSL (secure sockets layer) and its application-based security through host-identification and authorization schemes. It uses CGA (cryptographically-generated addresses) instead. Cryptography is hard, but if we use it once in the OS rather than at each later, we all win.

That only happens “if we do it right”, Dr. Wright added. Using Bitcoin’s key structure is that way. It can be linked to real-world identities, but in a secure way—using different keys for every transaction, generated from a single source. You therefore have a provable audit trail linking that identity to all its communications (or “transactions”) but not in a way where the data can be mined.

He gave the examples of Paymail and HandCash as using Domain Name System Security Extension (DNSSEC). This can be extended into CGA by having an IPv6 address that is cryptographically derived from/linked to a public-private key pair.

This takes us back to a more distributed model of the internet, as it was originally intended to be—rather than the current network of centralized services run by large oligarchies more interested in data mining and control.

Freeing the market, freeing the world

The freedom to transact and perform unlimited commercial activities at almost no cost (for payments) is what will truly create wealth for all people, Dr. Wright said. This includes people in wealthy countries, and those from less-wealthy ones working for lower amounts, or overseas.

“I want to push down the prices of transactions so low that Amazon cries. If they don’t deal with this, they’ll be out of business,” he said.

Some in the University of Dubai audience were slightly skeptical that Dr. Wright’s model could find acceptance in the real world, saying it “sounds too good to be true.” This is pertinent given the current world’s pursuit of “equality” and oligarchical control. Dr. Wright vehemently disagreed with these so-called principles, referring back to the Islamic Golden Age where opportunity was held in higher regard, and wealth came from the creation of real value.

Most long-time Bitcoiners have always known their system could produce better outcomes for humanity—but also wondered if it could fit into the current world’s political paradigms. That is still uncertain. But if the current world’s political goals set it on a path to failure, there will need to be alternatives. The best alternative that exists today is Bitcoin, working in tandem with the internet on which it operates.

Watch: Dr. Craig Wright tackles IPv6, blockchain integration on The Bitcoin Bridge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyVi0ZKNEBA

Source: Thanks to Jon Southurst - https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-at-ieee-uae-blockchain-symposium-bitcoin-and-ipv6-will-create-security-and-wealth-for-everyone-video/

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote from: $romain on March 05, 2022, 08:29:07 AM

Quote

In order to keep you informed about the ecosystem of BSV that is growing, here is a non-exhaustive interactive list, as it is constantly evolving.

https://unboundedcapital.com/bsv-ecosystem

Ayazura

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 12

Quote from: ?? on ??

Why do you feel that its ok to claim others work as your own, and use others work without permission?

maybe now you know how Craig Wright a.k.a. Satoshi Nakamoto may have felt about Bitcoin, keys, IP & many more!

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote

In order to keep you informed about the ecosystem of BSV that is growing, here is a non-exhaustive interactive list, as it is constantly evolving.

https://unboundedcapital.com/bsv-ecosystem

Ayazura

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 12

Quote

Sinking Meta seeks COPA lifeline

Facebook’s membership in the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) is causing BTC maxis to question whether they’re still the anti-heroes they imagined themselves to be or just foot soldiers in the plot to keep Bitcoin from breaching Web2’s castle walls.

On January 31, COPA announced that Meta—the corporation formerly known as Facebook—has joined the ranks of those (allegedly) devoted to lowering the chance of patent litigation. Meta is also joining COPA’s board alongside crypto exchange Coinbase and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s payment processing company Block (formerly Square).

COPA’s announcement said Meta has “pledged not to enforce its core cryptocurrency patents against anyone, except for defensive reasons, effectively making these patents freely available for all to use.” Presumably, Meta will soon extend this magnanimous gesture to the 35,000 non-crypto patents it currently holds so that other industry sectors can feel similarly empowered. No? Why not? Oh, right… the whole capitalism thing.

Anyway, it’s not entirely clear what ‘core’ crypto patents Meta still possesses, given that the COPA news came the same day Meta announced that it had sold its ill-fated stablecoin project Diem (formerly Libra) to Silvergate Capital Corporation.

That sale included the “intellectual property and other assets related to the running of the Diem Payment Network” but Meta may have held on to patents related to its Novi digital currency wallet, along with those tied to its similarly scrapped game-based Facebook Credits virtual currency.

Despite its lofty rhetoric, COPA was actually formed in response to the growing number of blockchain related patents generated by Dr. Craig Wright, the real-world figure behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym credited with authoring the Bitcoin white paper. In fact, COPA’s only concrete action to date has been to launch a civil action against Wright to undermine his claim to the white paper’s copyright.

Interestingly, crypto news site CoinDesk quoted COPA GM Max Sills as saying Meta ‘committed to joining COPA in November 2021.’ That date coincides with the Kleiman v. Wright trial in Florida, which concluded with the jury declaring that Wright had no assistance from his former colleague Dave Kleiman in creating Bitcoin or writing the white paper.

But what would motivate these corporate colossuses to circle their wagons and direct their concentrated fire at an Australian inventor who until a few years ago was on absolutely no one’s radar? In a word: fear. Evidence produced during the Kleiman trial appears to have erased any lingering doubts that Wright is Satoshi, while amplifying concerns that Wright’s disruptive vision of Bitcoin’s future will tear down the walls that Twitter and Facebook have so painstakingly constructed around their digital gardens.

Patent war pending

Wright, an acknowledged polymath, earned COPA’s enmity by exercising his ever-active brain in dreaming up patent-worthy inventions and seeking to legally protect his ownership of said inventions. Wright has successfully implemented the white paper version of Bitcoin (BSV). The BSV Blockchain can pack an unprecedented number of transactions into individual blocks while users pay transaction fees measured in fractions of a penny.

In other words, BSV actually resembles the peer-to-peer electronic cash described in the Bitcoin white paper, while the BTC protocol that COPA supports has been so functionally neutered by the centralized BTC protocol developers that it can no longer serve as anything other than an inert form of ‘digital gold.’ Michael Saylor, founder and CEO of COPA member MicroStrategy, has gone so far as to publicly state that he will essentially use his company’s massive BTC holdings as collateral, presumably to borrow fiat currency so that he can actually pay for things in the real world.

This self-imposed technical hobbling allowed centralized protocol developer groups such as Blockstream to build so-called Layer 2 ‘solutions’ to remedy BTC’s manufactured throughput constraints, further centralizing control of the network. In legal terms, these centralized protocol developers and the people directing them represent a general partnership with all the attendant fiduciary responsibilities.

There wouldn’t be much point to these solutions if the larger world outside BTC Maxiville discovers that BSV is the real Bitcoin. That discovery would also threaten other digital payment methods—such as Block’s Cash App—while causing BTC’s overinflated value to plummet to the point that Saylor’s cache of tokens might not buy him a coffee.

Clearly Wright must be stopped, by whatever means necessary. So, COPA hits him high, while thousands of laser-eyed social media minions—like Peter McCormack and Magnus ‘hodlonaut’ Granath—aim lower, apparently based on their eagerness to play a role in the financial revolution they believe is occurring. But Meta’s COPA membership threatens to undermine that heroic narrative.

Decentralization theater

Most BTC maxis treat Dorsey with the fawning reverence normally associated with K-pop stans, but Facebook’s lengthy list of social crimes—harvesting and selling personal data, facilitating the spread of disinformation, anticompetitive tactics, lying about its intentions and pledging only to ‘do better’ when caught—means Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg is viewed through a far more pejorative lens.

That pejorative view was reflected in the fact that COPA’s Meta announcement chose not to mention Zuckerberg by name. His Libra/Diem project (Zuck’s Bucks?) was intended to create a universal online currency that, while donning a veneer of decentralization, would have almost certainly been under Zuck’s majority control.

Diem’s centralized nature was openly mocked by BTC Maxis, whose blinders allow them to overlook the fact that control over the BTC protocol is absolutely centralized in the hands of a few BTC Core protocol developers. Moreover, these protocol developers, including Blockstream, are entirely beholden to investors such as quasi-ponzi Tether and Digital Currency Group, the Mastercard-linked Little Jack Horners of crypto (determined to stick their thumbs in everyone’s pie).

So BTC is neither decentralized nor an emancipation proclamation from big banks. But at least it’s cool, right? Got that bleeding edge vibe to it. Only now it’s inextricably linked to Facebook and its legions of tipsy soccer moms and would-be mad scientists drinking their own urine to cure rickets. Still, totally cool. Totally.

Caught in a Web(2)

Even as Meta’s COPA membership was announced, Dorsey was publicly slamming Zuckerberg for wasting time in developing the proprietary Diem rather than incorporating BTC into Facebook. Dorsey accused Zuckerberg of trying to create “a currency that was owned by Facebook … to bring more and more people onto the Facebook ecosystem.”

Yet Dorsey and Zuck have common cause in ensuring that BSV remains in the shadows, as its data- and transaction-handling capacity makes it the perfect vehicle for bringing Web3—the internet’s newest and most promising phase—from mere concept to execution. The transition from a data harvesting advertising economic model on the internet to a data sovereign transaction based economic model on the metanet is gaining steam much to the dismay of Zuck and Dorsey.

For the uninitiated, Web1 represents the internet’s early, highly decentralized system of standalone websites created largely by individuals. Web2 imposed a centralized system of vertical silos from which corporations such as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok et al harvested reams of customer data, which was then sold to third parties to drive Web2’s advertising-based revenue model.

Web3—in the form of BSV’s Metanet—aims to offer users a reprieve from this predatory behavior by restoring control over their personal data, allowing users to decide who can access their data and what fees they might charge third parties for access. Users pay the platforms and transaction processors micropayments in transaction fee giving them ownership over the data they generate. Simply put, it’s digital sovereignty, and it’s making the Web2 giants feel like dinosaurs nervously scanning the sky for any extinction-level asteroids hurtling their way.

Dr. Wright put the Web2 titans—specifically, “today’s cancerous evil Twitter-based Silicon Valley” ecosystem—on notice last June that the Metanet’s digital cash transaction-based system would “destroy their business model.” Dorsey and Zuckerberg appear to have received this message loud and clear, at least, if their ensuing actions are any indication.

https://twitter.com/bitcoinkaiser/status/1488909613940543491

https://twitter.com/i/status/1488909613940543491

A few months after Wright’s missive, Zuckerberg announced Facebook’s pivot to focusing on building the Metaverse, while Dorsey left his role as Twitter’s CEO the month after that (perhaps not so coincidentally the day the Kleiman v. Wright jury went out for deliberation). Dorsey has since gone on a public vendetta against the very notion of Web3, largely because he fears that someone other than the Web2 incumbents will end up controlling it.

Zuck took an even more predictable (and predictably selfish) course, attempting to paint Meta as leading the charge on Web3. However, given the utter lack of specifics on Meta’s progress, the net effect was a bit like Zuck planting his flag in a field in Kansas and declaring Meta’s now in sole control of Neptune or something.

But with Meta now officially part of the COPA cabal, Zuckerberg does seem poised to assume control of the group’s direction. For one thing, he’s a control freak who ought to have ‘doesn’t play well with others’ tattooed on his forehead. And Zuckerberg also appears to be the COPA member most acutely aware of the power slipping from his grasp.

Desperate times, desperate measures

On Wednesday, Meta’s Q4 2021 earnings report revealed that Facebook had suffered its first ever decline in daily active users, while growth at its other apps (Instagram, WhatsApp) is slowing. This resulted in Meta’s share price falling by more than one-quarter, with total paper losses topping $200b, making it the biggest single-day plunge by an American company ever. (Zuck’s personal loss was said to be around $29b.)

Zuckerberg blamed the decline on increased competition from rivals like TikTok and warned that future revenue would decline now that Apple has imposed ad-tracking privacy changes, limiting Meta’s ability to scrape the data on which its ad-based revenue depends.

But investors also expressed alarm at the $10b+ Meta burned last year in its push to develop its metaverse (with Meta at the center of this ‘verse’, naturally). As the Libra/Diem fiasco amply demonstrated, the general public (and any number of governments) simply doesn’t trust Zuckerberg not to impose dictatorial control on any system over which he might gain control, leading investors to worry that this metaverse push will ultimately join Diem on the discard pile.

A way out (and forward)

Zuckerberg’s minions likely returned from this January’s CES technology trade show with reports that some of the biggest buzz centered on Transmira and its Omniscape XR (experiential reality) platform. Zuckerberg was likely alarmed at how much further ahead of the game Transmira is, particularly compared to Meta’s in-house vaporware.

Transmira CEO Robert Rice hasn’t been shy in crediting BSV for providing the foundation on which he could build a product like Omniscape. “We’re building it all on Bitcoin SV because it’s fast, scalable, and very inexpensive to do transactions.”

Zuckerberg has a history of using his deep pockets to simply buy innovation rather than develop it in-house, so he might soon make Rice an offer he can’t refuse. But attempting to replicate Omniscape’s success without utilizing the BSV blockchain would be like taking the fat tires off a Formula 1 machine and replacing them with training wheels.

Zuckerberg isn’t about to admit that he needs any external elements to be successful but one of his less self-absorbed rivals—perhaps one that has so far resisted the urge to join the COPA cabal—might make the calculation that it was worth striking a deal with nChain, the company through which Dr. Wright develops his patents, to take advantage of the disruptive technology on offer.

https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1489160871787962375

The history of business is littered with comfortable incumbents who resisted change by sandbagging plucky upstarts who, unlike the fat cats, didn’t fear innovation. The oil and gas industry spent decades and billions of dollars to convince both regulators and the public that climate change was a hoax and that renewable energy sources would never meet the world’s energy needs. They did this despite their own internal research showing that these statements were lies, because they were too invested in the status quo to make significant changes to their operations.

Like these fossil fuel laggards who eventually saw the wisdom (and the profits) in developing renewable operations of their own, today’s Web2 dinosaurs will eventually come to their senses and admit—publicly for a change—that Wright is Satoshi and BSV is the only blockchain with the capacity to grow to meet tomorrow’s needs.

To paraphrase Zuckerberg’s go-to phrase whenever he’s caught in a lie, he and his Web2 ilk need to do better. If the individuals making the decisions for these companies can’t—or won’t—recognize the wisdom of switching to superior technology like BSV, two facades will crumble: (a) they’re not the all-knowing visionaries they allowed the world to think they are, and (b) they really don’t give a damn about their users after all.

Source: Steven Stradbrooke https://coingeek.com/sinking-meta-seeks-copa-lifeline/

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote

✔️ NEW WORLD RECORD WITH BITCOIN SATOSHI VISION

Block #725511 comes in at 3.8 GB! Processing over 180k+ on chain transactions and earning 6.25 BSV in Block Subsidy + 9.7 BSV in Transaction fees.

https://whatsonchain.com/block-height/725511

And this is just the beginning Kiss

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

I warmly recommend this fabulous read by #SatoshiNakamoto: The Wizard of Blockchain

https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/the-wizard-of-blockchain/

Source: https://twitter.com/Dr_CSWright

Guniam61

brand new

Activity: 0

Merit: 0

Satoshi is back on Twitter and is very good. Check https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1489633750296137728

Do_zzze

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 39

Quote

BSV breaks records yet again with 5M daily transactions

BSV breaking new daily transaction records is becoming a common occurrence. We’ve reported several times this year how BSV reached 2 million daily transactions, then 4 million, and now 5 million daily transactions. On January 5, 2022, BSV smashed through 5 million daily transactions on the blockchain.

https://twitter.com/RamonQuesadaT/status/1486118099258691591

What’s driving BSV’s massive transaction volume?

Despite what BSV’s loudest critics say, the chain is far from a forgotten fork of Bitcoin. As the ever-growing daily transaction count shows, there’s lots of development happening on the original Bitcoin protocol. Apps such as games, trading platforms, and others that use of BSV micropayment capabilities are generating millions of daily transactions.

On the day BSV surpassed 5 million transactions, some of the following contributed:

● The star of the show right now, CryptoFights, was responsible for over 3 million transactions. This game just keeps going from strength to strength.

● Peer Game, BSVs first on-chain casino, accounted for almost 5,000 transactions. Peer Game has recently released several new BSV casino games.

● RelayX, BSVs leading NFT and token platform, saw over 5,000 daily transactions. Unlike on other chains, BSV NFTs are stored on-chain in an immutable way.

All of this is exciting, but it’s only the beginning. BSV is currently doing an average of 149,773 transactions per hour, according to Bitinfocharts.com, but the reality is it’s capable of 50,000 transactions per second and growing. Yes, that means that the current transactions on BSV per hour could be handled in a little over three seconds, and even that’s just scratching the surface of what BSV is capable of scaling.

TAAL upgrades infrastructure to prepare for 4GB blocks

One way to gain clues as to the direction a blockchain is going is to watch the actions of the biggest players in the ecosystem. After all, they’re best positioned to know what’s coming and to invest (or not) in preparation for it.

TAAL Distributed Information Technologies Inc. (CSE:TAAL | FWB:9SQ1 | OTC: TAALF), BSVs biggest transaction processor, upgraded its maximum block size limit to 4GB. As with everything else happening on BSV, this shows a trend towards larger data capacity. This will go some way towards unleashing BSV’s true data management capabilities.

Increasing block size limits will allow more transactions inside blocks, which means more fees. In 2021, we saw blocks with more value in fees than in block subsidies, and bigger blocks will only make that more frequent.

This upgrade indicates that TAAL is preparing for many more transactions than we’re currently seeing. Soon, five million daily transactions will look insignificant as BSV scales to meet real enterprise demand. TAAL also recently invested in a new 60,000 sq/ft facility. This signals that it is thinking long term.

BSV just keeps scaling and proving the critics wrong

Ever since Satoshi Nakamoto told them Bitcoin scales almost infinitely as originally designed, critics have been saying he was wrong and that big blocks would fall over, crash the network, and would turn Bitcoin into a corporate-controlled (centralized) system. Yet, Satoshi told them it would end up in data centers, and he told them it scaled to Visa transaction levels and beyond on release. BSV is proving Satoshi right.

In the not too distant future, BSVs critics will fall silent as it scales to tens of millions and then hundreds of millions of daily transactions. They said 2GB and 4GB blocks could never work, and they were wrong. They’ll be wrong again with whatever objections they throw up next.

Developers who are tired of the false promises on Ethereum and the technical issues on Solana should take a step back and realize the truth: the original Bitcoin does it all and then some.

Watch: CoinGeek New York panel, Blockchain: The Future of Technology Building on Achievements of the Past:

https://youtu.be/lK8-86QLmIs

Thanks to Gavin Lucas source: Lucas https://coingeek.com/bsv-breaks-records-yet-again-with-5m-daily-transactions/

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote

Over the past two weeks the TAAL team reached a significant milestone, announcing plans to increase the excessive and maximum block size limits on the TAAL network to 4GB by January 24. This node upgrade fulfills a promise to the BSV community to grow a more powerful and larger data capacity operation and progresses the BSV blockchain network towards terabyte-sized blocks.

The 4GB upgrade positions TAAL’s systems to be ready to handle the increase in enterprise demand from clients in multiple industries such as gaming, financial products, media, and business services.

Our team has also transitioned our STAS tokenization protocol from private beta to public beta. STAS tokens mark an evolution for the BSV blockchain, providing application developers and token issuers with far more tools to grow their enterprises. We have also released the STAS White Paper, which is available for viewing here.

These advances further the critical role TAAL has to play in assisting the maturing and adoption of BitcoinSV blockchain, and in unlocking the vast capabilities of BSV for our clients.

See below a round-up of the latest developments at TAAL!

Source https://www.taal.com/

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote

Jack Dorsey vs Satoshi Nakamoto: Who will lock BTC ‘Bitcoin’ history and protocol?

Block head Jack Dorsey’s new legal fund for BTC developers who refuse to honor their fiduciary obligations will push the modified blockchain protocol even further down the road to anarchic illegality.

Last week, Dorsey announced the so-called Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit entity established to assist BTC developers who find themselves under “legal pressure.” While Dorsey pitched the fund as a potential source of relief for all BTC developers, he and the fund’s two other board members will decide which cases they will support. To date, the only fund-worthy case involves (surprise!) the legal actions brought by Bitcoin creator Dr. Craig Wright following the 2020 theft of over 111,000 Bitcoin tokens via a hack of his computer.

Wright’s claims are intended to compel developers of the BTC, BCH, BCH ABC and Bitcoin SV blockchains to acknowledge their fiduciary duties to users of these blockchains who find themselves victims of theft. Wright is asking these developers to deploy the necessary code to restore his access to and control of his stolen coins.

To be clear, Wright isn’t seeking monetary damages from any of the centralized protocol developers; he only wants them to use the tools at their disposal to right a clear wrong. So far, the BTC protocol developers have shown no interest in complying and the deep-pocketed Dorsey’s financial support seems likely to further stiffen their spines. But in doing so, Dorsey has put himself on the wrong side of both history and the law.

After all, there is clear legal precedent for the developers being liable for the actions of their users, as seen in the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in MGM Studios v. Grokster, which found that distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software could be held responsible for copyright infringement by users of said software.

All the fun, none of the responsibility

On the surface, aiding the recovery of stolen property offers the opportunity for the kind of good press the blockchain community sorely needs right now to offset lingering concerns over widespread crypto-related criminality. As such, the BTC protocol developers’ resistance to assisting Dr. Wright’s coin recovery efforts—and self-professed BTC maxi Dorsey’s support for said resistance—suggests a more selfish justification is at play. It also shows that Jack Dorsey is already the centralized leader of BTC.

Wright’s development and promotion of the BSV protocol has led to his coming under fierce attack from the BTC developer community, particularly those affiliated with Blockstream. The latter’s Lightning Network—a layer 2 ‘solution’ of which Dorsey is an enthusiastic supporter—is only necessary because BTC developers refused to allow the original “Bitcoin” (in the form of BTC) to scale to handle a sufficient volume of transactions.

Twitter infamously suspended Wright’s account in 2019 for reasons that remain opaque (besides Dorsey’s obvious desire to keep Wright’s message from reaching the masses). Dorsey later acknowledged that Twitter’s ban of U.S. President Donald Trump bordered on political censorship, a situation Dorsey claimed to abhor but nonetheless used to promote BTC as “a foundational internet technology that is not controlled or influenced by any single individual or entity.”

Dorsey appears to prefer a system in which he himself doesn’t have to face any hard decisions that might please half the world and enrage the other half, where he can just build things that make scads of money and earn loads of laudatory press coverage while someone else deals with the fallout. But the world isn’t about to let him off the hook that easy.

Not your keys, not your missiles

Consider North Korea’s ongoing hacking of crypto platforms, which Chainanalysis data shows earned the Hermit Kingdom nearly $400 million last year alone. These ill-gotten gains have undoubtedly helped fund the regime’s recent flurry of provocative missile launches; mafia-like moves intended to extract concessions from countries who don’t want to see these missiles topped with actual warheads and targeted at their shores.

No doubt law enforcement agencies around the world would eagerly welcome the assistance of blockchain developers in assisting efforts to take these stolen coins out of Kim Jung-un’s hands and return them to their rightful owners. But that apparently wouldn’t sit well with Dorsey, Blockstream or other members of the ‘censorship-resistant’ crowd.

In order to wash its stolen coins clean, North Korea reportedly funnels its crypto through ‘mixers’ that help obfuscate their origin. That presumably isn’t a problem for BTC protocol developers like Blockstream’s Adam Back and Greg Maxwell, who helped ensure last year’s approval of BTC’s controversial ‘Taproot’ upgrade that added new features intended to disguise transaction details.

No one, least of all Wright, is saying privacy is a bad thing. But insisting on privacy through complete anonymity, regardless of the circumstances, is dogmatic adherence to anarchic beliefs that spits in the face of long-established concepts of justice. The same can be said for the belief that Bitcoin transactions cannot and should not ever be reversed, even when evidence of a crime is painfully obvious to all concerned.

The notion that we live in a society that venerates justice and fair play is treasured by the bulk of the non-crypto population. Showing these crypto-skeptics that justice still prevails in a blockchain world will go a long way in furthering widespread adoption of the technology.

That should be the ultimate goal of BTC maxis like Dorsey, but instead they continue to press for a proprietary, self-beneficial state of affairs that preserves their jurisdiction over BTC at the expense of the greater good.

As the old pro-union chestnut goes, which side are you on, boys Roll Eyes

?

Follow CoinGeek’s Crypto Crime Cartel series, which delves into the stream of groups—a from BitMEX to Binance, Bitcoin.com, Blockstream, ShapeShift, Coinbase, Ripple, Ethereum, FTX and Tether—who have co-opted the digital asset revolution and turned the industry into a minefield for naïve (and even experienced) players in the market.

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.

Source thank you to Mr. Steven Stradbrooke https://coingeek.com/jack-dorsey-vs-satoshi-nakamoto-who-will-lock-btc-bitcoin-history-and-protocol/

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote

A catch up with the inventor of Bitcoin—Dr. Craig Wright

https://youtu.be/IDSLnWhmyV0

It’s always a pleasure to hear from Dr. Craig Wright, and last week, Nigel Smith checked in with the Bitcoin inventor to cover everything from the recent Kleiman v Wright trial to the current BSV ecosystem.

Kleiman vs. Wright & COPA

Dr. Wright said the outcome of the trial was “very good” and that Ira Kleiman’s claim to be the only shareholder of W&K Info Defense Research LLC is a form of fraud and is blatantly false.

Moving on to the COPA case, Dr. Wright said that it won’t happen for “probably another year or more.” He defended taking people to court to settle issues, mentioning that Plato and Aristotle both promoted the idea as a means to understand the power of democracy and the Western legal system.

Dr. Wright described Twitter (and Facebook), one of the litigants on the COPA side, as the greatest threat to Western democracy outside of Russia and China getting together with weapons. He described recent tactics by COPA as nothing more than scammers delaying the end of their scams.

BTC as a Ponzi scheme and proof of stake

Describing BTC as a classic Ponzi scheme, Dr. Wright again pointed out that it makes no sense to buy and hold something because you think other people will buy and hold it. This is profit-seeking without work and operates in a very similar way to classic pyramid or Ponzi schemes.

Getting into proof-of-stake, Dr. Wright overlooked it as a way to stop competition. Whereas proof-of-work always allows for new entrants to innovate and come in and compete, proof of stake does not. Eventually, this leads to an oligarchy where the holders of the coins control the system with no way for new entrants to compete.

Elon Musk & Nick Szabo—Dr. Wright is not a fan

Dr. Wright isn’t one to shy away from slaughtering sacred cows, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk did not escape unscathed. Dr. Wright said he felt he was a con artist who is playing with us when he claims he wants to terraform Mars and put humans there.

Dismissing Elon’s claim that Nick Szabo contributed the most to the ideas behind Bitcoin, Dr. Wright claims that Szabo is incapable of coding and has a history of espousing amateur or debunked ideas such as digital gold.

The Lightning Network & BTC Core

Laying into the Lightning network, Dr. Wright describes how the U.K., European, and American legislation dictates that you need to keep records when processing transactions. However, Lightning is designed to lose records and make transactions anonymous. Therefore, by default, Lightning will violate the legislation which is due to be enforced this year.

Dr. Wright then reiterated what he said in 2008. He told Bitcoin would end up in data centers and that home users wouldn’t be able to run nodes. He emphasized the competitive nature of Bitcoin, the need to trust the market, and classical liberalism. He likened the BTC centralized planners to communists desiring to build a system they control while claiming to be libertarians who love freedom.

Smith agreed, calling the BTC core camp faux libertarians. Dr. Wright called them anarcho-collectivists behaving like cult members, pointing out the red laser eyes and groupthink in the BTC camp.

Students of Dr. Wright will be familiar with his disdain for the idea that code is law. He once again pointed out the need for the actual law, mentioning that if you were to operate a node in an anarchic system without law, a warlord could simply take your node and make it his.

Student Questions

Neil Smith then opened the podcast to students to ask questions. The following is a summary of them.

If you program shares for smart contracts, do you still need intermediaries for things like credit checks?

There will still be controls in place. Removing controls in the name of democratizing finance leads to crashes, after which we put the controls back.

What do you want to do with your money?

Dr. Wright wants to bring billions of people into the digital economy. He wants to do so not for altruistic reasons but because he is doing so for a profit. By getting these people online and using Bitcoin, Dr. Wright expects to make money while helping these people.

What do you see with Web 3.0 and metaverse?

Several patents on this concept have now been granted to Dr. Wright. He emphasized that the ownership of all of this needs to be sorted out properly. Using NFTs as an example, he mentioned that they have lots of potentials but that the current market is full of useless JPGs and other collectibles.

What do you think of BTC evolving into a hedge against inflation?

Dr. Wright said it’s not a hedge against inflation. It’s a risk asset, and as the interest rate increases, BTC goes down in value as people flock to bonds.

Ryan X. Charles’ new project

Ryan X. Charles joined the stream to talk about his new projects. The main theme of these projects is the Social Bitcoin Web (SBW). This is an attempt to fight back against the Silicon Valley censorship that is rife in today’s world.

Ryan noticed that this had gotten worse during the pandemic. He noticed the coordination of the social media companies in their censorship and decided to form a solution.

Ryan’s projects intend to implement an SPV wallet into the web. For example, one of the projects will allow you to copy videos rather than links to web pages, making them extremely difficult to censor. This will also have the ability to charge for the videos unless the user wants to make them free. This can get even more complex, with users licensing the video with the right to resell the video, etc.

“We’re going to redo the 1990s but with Bitcoin this time,” Ryan said.

Watch: CoinGeek New York panel, Blockchain: The Future of Technology Building on Achievements of the Past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK8-86QLmIs

Source: thanks to Gavin Lucas https://coingeek.com/a-catch-up-with-the-inventor-of-bitcoin-dr-craig-wright/

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote

Perhaps you own some #cryptocurrency such as #ethereum and have found it stuck in your wallet or exchange due to network congestion and extremely high transaction fees. The coins you own are all but useless and become a reminder of a bad investment.

On #Bitcoin, the block subsidy rewards are cut in half after every 210,000 blocks are mined. Satoshi's goal was to incentivize miners to invest into the network with #ProofofWork, as the network matures and scaled, transaction fees would replace the subsidy reward.

Unfortunately, after Satoshi, #BTC core developers and #blockchain experts never really understood the original Bitcoin protocol's design and stagnated scaling.

“Bitcoin can already scale much larger than [Visa] with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling.” - Satoshi Nakamoto, 2009, The creator of Bitcoin

The arbitrary 1mb block size limit on BTC prevents the chain's ability to scale and provide global utility, (7 transactions per second) forcing the gross-use of energy to capitalize on speculative rewards. It's purely an #economic decision by miners and one that won't last forever.

The capped block size limits how many transactions can be included. Fees become volatile and the #network unusable. Over time, fees must rise to replace the lost revenue in the miner block subsidy or #chaindeath occurs.

A chain death is a scenario where the revenue of the block reward does not justify a transaction processors cost of finding one. This scenario becomes a threat if the transaction fees do not offset the lost revenue from the dwindling subsidy. Processors will no longer support the network, potentially bringing the chain to a halt as no more blocks will be added.

Restoring the original Bitcoin protocol by removing the real centralization bottleneck, has allowed true #innovation and unbounded on-chain scaling to occur.

On August 16, 2021, at 15:20:11 (UTC), a 2GB block, number 700606, was mined, containing 1,999,941,397 bytes of data.

The #recordbreaking block gave the #BSVblockchain miner a profit of 10 #BSV coins in transaction fees in addition to the fixed block subsidy of 6.25 coins. The revenue from transaction fees alone is 160% more than the fixed subsidy.

Furthermore, #CO2emissions have always been correlated with mining revenues and not the number of transactions. Since mining is what consumes #energy, and blocks are the product of #mining: the more transactions in a block, the lower the energy consumption and #carbonfootprint per transaction.

Share with a friend - suggest me as a follow.

Source Mr. Bryan Daugherty https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bwdaugherty_cryptocurrency-ethereum-bitcoin-activity-6889309687762829312-XNTd

Do_zzze

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 39

Quote

Happy 13th birthday, Bitcoin! Things will only get better

Today, on January 9, Bitcoin officially turned 13 years old.

The peer-to-peer electronic cash system envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto has been fully restored, and what a year it has been for the original Bitcoin. Yes, it’s been a crazy ride with some unpredictable twists and turns, but finally, as it enters its teenage years, Bitcoin is scaling to hundreds of thousands of on-chain transactions per second and is attracting a tsunami of development as those who choose to inform themselves realize the unbounded potential of BSV.

A quick recap—Bitcoin’s epic life so far

For those who don’t know, or those who’d like a quick refresher, here’s a recap on Bitcoin’s life so far.

● On January 9, Satoshi Nakamoto released Bitcoin v0.1 to the world. He made it known that it was a peer-to-peer electronic cash system that was set in stone on delivery.

● However, on January 3, Satoshi had already hard-coded the Bitcoin Genesis Block. Unlike the others, this one wasn’t mined. Most consider January 9 to be Bitcoin’s official birthday because this was the point at which others could participate and mine blocks.

● In these early days, Satoshi fielded some questions about Bitcoin. He explained to Mike Hearn that it could already scale to rival Visa’s transaction limits using existing hardware. It was in this early period that he was convinced to implement a temporary 1MB block size limit to prevent a spam attack on the network.

● After patiently explaining almost every element of Bitcoin, Satoshi left in 2010 and moved on to other things. Soon after, misguided and malicious actors moved the source code from SourceForge to GitHub and locked Satoshi and Gavin Andresen out.

● Over the next few years, fundamental changes were made to the Bitcoin protocol. In 2012, Pay to Script Hash (P2SH) replaced multi-sig wallets. By 2016, Replace by Fee (RBF) was introduced, disrupting reliable instant transactions.

● By 2017, the Bitcoin civil war, also known as the block size war, was well underway. Satoshi was back, going by his real name Dr. Craig Wright, and was advocating for big blocks. However, this didn’t suit the agenda of BTC centralized core developers. So, in August 2017, the Bitcoin network split, and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) continued with Satoshi’s original vision. At the same time, SegWit was introduced, removing digital signatures from Bitcoin transactions.

● Fundamental disagreements soon boiled over within BCH. On one side was Dr. Craig Wright, advocating for unbounded blocks and keeping things legal, and on the other was Roger Ver, a misguided anarchist who wanted to once again change the Bitcoin protocol and promote a system to facilitate crime.

● In November 2018, the network split again, with Satoshi and the believers in his original vision continuing the work on BSV.

● In February 2020, BSV developers had successfully restored the original protocol fully. They called this momentous event ‘Genesis.’ It removed maximum block sizes and restored the original Script language.

● Since then, BTC and BCH have descended into chaos, with conflicting narratives of digital gold, an anarchist monetary system to bring down governments, a Wall Street investment asset, and encrypted digital energy (thanks for the laugh, Mr. Saylor) all competing for airtime. Meanwhile, BSV has continued to scale, has successfully fended off illegal attacks on the network, and has seen a surge in development on the protocol.

Going forward—Bitcoin unbounded

It’s been a crazy 13 years, but finally, as it enters life as a teenager, Bitcoin has cast off the shackles of those who either ignorantly or maliciously kept it down, and it’s already flying high.

Where is BSV today, as it enters its 14th year?

● It’s processing over 4 million transactions daily at the time of writing. And yes, these are all on-chain, providing transaction fees to miners who compete for BSV blocks.

Quote

https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1477456345074782208

All I wanted for #NewYear . . . was over 4 million transactions on the #BSV network over a 24 hour period

Another nice milestone but just another step on the path to fulfill #Bitcoin Satoshi Vision

Source: https://bitinfocharts.com/cryptocurrency-charts.html

● BSV is witnessing a mass migration of developers who are waking up to the repeated false promises of Vitalik Buterin and the Ethereum Foundation and other unscalable blockchains. Just ask Adam Kling and the team behind Crypto Fights.

● The fees are holding steady at $0.0004 on average. That’s over 11,000 transactions on BSV for the cost of one on Ethereum, BSV’s alleged main competitor and the so-called decentralized world computer.

● BSV has already cracked 50,000 TPS in a public demonstration, and Teranode is set to make this look like child’s play. Before long, BSV will be able to handle millions of transactions per second.
And that’s just the start of it. With the restoration of the original Bitcoin protocol and all of the developments mentioned here, Satoshi is being proven right about everything. Bitcoin does scale on-chain, it is Turing complete, and it’s going to be the one global chain he spoke of.

Happy 13th birthday, Bitcoin. It’s only going to get better and at a much faster pace from here!

https://youtu.be/i3As9-9uSXs

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.

Thanks to Gavin Lucas source: https://coingeek.com/happy-13th-birthday-bitcoin-things-will-only-get-better/

🥳 Happy Birthday BitCoin ✨

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Mar1five

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 1

What you describe fits perfectly with this collusion https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/the-property-flaw-of-lightning/

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Yup, fortunately the more time passes, the more the vice closes. Anyone can understand that the technological utility prevails, for the rest maybe the government agencies will be able to get to the bottom of this because BTC is misleading the consumer, there are people responsible, Core, BlockStream, order givers and all the rest. Their interests are immeasurable. After making Bitcoin obsolete, change transaction fees, deceiving the consumer into believing that BTC is Bitcoin, their conflicts of interest are overwhelming. It is an entire #crypto industry that is contaminated by their actions.

That's also why they resents Craig Wright (Satoshi Nakamoto) for his work, his ideas, his patents, and his outspokenness are a threat to their BTC Ponzi schemes , there are a lot of dark forces at work to put bitcoin in check. And indeed the supporters of BTC, BCH, and the entire industry are not seeing anything but fire/nothing because greed has led them to become blind.! They keep trying to discredit him, even here https://mashable.com/article/coinbase-direct-listing-unmasking-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto

Topic: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision - page 10. (Read 226395 times)