Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision - page 8. (Read 226359 times)

newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 46
✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯
Quote
Zero-Knowledge private machine learning on Bitcoin

This post was first published on Medium.

Previously, we have demonstrated running a fully fledged deep neural network on Bitcoin, where both the input and the model of the machine learning (ML) algorithm are public. In practice, it is often desirable to keep the input or model off chain and thus private, while still ensuring the ML algorithm is run faithfully. We achieve this by applying Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) to ML.

Zero-knowledge on-chain machine learning

There are two categories of private information when it comes to ML.

Private input

The input to the model is hidden, but the model itself is public. This is particularly useful for applications involving sensitive and private data such as financial records, biometric data (e.g., fingerprint, face), medical records, and location information. For example, one can prove he is over 21 years old without disclosing his age. Or an insurance company uses a credit score model for loan approvement. The model is made public for transparency, but the inputs, such as an applicant’s salary and bank statements, should be kept confidential.

Private model

The input to the model is public, but the model itself is private, often because it is intellectual property. For instance, we use a tumor classification model owned by a private company to detect tumors from images. The model is certified to have 99% accuracy when classifying a public dataset. The company can just publish the cryptographic commitment of its model, i.e., hash of all model parameters. We can be sure the model is legitimate, while not seeing it. The cryptographic commitment also ensures the same model is applied to everyone, for fairness. This is desired in, e.g., an admission model which ranks candidates based on their public information.

ZKP is a natural fit for retaining privacy when using on-chain ML, because it can hide information off-chain, while proving ML inference is correct.

Classifying Handwritten Digits

As a demonstration, we have implemented a simple model for the classification of handwritten digits. The model was trained using labeled examples from the MNIST dataset. The architecture of the model is very similar to the one we used for our fully on-chain model.





We use ZoKrates to build ZK circuits, which can make any inputs private trivially, by simply declaring it using keyword private.

Private input


Code:
def main(private u64[N_NODES_IN] model_inputs
u64[N_NODES_HL][N_NODES_IN] weights0, \
u64[N_NODES_OUT][N_NODES_HL] weights1, \
u64[N_NODES_HL] biases0, \
u64[N_NODES_OUT] biases1, \) {
u64[N_NODES_HL] step0 = apply_weights0(model_inputs, weights0);
u64[N_NODES_HL] step1 = add_biases0(step0, biases0);
u64[N_NODES_HL] step2 = apply_relu(step1);
u64[N_NODES_OUT] step3 = apply_weights1(step2, weights1);
u64[N_NODES_OUT] step4 = add_biases1(step3, biases1);
u64 res = argmax(step4);
assert(res == TARGET_CLASS);
return;
}

From the above code, we can see that the inputs of the model, model_inputs, are passed as a private parameter, meanwhile the model parameters (weights and biases) are public. Once we pass the input to the model, the circuit performs all the model operations on the data and outputs the models prediction/ class.

Private model

The following is the code for making the model private.


Code:
def main(private u64[N_NODES_HL][N_NODES_IN] weights0, \
private u64[N_NODES_OUT][N_NODES_HL] weights1, \
private u64[N_NODES_HL] biases0, \
private u64[N_NODES_OUT] biases1, \
u64[N_TEST_EXAMPLES][N_NODES_IN] test_examples, \
u64[N_TEST_EXAMPLES] test_labels) {
u32 mut correct = 0;

for u32 idx_test_example in 0..N_TEST_EXAMPLES {
u64[N_NODES_HL] step0 = apply_weights0(test_examples[idx_test_example], weights0);
u64[N_NODES_HL] step1 = add_biases0(step0, biases0);
u64[N_NODES_HL] step2 = apply_relu(step1);
u64[N_NODES_OUT] step3 = apply_weights1(step2, weights1);
u64[N_NODES_OUT] step4 = add_biases1(step3, biases1);
u64 res = argmax(step4);

u32 to_add = if res == test_labels[idx_test_example] { 1 } else { 0 };
correct = correct + to_add;
}

assert((correct * 100) / (N_TEST_EXAMPLES * 100) >= TARGET_CA);
return;
}


Here instead of passing the models input data, we pass the models parameters themselves as private. Using these secret parameters, the circuit performs all the necessary operations of the model and compares the results against a batch of test examples. If the model reaches a certain classification accuracy (CA) threshold, the execution succeeds.

The full code of both the first scenario and the second scenario can be found on GitHub.


Summary

We have demonstrated how we can leverage the ZK property of zk-SNARKS for machine learning on chain. This allows us to hide specific parts of the ML computation.

References

https://0xparc.org/blog/zk-mnist

https://youtu.be/dcw1hGg4iMM

Watch: The BSV Global Blockchain Convention panel, Blockchain for Digital Transformation of Nations

https://youtu.be/PJWPfb-8Ebc

Big Thanks to Xiaohui Liu. Source: https://coingeek.com/zero-knowledge-private-machine-learning-on-bitcoin/

brand new
Activity: 0
Merit: 0
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 46
✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯
Why Craig Wright is still wants to show that he is Satoshi? Maybe it’s better to start developing a Bitcoin SV?

IDK but if you want to know Craig Wright's story under oath it is available here:

https://coingeek.com/?s=Granath+v+Wright
https://twitter.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1570033106282844161/

That said, Bitcoin SV is being developed & in fact it is already developed, ready to welcome your talent. See the nomenclature of the https://unboundedcapital.com/bsv-ecosystem/ for more technical information here




brand new
Activity: 0
Merit: 0

Vaionex Corp https://www.vaionex.com/applications/ is looking for its next implementation to earn Bitcoin BSV in video games.

https://twitter.com/Vaionex_Corp/status/1573004623912521730/


👀 it looks like  Fortnite - Epic Games - will be the nextVaionex corp BitcoinSV BSV implementation.

彡໒(⊙ᴗ⊙)७彡 Fortnite - Epic Games - は、次の Vaionex corps BitcoinSV BSV 実装になるようです。

brand new
Activity: 0
Merit: 29
Quote



The famous PC game that everyone knows Counter-Strike supports BSV +$0.01 for 1 KILL

Counter-Strike supports BSV +$0.01 for 1 KILL

into games at BSV under a new branch, Vaionex Gaming

Integrated. Many more popular games are likely to be integrated into BSV.

As such, only BSV can support popular PC games.

Let's understand that the possibility that other coins can correspond is 0%.

The same is true for the metaverse. Other coins cannot lower fees

It means that you can't have a decent delivery due to waiting in line.

Players will earn $0.01 BSV for each in-game kill

As a result, BSV is the only option for games under development with other coins

https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/bitcoinsv0123456/diary/202209230000/


Vaionex Corp https://www.vaionex.com/applications/ is looking for its next implementation to earn Bitcoin BSV in video games.

https://twitter.com/Vaionex_Corp/status/1573004623912521730/
newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 33
Quote

How to earn BSV by playing #csgo (aka Counter-Strike: Global Offensive) for FREE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG3fxmeyJlQ

Hi, im hoping for more activity on this CSGO server, so i made a short tutorial on how to get started!

I hope i see you on the server!


 Wink thank you very much
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 46
✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Here's the direct coverage thread regarding the ongoing Craig Wright aka Satoshi Nakamoto (the defendant) Vs Magnus Granath aka Hodlonaut (the attacker) trial.

As a reminder Granath has already changed his case from "Craig is a fraud" claiming to be Satoshi to "Craig uses fraudulent methods" to prove he is Satoshi. This is a major change.

However the reading of the depositions is 🤯 overwhelming.

https://twitter.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1569940547875266560/


newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 33
crypto exchange LATOKEN to list BSV

Latoken is an exchange that charges totally unreasonable deposit fees, exchange fees and withdrawal fees. I do not recommend Latoken at all. Stay away from them.
newbie
Activity: 7
Merit: 39
Quote
BSV Claims Ltd launches landmark Competition case potentially worth over £9billion
   
LONDON, Aug. 3, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Velitor client, BSV Claims Ltd  today begins a landmark competition case against major cryptocurrency exchanges seeking damages of up to £9.9 billion.

The claim is brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") on behalf of an estimated 240,000 UK investors in Bitcoin Satoshi Vision ("BSV").  The claim, a legal first in competition law applying to the digital assets sector, seeks an opt-out collective proceedings order ("CPO") on behalf of the estimated 240,000 investors. The investors, or class members, are being represented by BSV Claims Limited.  BSV Claims Limited is a company limited by guarantee.  Lord Currie of Marylebone is the director of BSV Claims Limited. Lord Currie was inaugural Chair of both Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority.  Lord Currie is former professor of economics and also a former Dean of the Bayes Business School. 

The claim alleges that beginning in April 2019 UK BSV holders suffered losses estimated up to £9.9 billion as a result of the delisting of BSV by exchanges Binance, Bittylicious, Kraken and Shapeshift. 

Kraken and Binance are also alleged to have caused further losses to investors by forcibly converting BSV to other cryptocurrencies without investors' consent. The application states that the four exchanges combined in such a way as to breach the Competition Act 1998 by reducing, preventing, or distorting competition in the United Kingdom.

 The application claims that, among other matters, the four exchanges colluded to damage the prospects for BSV by delisting which prevented trading.  It is alleged the exchanges did this deliberately, harming BSV and reducing competition in the UK between BSV and other digital assets.

The application also alleges that the exchanges caused investors to lose money and gave them no meaningful opportunity to withdraw their BSV.  The case argues that the exchanges' actions curtailed BSV's ability to become successful, despite its inherently superior technology.

SEAMUS ANDREW, Founder and Managing Partner, Velitor Law: "Hundreds of thousands of people have potentially lost significant amounts of money, through no fault of their own, due to the actions of these exchanges and we are determined to help them win that money back.  This is a rare type of case, which has only been recently made possible in the English courts due to changes in the law in 2015.  We aim to show that these exchanges harmed BSV and caused financial hurt to many small, individual investors."

The exchanges made no attempt to hide their coordinated delisting of BSV.  The exchanges' intentions were communicated publicly over Twitter by leading cryptocurrency figures.

The application is being brought in the CAT. If the application is certified by the CAT, the case will proceed to trial at a date to be fixed.  A CPO is similar to a class action in the United States.  Both types of case involve a representative claim being brought on behalf of all people in the same situation (the "class").  This claim is brought on an opt-out basis which means that everyone in the class approved by the court is included automatically unless they choose to opt-out of the case.

 Notes:
1. The claim is for a collective proceedings order ("CPO") under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998.

2. The claim is being brought in the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal (the "CAT").  The CAT is a specialist court dealing with competition law issues.  It is a court of first instance, at the same level as the High Court.

3. The claim is supported by independent expert valuation evidence obtained from Oxera Economics.  Oxera is well-regarded economics consultancy with extensive experience of calculating damages in competition cases.

4. Oxera estimates the damage caused by the defendants at up to £9,938.1 billion, including interest to 21 July 2022.  Actual damages awarded will be determined by the CAT.

5. The damages received by investors will depend on the circumstances in which they held or sold BSV following the delisting. There are three distinct groups.  The first group suffered losses as a result of selling after the delisting because the delisting reduced the price of BSV.  The second group suffered losses because they were deprived on the chance of selling BSV for a much higher price, which BSV would have achieved but for the delisting. The third group suffered losses because they were customers of Binance and Kraken and had their BSV forcibly converted into different coins.  Investors in the third group were therefore deprived of the chance to sell BSV at higher prices that would have prevailed but for the delisting.
About Velitor:  Our ambition at Velitor Law is simple: we want to be the UK's most prestigious claimant disputes firm, bringing together the most perceptive and effective legal minds and backing them with unrivalled resources, progressive technologies and a clear purpose. We have a unique focus on claimants which, in turn, provides us with a single-minded mission to seek justice and recourse against seemingly insurmountable institutions. And our experience of handling high-profile cases, at the highest level, for them is second to none.

SOURCE Velitor Law

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bsv-claims-ltd-launches-landmark-competition-case-potentially-worth-over-9billion-301598637.html


 Cool https://www.bsvclaims.com/

newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 33
Quote
The new internet

Or, as Latif Ladid put it, we are approaching the age of IPv6 and, with it, the more colloquially termed age of web3. If you haven’t already caught his talk at the recent Global Blockchain Convention in Dubai, what the advent of web3 promises is the final realization of the internet dream of a truly peer-to-peer network.



Well, unless you were born before the age of Bon Jovi, you wouldn’t know that the internet was not always a welcome idea among the government policymakers and big computing companies at the time it was introduced.

Originally started as a military network, and even after the protocol technology was released to the world, there was a lot of political pushback on introducing an open computer network. Many industry incumbents, such as large telecom and computer companies with a monopoly on computer communications, stood to lose influence. But thanks to the advent of the home PC, and the distribution of computational resources to individual homes, the potential for these nodes to be connected together in some way was a large opportunity. But due to lobbyists, governments (including the U.S.) were against an open internet until 1991, and popularizing the internet was one of the few things that we can actually give Al Gore credit for. It was only then that the development of the World Wide Web and the open internet started to gain popularity over the proprietary network technologies that companies like Novell, IBM, and AT&T were pushing.

We are living in that age now, where we have generations of young people who grew up in the world that started in 1991: the Information Age. Where information is always just ‘at our fingertips’ and floating in the airspace all around us. But the internet has been around for so long now and has become so ubiquitous that many have lost sight of the original dream that it exalted—peer-to-peer communications.

When the tech giants lost control over the network technologies and hardware markets, they shifted to the role of communication intermediaries. Few understand that when you use the internet today, you are not communicating directly with your peer. You are communicating with a proxy company, their internet service provider or ISP, who then forwards those messages to the receiver. This is much like the current banking system. When Alice transfers money to Bob, she just initiates a transfer request to her bank, which then sends instructions to Bob’s bank, and debits and credits are done accordingly. There is actually no involvement of Bob at all. Bob’s money is sitting in an account at Bob’s bank.

Although the banks are legally unable to take Bob’s money, they can refuse to accept transactions incoming to Bob in certain circumstances.

The banks are analogous to ISPs. You rarely, if ever, communicate directly with another network peer. Your ISP could block access to your PC or home devices if it was legally impelled to. This is why currently, while the internet is open, it is not truly peer-to-peer. This is because people don’t have their own publicly addressable Internet address due to the IPv4 address space being entirely staked by large companies and ISPs. With a total address space of just over 4 billion unique addresses and large swathes of the space reserved for private networks, there is no way we could ever give an address to every person on the planet, let alone every electronic device.

IPv4 is akin to real estate on Hong Kong island. Every square inch of the island has already been claimed, and it is the business of large companies to rent out space to individuals through the use of network address translation (NAT). While you are reading this article downloaded from the publisher, the publisher’s host server is actually at an internal address on their ISP, and your PC or mobile phone is speaking through your ISP’s public Internet address. You are both using the internet indirectly through your respective ISP’s service. Your ISPs are the real nodes on the internet, not you nor the publisher of this article.

Nobody cared about this for a long time, because people were only concerned about the messages and whether or not they reached their destination. But for true commerce, we need more than just message passing. We need to have provable legal identities verifiable at the network level.

If IPv4 is like trying to get real estate on Hong Kong island, then IPv6 is real estate on the surface of a Dyson sphere.

As Latif put it:

“If we were to distribute ten million addresses each second, it would take 58,000 years before we would exhaust all the possible unique IPv6 addresses.”

Enough addresses for every person on the planet(s) for all our communicating devices in the foreseeable future. The key point is that, with each person and device having its own unique address, we can finally realize the dream of the internet. To have true peer-to-peer communications and be able to conduct trusted commerce with no middlemen.

If you have followed along up to this point, you may have realized how similar this notion of unique addresses is with IPv6 internet and bitcoin. In fact, bitcoin, as designed and released in 2009, solved the problem of having unique addresses for every possible transaction and exchange. With this innovation, bitcoin was the first truly successful implementation of digital cash, which is also a peer-to-peer transaction (in contrast to the bank account analogy, which has middlemen). And though bitcoin the coin (if used properly) is peer-to-peer, the coins themselves were still being passed through the intermediaries1 of our existing IPv4 internet, the ISPs. But with IPv6, we finally have the ability to go fully peer to peer. Meaning we will be able to conduct trade, having complete trust in the other party because they have identified themselves and have a verifiable unique Internet address which is registered to themselves, a natural person. And with the addition of bitcoin addresses, we can have verifiable unique addresses for every unique transaction between each person/device.

Imagine what the future of commerce may look like

Alice in Canada wants to buy something from Bob, who lives in South Africa. They exchange communications through the new internet, using their IPv6 addresses. This, along with sufficient third-party Certification Authorities, which can verify and validate Bob’s identity with his IPv6 address for Alice, means that she can be sure that this address is really Bob’s and vice versa. Then using their identity addresses, through a Diffie Hellman process, they construct a joint pair of one-time (OT) use bitcoin addresses that they will use for this transaction. Alice funds her OT address, then sends the bitcoins to Bob’s OT address by passing the signed transaction directly over the internet to Bob’s client.

There is no ISP in the middle of the internet routing, and there is no bank in the middle of the coin transfer. The transaction is private. There is no way for anyone but Alice or Bob to know that the OT transaction addresses used were for this purpose. But importantly, if compelled by legal authorities to reveal the nature of the trade, either of them will be able to show and prove it because the addresses can be deterministically generated from Alice and Bob’s personal IPv6 addresses and the transaction invoice, which was shared between them.

It can be done if you need to show that this transaction was for certain goods, say for tax reporting. If you need to prove that it wasn’t for something else or with somebody else, you can. If Bob wanted to falsely accuse Alice of stealing, Alice could reveal this transaction to the public. As long as both parties remain honest and the transaction is not illegal, it remains perfectly private. This is what we want—total privacy, but with total transparency.

Most people, when faced with the idea that everyone will have exactly one internet identity address, like a passport or personal ID number, are afraid that this will lead to governmental abuse. Of course, we have all heard of the social credit system enacted in China. But if used properly, with IPv6-powered identity addresses and signed ownership of devices (with each their own IPv6 addresses), we can envision as a system where any device can talk to any other directly, where each party can provably know the natural person at the other end of the wire they are communicating with.

This will lead to a drastic drop in internet fraud and wire fraud occurrences, and honest people will generally not want to communicate with parties who do not want to provable verify their identities.

Additionally, if joint One-Time use Bitcoin addresses are used for transactions, then all transactions are private and cannot be discerned unless one of the parties decides to reveal the details of a transaction. Just knowing a person’s identity address does not allow one to see the transactions in which it participates.

This is the more connected and more honest future, which will see an order of magnitude increase in the number of =https://coingeek.com/bitcoin101/how-are-bitcoin-transactions-processed/digital transactions and trades of goods and services globally. This is the true promise of Web3, enabled by a scalable bitcoin, used in a peer-to-peer fashion, and integrated with legal and identity systems, all using IPv6 addresses as network identifiers. This is the new internet, the connected commercial world.

EOL
Jerry Chan
Wall Street Technologist

NOTE:

[1] Additionally, for the BTC core network, they further engage in the use of intermediaries on the bitcoin network itself, designing wallets that publish signed transactions to the node network and for the recipient to receive their payment through the node network as an intermediary.

Watch: Latif Ladid’s keynote speech: IPv6-Based 5G/6g, IoT and Blockchain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Vsbo1NPs

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 Jerry Chan. Source: https://coingeek.com/the-new-internet/
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 46
✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯
Quote
Kurt Wuckert Jr. talks history of Bitcoin, Web3 and BSV on No BS Crypto podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Rq2ZyFvDE

CoinGeek’s Chief Bitcoin Historian Kurt Wuckert Jr. joined the No BS Crypto podcast to talk about the current industry, including Web 3.0, the history and future of Bitcoin, and much more. Watch it via the link or read a full written summary below.

Getting a job in web 3.0

No BS Crypto host Kyren begins by asking Wuckert what his advice is for someone looking for a job in Web 3.0. He replies that the computer science problems have largely been solved, so the best thing to do is start a business that solves real problems, using blockchain to solve a problem that can’t be solved another way.

The current climate in the industry

Wuckert gives his thoughts on the current digital currency industry. He says it’s not maturing; it’s gotten worse in the past few years. In fact, he still trusts the banks more than “crypto” people, explaining that criminals, grifters, and vipers are all the way down.

Considering who these people may be, Wuckert has a theory that many of them work on Wall Street and moonlight in the digital currency industry. He believes we’re in a bear market for at least the next year, and the dominos haven’t even begun to fall yet. Before we’re done, Wuckert believes we might see someone go to jail or face huge fines.

Will there be one blockchain to rule them all?

Wuckert acknowledges there will be one blockchain. He says the history of technology shows there are competing standards early on. For example, he asks us to look at the internet; there were many intranets early on, but ultimately, they came up with protocols and standardized them.

“Bitcoin was designed to remove friction,” Wuckert tells us, and only Bitcoin SV (BSV) still has these capabilities. There will still be other blockchains in the future, as there are still intranets, but they’ll be niche, whereas BSV will be like the internet.

Wuckert believes that BSV will win because companies will start doing their due diligence. For example, when they need to do a billion transactions a week on a public blockchain, they’ll find BSV. There’s no real competition.

Any advice for speculators?

Wuckert tells us to remember that everybody in the industry has a conflict of interest. Everyone has a strong opinion and is financially motivated to get you to agree with them in this industry.

Going further, he reminds us that the key to success in investing is being early and buying things when people think it’s crazy to do so. He says to invest your beer money, not your rent money, and make sure your financial life is taken care of. Likewise, he advises us to pay little attention to influencers out to line their pockets.

On Bitcoin as outlined in the white paper

Wuckert outlines Bitcoin as it was supposed to be per the 2008 white paper. First, he explains that Satoshi solved the double spending problem. He reminds us that the white paper opens by talking about commerce on the internet and deals with the problem of the cost of doing business on it.

Looking back, Wuckert reflects that when the white paper was released, the payment options were PayPal and credit cards. Satoshi stated that he thought a $5 minimum transaction was unacceptable and that small casual payments matter, and Bitcoin was his solution to this problem.

Wuckert reminds us that this isn’t a huge problem if you live in the ‘Anglosphere,’ or the richest half of the world. However, people who live on a lot less need to be able to spend $0.50 or less per transaction, and if they can spend that online between each other, that’s a huge deal. This is what Satoshi wanted to unlock, he tells us.

The popular narrative today is that all of this is false and that Bitcoin can’t solve the problem Satoshi outlined. BTC maximalists and influencers prefer to paint Bitcoin as a store-of-value and savings technology, but there’s no denying what Satoshi wrote. Sadly, most people don’t read what he wrote and simply see Bitcoin as a tool for speculation.

How has Bitcoin changed?

Wuckert points directly to governance in general. He says that not too many people talk about this. He explains how in modern nation-states, the intelligentsia makes decisions, and working people don’t have the time, energy, or sometimes knowledge to fight back. He outlines how it’s the same in Bitcoin; a small group of elite core developers has taken over the project. You’re made to feel that geniuses are in control and to leave it to them, but this isn’t how it was supposed to be.

Bitcoin is not supposed to be governed from above like this. It’s supposed to be governed by proof-of-work. Being in the mining business himself, Wuckert says that most miners lose money for years and make it back in bull markets, and that’s how it’s supposed to be because it ensures that people who really care about it have the most hash power on the network.

Proof-of-stake versus proof-of-work

Giving his thoughts on the proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, Wuckert says it’s both an overt and a subversive scam. While people like this because they think it’s efficient, in reality, it’s not because the incentives are misaligned.

In a proof-of-stake system, the rich get richer by holding the most tokens, and eventually, nobody can compete with them. “You will never catch up with whoever bought the most Ethereum first,” Wuckert reminds us. They’ll get exponentially richer and will be able to buy the value of everyone else, completely controlling the network for all time.

By contrast, with proof-of-work, whoever provides the most value wins. When they stop being the best, their blocks stop being built. This competitive system allows new entrants to challenge big players and gain an edge by innovating and competing.

Will an increase in hash rate lead to centralization?

Wuckert believes that hash power is going to go down over time. The block subsidy is reduced as time goes on, which disincentivizes raw hashing. Eventually, the subsidy will be replaced by transaction fees, he reminds us. Having a network with great connectivity and the maximum number of transactions is hugely important in this scenario. Clearly, BSV is built to win in this phase.

What incentivizes full nodes?

Wuckert states that data is money. “There is nothing more valuable than data,” he continues, noting that it’s the most undervalued commodity right now. There’s lots of value to be unlocked, and if you’re the person who controls the data, that’s where the money is in the long run. The ability to process it is a huge business opportunity.

Wuckert’s GorillaPool has mined blocks at 4GB. However, in his mind, that’s still small. He says that in 15 years, he believes they’ll be competing with AT&T and Verizon.

“They’ll swoop in suddenly,” he predicts.

The differences between BTC and BSV

Wuckert opens by explaining the Bitcoin civil war about how to scale Bitcoin. He recalls how the BTC Core developers made a fundamental change by removing the chain of digital signatures and replacing it with a hash of them outside the block—=https://coingeek.com/the-risks-of-segregated-witness-problems-under-evidence-laws/SegWit. This was controversial and caused the BCH split in August 2017. After some time, BCH developers wanted to make similar fundamental protocol changes, so BSV and BCH split. It’s important to note that this happened because BSV wanted to stay with the original design, whereas others didn’t.

With BSV, there’s no protocol to set block size limits, Wuckert reminds us. It’s up to the node operator to set the limits. Restoring the Bitcoin script stack also allows for smart contracts, general computation, and more, turning Bitcoin into a distributed computer. BTC and BCH developers have turned off many of these features, limiting what Bitcoin can do and giving rise to endless unnecessary blockchains.

BTC & BSV white papers and forks

Wuckert explains that the word fork is used in different ways in Bitcoin. It commonly means a copy and paste of the code with some tweaks. He explains that Bitcoin has an MIT license that allows such changes, but those who make such changes have to change their name. It’s open and flexible, just as Satoshi wanted, but you can’t just use the Bitcoin name.

Speaking about the various ‘soft forks,’ Wuckert explains that legacy Bitcoin nodes can’t validate almost any transactions that happen on them today.

“If Bitcoin isn’t a rules enforcement network, what is it?” he asks.

He says Litecoin is a true Bitcoin fork (note how it changed the name), and Bitcoin Cash is just a protocol scam. Drilling down on the difference between a protocol and an implementation, Wuckert gives the example of automobiles. The automobile is a protocol, whereas Ford and other brands are implementations.

These days, people want to define BTC as Bitcoin because it has the most hash power. Wuckert asks, “does nothing else matter?” For example, removing signatures literally breaks what Satoshi defined as a Bitcoin, yet people overlook that when dealing with BTC. If anyone brings this up, BTC advocates resort to tribalism and attacks. “They are afraid of people digging into the process,” Wuckert explains. By contrast, he is open and transparent because his ideas are thought out, and he doesn’t mind free discussion about them.

Why is BSV disliked so much?

Wuckert gives several reasons why BSV is delisted by most exchanges and hated by many industry influencers.

First, he notes that a lot of money is tied up in the idea that Bitcoin doesn’t scale. Billions of dollars have been invested in companies like Block, Lightning Labs, and similar firms. All of this is based on the idea that Bitcoin doesn’t scale and is a settlement technology. So, if Bitcoin can scale on-chain, there’s no reason for Blockstream or Lightning Labs to exist, and many people will lose money, he explains.

The second reason is BSVs association with Dr. Craig Wright. Wuckert says that if he’d been a small blocker, he’d be on the board at Blockstream and would be lauded. However, he’s a big blocker, and he says the small blockers like Adam Back are wrong, calling them out and refusing to comply with their wishes. Wuckert thinks he’s disliked because he doesn’t live up to their vision of what they imagined Satoshi to be. Rather than an altruistic anarchist, he’s a somewhat grumpy autistic Australian who is questioning what made many get rich for doing very little work.

Why don’t people believe Craig Wright is Satoshi?

Wuckert answers that most people are simply being told what to believe. On top of this, there are people like Arthur van Pelt who have written 100,000 words painting Dr. Wright as a scammer. Wuckert wonders who’s paying him since normal people don’t have the time to do this sort of thing.

Again, Wuckert emphasizes that people are defending their portfolios. Dr. Wright is like a snake in the garden; many people just want to get rid of him instinctually. However, Dr. Wright appears to love it and thrive on it. He doesn’t care for the opinions of his detractors and is independently wealthy. He’s a very long-term thinker and doesn’t care about the insignificant opinions of today.

What’s one piece of evidence to support Craig Wright’s claims?

According to Wuckert, the best evidence that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto is that he hasn’t gone away. There’s so much money to be made by scamming in this industry, yet he has never raised funds, launched an ICO, or asked anyone for money. On the contrary, he tells people to cash out and stay away from speculating while working diligently in research and development. He stands on principles and doesn’t care about short-term profit.

Meanwhile, Michael Saylor from MicroStrategy (NASDAQ: MSTR), who lost $13 billion in the Dot Com crash, is encouraging people to mortgage their homes and buy BTC. In Wuckert’s mind, that’s what a scam looks like.

Digging deeper, Wuckert reflects that Bitcoin is an eccentric piece of technology. It involves economics, computer science, and several other disciplines. It just so happens that Dr. Wright is a polymath with high-level degrees in these areas.

Yet more evidence is how he explains features that BTC Core people shut off because they didn’t understand them. Dr. Wright explains in depth why they exist. Wuckert gives examples, citing how he described the reason for the double hash and that the Bitcoin script enabled smart contracts. He has been proven right about that when everyone else dismissed it.

IPv4/IPv6, micropayments, and IoT

Wuckert explains how Bitcoin and IPv6 can be integrated to create a new, truly peer-to-peer world. For those who don’t know, he explains that IPv4 was designed long ago and has run out of unique IP addresses. IPv6 is a solution because it allows exponentially more IP addresses to be created. IPv6 allows the transmission of peer-to-peer data rather than via servers as IPv4 necessitates. This will enable devices to send packets back and forth directly.

On BSV, direct peer-to-peer transactions are also possible. You then send it to the network to ensure it hasn’t been double spent. This way, IPv6 and Bitcoin can work together, allowing direct payments to be sent globally for the first time.

Watch: The BSV Global Blockchain Convention panel, The Future World with Blockchain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9hDGDoy1mM

Thanks CoinGeek’s Chief Bitcoin Historian Kurt Wuckert Jr. joined the No BS Crypto podcast and to Gavin Lucas. Source:
https://coingeek.com/kurt-wuckert-jr-talks-history-of-bitcoin-web3-and-bsv-on-no-bs-crypto-podcast/

newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 46
✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯
Quote
PoW, PoS and the Howey test

A vast majority of crypto currencies (coins or tokens) are securities, and illegal ones at that, as they meet the Howey test and have not been issued/distributed in compliance with the securities law.

The only exception is one that satisfies both the following two conditions: (1) is based on genuine Proof-of-Work (PoW); and (2) has a locked base protocol according to the law.

The Howey Test
The present legal standard in the US for determining whether something is a security is summarized in the Howey Test. According to the Howey Test, if the thing meets all the following criteria, it is a security.

It is an investment of money
In a common enterprise
With an expectation of profits
Predominantly from the efforts of others
Most cryptos offered to the public meet all of them easily.

This is especially the case if the underlying blockchain uses Proof of Stake, or any other consensuses that use different names but are in essence still Proof of Stake.

Ripple, for example, argues that its XRP is a currency, and therefore isn’t a security. This argument is illogical. The Howey Test has nothing to do with whether it’s a currency or not. A currency is just a form of technology used for transmitting money (see Money & Currency). There are all kinds of possible currencies. The reason why a conventional fiat-based currency isn’t a security is not because it is a currency, but because it does not meet the Howey Test.

Specifically, (1) a conventional fiat-based currency is not issued by an enterprise, but by the government; and (2) obtaining a conventional fiat-based currency is not an investment, nor with an expectation of profits predominantly from the efforts of others, but rather a conversion of the fruits of one’s own labor into a convenient and reliable medium of value exchange.

Tokens like XRP meet the Howey Test. Arguing that XRP is not a security because it is a currency is to switch the subject matter.

The SEC has in the past indicated that it does not see Bitcoin and Ethereum as securities, as these assets have been sufficiently “decentralized.”

However, only the original Bitcoin (not BTC) meets the nonsecurity standard intended by the SEC. I would even argue that SEC has misapplied its standard due to its misunderstanding of BTC.

BTC, a severely distorted version of Bitcoin, does not meet the nonsecurity standard, because it does not have a locked base protocol and is centrally controlled by a small group of Core developers, who in turn are subject to the control or influence of certain interest groups hidden behind the scenes. See, Decentralization – a widely misunderstood concept.

Ethereum is in a similar condition. In addition, Ethereum is in a process of moving to Proof-of-Stake (PoS), which makes it a security immediately according to the Howey test, as argued below.

PoW, PoS, decentralization and the Howey test
In the article Decentralisation, Dr. Craig S. Wright makes arguments that PoS ensures the assets to be a security under the Howey test, while the true Bitcoin based on PoW and a protocol “set in stone” does not.

“..the hash puzzle solution in Bitcoin can be solved using a separate system that only sees the block header and never validates transactions. This innovation was a key part of the invention within Bitcoin and allowed the specialisation of services.”
Dr. Craig S. Wright, Decentralisation


The above statement clears up a big confusion over Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) with respect to the question of securities law.

The genius of PoW is deeply and widely misunderstood. The PoW as originally designed by Satoshi maybe essentially described as follows:

“A competitive economic system that requires nodes to each perform and demonstrate a signal-work in order to prove both its honesty and ability to perform a utility-work.”

The bifurcation of work into two different kinds of work in PoW, namely a signal-work, and a utility-work, is critical not only to the overall design of Bitcoin as a scalable and secure system, but also to the question of Howey test. The bifurcation of work leads to specialization and labor division, which in turn, along with a locked base protocol, causes the nonexistence or disappearance of a common enterprise requisite according to the Howey test.

An asset based on PoS is a security under the Howey test because the stakers are analogous to shareholders of a company, and the stakers (shareholders) bought the tokens (1) as an investment of money (2) in a common enterprise (3) with an expectation of profits (4) predominantly from the efforts of others.

In contrast, the original Bitcoin that is based on PoW and a locked protocol is not a security, because there is no common enterprise for the buyers to invest in.

Nexus required in Howey test
Concerning the Howey test, a different argument can be made to further strengthening the arguments made in Dr. Craig S. Wright’s article Decentralisation. Certain points supporting this argument may have been made in that article already, but this article attempts to organize these points from a different viewpoint.

In the Howey test, there is an implicit nexus among the four elements required. The nexus is especially important between the first test element and the second one (“investment of money” and “in a common enterprise”), meaning that for the Howey test to be positive, investors must have invested the money into the common enterprise. If the investors have invested into something else but not the identified common enterprise, then the mere existence of both an investment and a common enterprise somewhere in the ecosystem does not qualify for the Howey test.

In other words, if the investors have invested money into something that’s different from the identified “common enterprise”, the Howey test would result in a negative. It would still be a negative case even if the investment target is somewhat related to the common enterprise.

It is the absence or existence of this nexus that is the most important difference between PoW and PoS.

PoW vs. PoS
It is clear that PoW, like PoS, also satisfies the first element of the Howey test (investment of money).

It is also arguable that even with PoW, like with PoS, the mining business as a whole constitutes a common enterprise in their effort of operating the blockchain according to the rules set by the issuer.

If the above two are established, it is also fairly easy to establish the other two elements of the Howey test as well: investors also have an expectation of profits predominantly from the efforts of others.

Therefore, it may appear that even Bitcoin with PoW meets the Howey test, is thus a security suspect.

One may argue on behalf of Bitcoin that the above second element is not met, because there really is no common enterprise in bitcoin mining, due to the clear competition among the miners. But this argument may not be the strongest for Bitcoin.

The requisite nexus exists in PoS
A PoS system has a more distinctive “common enterprise” than a PoW system does. However, a much greater difference is in the existence of the requisite nexus., not in the existence or lack thereof a common enterprise itself in the first place.

With PoS, once a common enterprise is found to exist (which usually does), the nexus is inherently there, and it is quite obvious. There is no separation, not even an essential and substantive distinction, between possessing coins and performing validation by the validators in PoS. The validators derive their acting power and benefit directly from the very fact that they hold “shares” of this common enterprise. The shares in essence are non-distinguishable among all shareholders, except for a nonessential difference in the manner in which they receive a ‘dividend’.

Whether they are staking to become a validator or not, they are all investing into this same enterprise (the common enterprise). This makes the PoS coin holders essentially the same as any shareholders who have shares of a conventional enterprise, and therefore are holders of a security.

In other words, with PoS, coin purchasers effectively buy shares of a common enterprise which runs the PoS-based blockchain creation and validation business. They are all shareholders of the common enterprise. When some shareholders happen to also stake for validation using the shares and thus receive an extra benefit, they are nonetheless still shareholders of the same common enterprise and do not change the non-staking coin purchasers’ role as shareholders either. This is akin to a company’s equity shareholders who are also workers or employees of the company receiving an extra benefit in wage compensation, except that PoS ties the stakes even more directly with the compensation by not even requiring the “shareholder employees” to perform real work other than exercising voting rights proportional to each one’s shares.

No requisite nexus in genuine PoW
In contrast, with PoW, mining nodes derive their benefit by performing real work. The fact that a mining node may also own some coins (bitcoin for example) is merely incidental. The ownership of the coins does not constitute the business of mining. Performing the mining work does. There is a fundamental separation between possessing coins and performing mining work by the PoW miners.

In other words, even if one could characterize holders of bitcoin as some kind of investors who have invested in something, that ‘something’ is not an identifiable “common enterprise” in active operation. Rather, they just purchased a thing (a commodity), not the share of a common enterprise.

First, they did not invest in an issuer to create more coins. The issuer of bitcoin, namely Satoshi, issued all the coins all at once in the beginning without having any coin purchasers’ participation. The bitcoin issuer isn’t a continuing enterprise that needs investment. In the case of bitcoin, the truth is that Satoshi the issuer would have received no money either directly or indirectly from the investments by others had he not himself mined coins as a miner on the exactly the same terms as the other miners. And the fact that the issuer did also do mining is coincidental and has no inherent relationship with the issuer identity.

Second, the coin purchasers did not invest in the mining business. It is the shareholders of the mining companies who have invested into the mining business, and these shareholders are a different category than the coin holders.

Third, the coin purchasers did not invest in a common infrastructure development business. Shareholders of the blockchain infrastructure development companies have invested into the development business, but again they are a different category than the coin holders.

The spirit of the law
Lastly, looking beyond the letters of the law, it is relevant to consider the spirit of the law as well. The spirit of the securities law including the Howey test is to protect investors from issuers/sellers of certain things that have a strong speculative nature. There is a twofold reason why “securities” as a category are particularly risky: first, those behind securities are strongly motivated to get investors’ money; and second, the investors on the other hand are strongly drawn to a prospect of receiving a return without actually participating in the enterprise that is supposed to create the underlying return. When a common enterprise exists as a center of gravity to pull many investors in, you want some protection for the public.

The securities law does not make fundraising illegal per se. It just subjects fundraising process to certain regulatory requirements.

However, almost none of the existing crypto coins and tokens was issued and exchanged in a manner that satisfies such regulatory requirements. Therefore, to be legal, a crypto must pass a negative Howey test and is thus considered not to be a security.

For this purpose, a digital asset that runs on a genuine decentralized PoW consensus with a base protocol locked according to the law passes a negative Howey test and may not be a security, because such an asset has not a common enterprise that exists as the center of gravity.

Especially, if the digital asset is further designed to primarily serve as a nontrading utility, empirically there tends to be even less likely to form a center of gravity that is in itself speculative and also attracts speculating investors.

An example of a nonsecurity digital asset
One distinct example is Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).

BSV is the original Bitcoin according to the whitepaper “A Peer-to-Peer electronic cash system“. It is based on genuine Proof-of-Work (POW); and has a locked base protocol according to the law.

Not only the legal theory, but also the actual evidence supports the lack of a gravity center acting as a force to attract speculative investors.

Due to is designed emphasis of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) cash payment utility (versus “digital gold” and “store of value” narratives), BSV clearly has far less attraction to pure speculative investors. The way the market has treated BSV is in fact a harsh and bitter showing that BSV can only succeed on its having developed real utility, and not by merely selling a narrative. (But is it not would it should be like in a real world of business?)

But at the same time, this rather peculiar phenomenon is also circumstantial evidence that BSV is not a security but a commodity which lives or dies based on its utility.

As the BSV’s ecosystem further develops, coin purchasers are more and more purchasing the satoshi tokens for the utility (to actually use them) rather than with a mere expectation of profit.

In the case of BSV, the empirical behavior and the legal theory are in harmony. Both the lack of an investable common enterprise and the lack of nexus in an actually invested common enterprise, along with the asset’s being centered around utility, clearly demonstrated a nonsecurity asset.

Conclusion
A requisite “nexus” is found in PoS or even PoW that does not have a base protocol locked according to the law, but not in genuine PoW with a base protocol locked according to the law. The only digital asset that is not a security is one that satisfies both the following two conditions: (1) is based on genuine Proof-of-Work (POW); and (2) has a locked base protocol according to the law. Empirically, the asset should be essentially a utility asset rather than a speculative one.

Thanks to Mr.GAO source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pow-pos-howey-test-zeming-m-gao/

newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 33
Quote

How blockchain and IPv6 will impact future online communities

There’s a lot of knowledge floating around on the internet, but it’s not always easy to find, especially in the blockchain space. Even with Google, many gems get tucked away in Twitter threads, LinkedIn posts, or YouTube videos. As a result, many online communities share news faster than people can verify or even find, leading to many misunderstandings.

In early July 2022, user Ken Shishido transcribed a pertinent clip about IPv6 and blockchain from [ur=https://youtu.be/18ky06XJh_ol]an interview with Latif Ladid[/url], Founder and President of the IPv6 Forum. The transcript gives some insights into changes that impact everyone but mainstream misses:

I started the ipv6 forum back in 1999 when the ipv6 task force at the ITF(Internet Task Force) had released the draft of the IPv6 RFC(Request for Comments) 2460.

It was back in December 1998, and at that time that group had to be dissolved because the work had been finished. So the best way to continue the work is to start the IPv6 Forum in order to disseminate and promote IPv6 deployments around the world.

We knew that the address space back in 1992 was going to be depleted fast because the Internet was opened in 1991 by Al Gore. He basically opened the NFS net which became the first internet. And at that time, we already knew that the ipv4 address space was depleted by 40.

So the call for a new protocol was made by the ITF with an RFC. Then many proposals have been made such as IPv6, IPv7 IPv8 and IPv9. And after five years of work IPv6 was selected and then we started promoting the IPA section.

The first killer application was basically 3g. After 10 years, the ipv4 address space was depleted back in 2011. As a matter of fact on the 2nd of February 2011 and since that time we have run out of central address space.

But the registries and the ISPs still has some so they could still use it up to now but in the meantime we have deployed now IPv6 worldwide. About 45 percent in the world are using it without knowing it. And that’s the purpose of it.

We have the major organizations and the major ISPs and also some governments now are pushing for an IPv6 only by 2025 primarily U.S. governments or the U.S. government networks. They would like to achieve something like 80 IPv6 only by 2025.

After the first inflection point with 3g 4g 5g, blockchain is the next biggest one. Basically, blockchain is designed for IPv6 even people didn’t know that from the start.

It’s an end-to-end solution. There are not many end-to-end solutions on this planet. So some people will think you know it’s a peer-to-peer application. This is beyond peer-to-peer application.

So by using the address space as a source and destination you have the best model of the internet. This is how the Internet had started as an end-to-end model. And we have basically the telecom world made it as a telecom internet by using NAT(Network Address Translation) disrupting the end-to-end model.

IPv6 has restored it exactly for an application like blockchain because it needs the end-to-end model so you can do better job than just as an application you can do it by using the end-to-end model.

In this case, using the IPv6 address on both sides, you can route between the two of them and you don’t need anybody in between to tell you what you’re doing.

Blockchain will add fundamental approach how the internet should be functioning also by making small amounts very tiny amounts which can accumulate for many people that are doing transactions over the Internet.

Payment option was not included in the Internet at the beginning. And I think blockchain with BSV is kind of restoring what did not happen on the Internet at the beginning.

But we will have a lot of work to do you know to educate and to get best practices and push the right messages to governments, to regulators, to the ISPs and other industries.

Because blockchain is not one single solution so you’ve got so many competing solutions today and everyone is claiming victory and so on.

There is a bit of chaos in this area and we would like to support only the one that is going to be the winner with IPv6. And I think the BSV Blockchain is a good one.

BSV Association is very important you know to get the education out there. We have to explain what is BSV and what is blockchain along our common terms because as I mentioned earlier on there’s a lot of education because the confusion has already happened.

So we have to detach BSV Blockchain from all the crypto stuff and so on and so forth. We don’t want to be supporting a kind of royal casino for the entire planet. That’s not the purpose of this work. We want to get everyone to be involved.

Changes that occur without even knowing it

The reason for sharing the above is because a large majority of digital currency, Web3, NFTs, and even blockchain users are barely aware of the moves being made in the background. Especially when it comes to infrastructure upgrades of the internet itself, but that doesn’t stop users from taking advantage of all the benefits.

For the most part, average users don’t need to. However, if you are a builder in this space, it may be vital to understand what’s happening to have confidence in the foundation levels you are building. As this then impacts the communities you serve.

For “community-builders,” this means being aware of the platforms you choose to use if you want to be ‘Web3 native.’ Despite the hype and popularity of chains like Ethereum and Solana, they might not be around if IPv6 technology pairs with a blockchain like BSV.

In the earlier transcription, there’s a line that reveals the realities of the digital infrastructure implementation or upgrades, “About 45 percent in the world are using it [IPv6] without knowing it.” And it may very well be the case for blockchain implementation, regardless of the noise that surrounds all the competing projects on social media and mainstream news.

Blockchain sits one layer deeper than the subsequent application layers we’re used to hearing about—from Silicon Valley unicorns to any other large tech giant that’s made its money from an application.

When it comes to infrastructure, just think about plumbing and pipes. They are relatively unsexy concepts but are pivotal to describing how information flows across the internet via protocols.

Blockchain (and subsequently Bitcoin) serves a purpose in realizing the internet’s full potential, re-enabling true peer-to-peer (or IP-to-IP) communication that should’ve been there decades ago.

Communities & PII

When it comes to online communities, the pairing of IPv6 and blockchain technology means more reliable systems to support online communication (and more). Any resulting trust stems from a straightforward mechanism: transparency and immutability.

Right now, many communities suffer from associated platform hacks, leakages, and, subsequently, the selling of data (e.g., Personally Identifiable Information or ‘PII’). Although this activity is not unique to the internet, IPv6 and blockchain can help reduce such things and make it easier to track or incriminate.

Some may be against being ‘tracked’ because it feels very Orwellian. However, suppose everyone shares the same base layer (e.g., a single blockchain), can own personal data, and firewall their PII. In this case, you secure privacy while benefiting from a publicly shared ledger. It is similar to how we all use the same internet.

Anonymity & criminal behavior

According to Eric Roberts, a professor of Computer Science at Standford University, his research into anonymity and criminal tendencies have shown that anonymity almost always leads to criminal behavior. And the reason for this makes sense once you think it through to its completion:

Anonymity, because it inherently removes a person’s association with his actions, allows conduct without consequence, and therefore non-accountability; likewise, when fully identified, a person can be tracked down and punished for his behavior. If a member of a community is not accountable for his own actions, he can commit crime without consequence. It makes sense, then, that crime is more likely when punishment is not a risk. In the case of pseudonymity, even if punishment of the person is impossible, the reputation of the pseudonym within the community will suffer, as other members will know to avoid him.

And it is this distinction between anonymity and [ur=https://coingeek.com/blockchain-privacy-explained/l]pseudonymity[/url] that people interchange unknowingly. While the idea of anonymity may sound like fun initially, research has shown that it eventually leads to harmful or destructive community behavior.

For communities to feel ‘safe,’ they need to know they can trust what they’re using. While trust comes in various forms, if the base technology layer is shaky, everything else contributes to an eventual distrust of the whole. You can see symptoms manifesting with the rise in cybercrimes, platform hacks, and various other issues.

Watch: Dr. Craig Wright’s keynote speech: A Better Internet with IPv6 and BSV Blockchain at the BSV Global Blockchain Convention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhD4sRrHPs

Thank you to George Siosi Samuels. Source https://coingeek.com/how-blockchain-and-ipv6-will-impact-future-online-communities/


newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 33
The answer is just do SPV correct, Satoshi told ya

https://youtu.be/-j9Kvvm2xxc

Why Merkle tree,

Why ordering

Why BerkeleyDB

Why all those Op_codes

...


There are answers- but not SegWit coin

Yes is correct. That said I don't know if BlockStream really understand Bitcoin or if he does it on purpose...

Quote
"BlockStream CEO admits that BTC is broken and needs to be fixed (likely with inflation of the 21M coin cap or Proof of Stake), but don't worry he says there is no plan and to  "just buy and stay calm":


And to say that for all these years these guys have been misleading the consumer by selling them BTC as real Bitcoin. I wonder if this deception is justiciable?

newbie
Activity: 7
Merit: 39
Quote


nChain Joins the First Blockchain Smart Pool as a Founder

Tiered pricing ensures entrepreneurs and start-ups can drive adoption of blockchain technology while larger organizations can efficiently manage a key risk to product development

PARIS, FRANCE, March 9, 2022 /EINPresswire.com/ — nChain, an enterprise-grade blockchain company, and IPwe, today announced nChain as the first Founder of the Blockchain Smart Pool. This new mechanism provides established businesses and entrepreneurs an accessible path to build blockchain-based solutions through a robust portfolio of patents, starting with over 1,250 patents and patent applications from nChain.

Blockchain Smart Pool Highlights:
• The Smart Pool can facilitate the adoption and product development needed for blockchain technology to become part of global technology infrastructure.
• The Smart Pool was launched less than one month ago and already has over 40 members.
• Tiered pricing starting with free membership for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with annual revenues of less than US$1 million making participation easy for SMEs.
• US$500 memberships for SMEs with annual revenues of between $1 million and $10 million.
• Pricing for the largest enterprises in the world with revenues over $10 billion is US$225,000, which is significantly less than typical pricing for patent pools in other industries.
• Participation in the Smart Pool does not require members to make long-term commitments of their innovations.
• Through membership, participants reduce their due diligence efforts required to assess existing inventions and thus more efficiently manage a key commercial risk with the opportunity to build on and improve innovation in the blockchain ecosystem.

“nChain has made a significant investment in blockchain innovation and we are confident our patent portfolio represents one of the most valuable collections of IP in the industry. That said, we are in the early stages of a technology that we believe will become as prevalent in enterprise IT solutions as cloud infrastructure is today and to achieve this level of penetration, we want to see ecosystem-wide growth,” stated Hakan Yuksel, CEO of nChain. “We are confident our products and solutions have a unique value proposition and our success will be bolstered when the enterprise blockchain ecosystem grows overall. Becoming a Founder of this Smart Pool is an intelligent way to make this happen.”

“Entering the blockchain space in 2018, we identified Dr. Craig Wright and nChain as top five global innovators. We have established Smart Pools in high growth technology areas like the metaverse and digital link to encourage adoption, protect SMEs and deter abusive behavior. They are economically simple, lower the cost of compliance to attractive levels and include significant upside benefit,” stated Erich Spangenberg, CEO of IPwe. “We saw other potential solutions in the blockchain market but found they all constrain the ability for SMEs to grow and develop competitive commercial positions. With our offering, potential financial returns are compelling for both Founders and Members, especially SMEs. We look forward to announcing additional global innovation leaders as Founders and Members in the coming weeks.”

By attracting the right global Founders, namely those with important innovations to offer the world, and in leveraging the IPwe Platform to offer standardized licensing terms at the lowest rates available, IPwe and nChain expect the Blockchain Smart Pool to be a leading hub for those driving utility-based applications of blockchain technology.

To request more information on the Blockchain Smart Pool, please visit www.ipwe.com.

 

About nChain
Founded in 2015, nChain advances the potential of blockchain technology through ongoing research and development of inventions, maintenance of a robust patent portfolio and by offering commercial solutions such as Kensei, a developer-friendly set of APIs built on the BSV blockchain.  nChain also offers solutions in the digital payment space as well as professional services to assist enterprises of all types benefit from blockchain technology.

nChain Media Contact
Sean Griffin
Director, Communications & Corporate Development
[email protected]

About IPwe
IPwe is the world’s first global innovation platform leveraging the power of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology. Through the IPwe Platform, large enterprises, SMEs, owners, those looking to enhance their innovation profiles and those with a legal, technical or financial focus benefit from IPwe’s mission to empower innovation in emerging technologies. IPwe is committed to improving ROI whether measured by dollar returns, jobs created, ventures launched, or problems solved by increasing transparency, lowering costs and enhancing returns for the entire innovation ecosystem.



Source: https://ipwe.com/nchain-joins-blockchain-smart-pool-as-a-founder/
newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 33
Quote
"If you look at the 45 largest exchanges and you do a complete analysis of the spread with how much is available in BTC....

There are 29,218,476 BTC for sale today."


https://twitter.com/cryptorebel_SV/status/1539315517915164673





Quote
newbie
Activity: 7
Merit: 39
Quote
Barcelona · June 26-28, 2022 - European Blockchain Convention 2022. The event will feature 100+ speakers.

The most influential blockchain & digital asset event in Europe is back in business! After three virtual editions, the European Blockchain Convention is returning to its live and in-person format on June 26-28 in Barcelona, Spain.

Take the opportunity to be part of the biggest gathering of European blockchain and digital asset enthusiasts in a three-day event to meet with startups, investors, brands, and developers changing the technology and business sectors.

The event will also feature 100+ speakers across various panels, keynotes, workshops and fireside chats to give you reports and insights on the current state of blockchain, DeFi, NFTs, and Web3.

Appearing in a panel discussion on Tuesday, June 28 at 5:20pm (GMT+2) is HandCash co-founder and CTO Rafa Jiménez, who will talk about the role HandCash is playing in building the Metaverse economy.

To give you the best convention experience, EBC2022 will be held at the luxurious 5-star Hyatt Regency Barcelona Tower in Barcelona’s new business and financial district.

You can visit the official website of EBC2022 to register and get more information about the event.

Join us for an exciting convention, and let’s discover how blockchain technology is fast shaping the world!

https://eblockchainconvention.com/
newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 33
Quote
☠️ If you own Bitcoin or cryptoshitcoins, use AMD or INTEL then you should read this....

Scientists from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Washington say that attackers can use a vulnerability called "Hertzleed" to gain access to private keys in cryptographic libraries.

The problem has been identified in Intel's 8th to 11th generation desktop and laptop chips based on the Core microarchitecture, as well as AMD Ryzen chips based on the Zen 2 and Zen 3 architectures. The vulnerability was reported by Tom's Hardware Computer Division.

Earlier this year, Intel introduced its own processor for cryptocurrency mining.

Hertzleed attack

Hertzbleed is a new type of side-channel attack based on dynamic frequency management features (hence the name: Hertz (Hertz) and bleed (data suppression)). The study states:

"In the worst case, these attacks allow access to cryptographic keys on remote servers by analysing the computation time in cryptographic libraries. Previously, these libraries were considered hacker-proof.

The Hertzbleed attack analyses the dynamic frequency under various workloads and breaks the encryption by guessing and manipulating the ciphertext.

Dynamic frequency and voltage scaling (DVFS) is a feature that reduces power consumption. However, attackers can understand the difference in power consumption by analysing the server response time to certain requests.

"Hertzbleed is a real and practically possible security threat," the researchers noted.


How to protect yourself

Intel and AMD currently have no plans to deploy Hertzleed firmware patches, but there are steps users can take themselves.

Chip manufacturers advise disabling dynamic frequency control to protect against Hertzbleed. On Intel processors it is called Turbo Boost, and on AMD it is called Turbo Core or Precision Boost. Companies are confident that this will not affect processor performance.

According to senior director of public relations and incident response Jerry Bryant, this attack has no practical application outside the lab, as it would take an hour or even days to steal the keys. He also added that "cryptographic solutions that are immune to side-channel power analysis attacks are not affected by this vulnerability.


https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-hertzbleed-cpu-vulnerability-boost-clock-speed-steal-crypto-keys/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/vdlsv2/if_you_own_bitcoin_or_cryptoshitcoins_use_amd_or/

🍿 Do not take this lightly. All hot wallets of all exchanges (and more) are directly affected.
Never leave your cryptos online, on exchanges. Privilege a cold wallet, or offline wallet, even paper wallet are more efficient.
newbie
Activity: 5
Merit: 12
Quote
☠️ If you own Bitcoin or cryptoshitcoins, use AMD or INTEL then you should read this....

Scientists from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Washington say that attackers can use a vulnerability called "Hertzleed" to gain access to private keys in cryptographic libraries.

The problem has been identified in Intel's 8th to 11th generation desktop and laptop chips based on the Core microarchitecture, as well as AMD Ryzen chips based on the Zen 2 and Zen 3 architectures. The vulnerability was reported by Tom's Hardware Computer Division.

Earlier this year, Intel introduced its own processor for cryptocurrency mining.

Hertzleed attack

Hertzbleed is a new type of side-channel attack based on dynamic frequency management features (hence the name: Hertz (Hertz) and bleed (data suppression)). The study states:

"In the worst case, these attacks allow access to cryptographic keys on remote servers by analysing the computation time in cryptographic libraries. Previously, these libraries were considered hacker-proof.

The Hertzbleed attack analyses the dynamic frequency under various workloads and breaks the encryption by guessing and manipulating the ciphertext.

Dynamic frequency and voltage scaling (DVFS) is a feature that reduces power consumption. However, attackers can understand the difference in power consumption by analysing the server response time to certain requests.

"Hertzbleed is a real and practically possible security threat," the researchers noted.


How to protect yourself

Intel and AMD currently have no plans to deploy Hertzleed firmware patches, but there are steps users can take themselves.

Chip manufacturers advise disabling dynamic frequency control to protect against Hertzbleed. On Intel processors it is called Turbo Boost, and on AMD it is called Turbo Core or Precision Boost. Companies are confident that this will not affect processor performance.

According to senior director of public relations and incident response Jerry Bryant, this attack has no practical application outside the lab, as it would take an hour or even days to steal the keys. He also added that "cryptographic solutions that are immune to side-channel power analysis attacks are not affected by this vulnerability.


https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-hertzbleed-cpu-vulnerability-boost-clock-speed-steal-crypto-keys/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/vdlsv2/if_you_own_bitcoin_or_cryptoshitcoins_use_amd_or/
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 46
✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯
Quote

If your cryptoShitcoins are locked in Celsius Network. This may help you.

https://twitter.com/jbrowder1/status/1536907143592300545?s=20&t=BH3AR-Bt2uQs42CAyBkzZw

Other solution, why don't you do like Craig Wright and ask for a court seizure of your stolen coins, so the miners can transfer your coins to you in the name of their legal responsibilities to maintain the BTC, BCH, DOGE .... networks ?



Pages:
Jump to: