The most important aspect of bitcoin that needs to be pushed constantly is ownership.

Bitcoin is designed to remove disputes in small transactions. It is not designed to replace the financial system and the process of course and recovery for large transactions and holdings. When you make a large payment, the information is concerning identity is not something that you can opt-out of. Identity can be isolated only in small casual transactions.
 
The bitcoin whitepaper defines a chain of ownership. The White Paper does not define the ability to sell identity because this is not something that is available. You do not own your identity, you are associated with your identity and it can never change. Ownership is related to something that you can buy and sell. You cannot own a person. Slavery is not available in our societies. You can only own things that are property and your identity is not proper.

When I created bitcoin, I was not looking at solving existing solve problems of transferring large amounts of money. It is very simple to transfer large amounts of money over the existing Internet. It was very simple twenty years ago to transfer large amounts of money. The problem that needed solving and remains in need of solving is the ability to send amounts under one cent.

When you send small amounts over the Internet, identity does not matter. The rules that are associated with KYC do not kick in until you reach a value of hundreds of dollars or more. In some instances, it can be thousands of dollars. Bitcoin never needed for this level of transaction. By law, once you exceed the AML/KYC level the merchant needs to know your identity. They do not need to know your identity when you’re buying a coffee or paying twenty cents access to a paper or article.

This completely ignorant myth that bitcoin is going to replace central banks is completely utterly asinine.

For large transactions, exchanges and other entities are legally required to verify your identity. This is a process that can be incorporated into wallets. The existing regulations within the UK and Europe already cover this for amounts over €200. MLD5 is already law.

Every single note that is transferred as cash out of the bank is recorded. Every serial number on every note that goes into every bank is recorded. It has been for a long time. This concept that bitcoin is different is wrong because just like banks, cash is traceable.

I have pointed out before that the Yorkshire Ripper was in part found because of the serial number of a 5 pound note.

Bitcoin will never replace Fiat for anything other than small transactions

There will never be sufficient bitcoin to replace money in the global economy

To replace the global economy would require more than bitcoin can ever do. The size of blocks would have to be in zetabytes, the number of tokens would have to be 10^15 times as large. You would have to have agreement between governments.

Bitcoin is not designed and nor can it be designed to replace standard transactions and money across the entire society.

The people making that myth are simply trying to promote a false agenda to pump bitcoin

The thing that is important in bitcoin is that it can do micro payments and that it is a public ledger. All of the other mythology is completely utterly boring and useless. It is selling a myth of money based on lies to people who are upset with government problems that are generally nothing to do with government but their own inability to save and reduce their spending levels.

Too many people have been promised a path out of working into a life of leisure with no responsibility and they think that they are owed this. You are not. If you want to build a future you need to work and save and it can take decades. The myth of instant riches that has promoted by social media is toxic.

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614420697350100?thread_ts=1614420697.350100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2024

So, the simple thing here is you may not like how digital currency works, but who cares.

I created a digital currency system. Bitcoin is a digital cash system that has a chain of ownership.

If people don't like that, first of all read my White Paper and figure out that that's exactly what the White Paper states it is and hence that's what the protocol means

Next, if you think you can do better and create your version of crypto currency that is completely anonymous, go for it I'm not stopping you but I'm also not helping you and I can definitively tell you that it will never be a solution based on the Blockchain because the security of any Blockchain based system is the public and I mean utterly public dissemination of information.

You cannot have an encrypted system that is completely public

This should be a really, really and I'll emphasise again a really simple thing to understand.

You cannot create an encrypted system that requires public verification.

As such, bitcoin is the anti-crypto currency

If bitcoin exists, and it is open, it will never be an acceptable option

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614443319427400?thread_ts=1614443319.427400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2031

These can be built into systems like bitcoin and identity can be constructed but that is not covered in bitcoin

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2026

London 22 April 2021 –

London’s High Court this week granted permission for litigation law firm ONTIER LLP to serve legal proceedings for copyright infringement against ‘Cøbra’, the pseudonymous operator and publisher of the bitcoin.org website on behalf of their client, Bitcoin’s creator, Dr Craig Wright.
The bitcoin.org website, which promotes the digital asset referred to as ‘Bitcoin Core’, is hosting and publishing a copy of Dr Wright’s academic White Paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, without Dr Wright’s
consent. Dr Wright owns the copyright to the White Paper, which he authored and first released in October 2008 under the now-famous moniker ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’.
ONTIER, on Dr Wright’s behalf, had previously written to ‘Cøbra’, informing them that they were infringing Dr
Wright’s copyright and requesting that they remove the White Paper from the website. ‘Cøbra’, whose real name
remains unknown, has refused to comply with this request.

Proceedings were issued on 24 February 2021 in the intellectual Property List of the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. On 21 April 2021, Dr Wright was granted permission to serve ‘Cøbra’ out of the jurisdiction.
Dr Wright is seeking a declaration that he owns the copyright in the Bitcoin White Paper, which ‘Cøbra’ is infringing.

It is not Dr Wright’s intention to silence or intimidate anyone, merely to protect his inherent rights to his own intellectual property. Similarly, Dr Wright does not wish to restrict access to his White Paper (which is freely accessible on his blog, https://craigwright.net/bitcoin-white-paper.pdf) but does not agree that it should be used by supporters and developers of alternative assets, such as Bitcoin Core, to promote or otherwise misrepresent those
assets as being Bitcoin given that they do not support or align with the vision for Bitcoin as he set out in his White Paper.

Dr Wright is being advised by ONTIER’s Head of Litigation, Paul Ferguson, with Partner, Derek Stinson, and Senior
Associate, Simon Cohen. Alastair Wilson QC and Michael Hicks of Hogarth Chambers are instructed as Counse

UK Court Grants Permission for Bitcoin Copyright Infringement Claim

wright-v-cobra-ontier-press-release.pdf

https://uk.ontier.net/news/2363/uk-court-grants-permission-for-bitcoin-copyright-infringement-claim/en/

https://t.me/RamonQuesadaNews/8767

_*To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power.*_

To solve the double spending problem, a peer-to-peer network of economically incentivised to validators was implemented using a publicly auditable trail.

Where the Whitepaper states, "to solve this", it refers not to trust or a concept of ownership, very specifically to the way that all solutions have been "incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending".

Bitcoin implemented an overlay network of users and validator nodes. Uses of the bitcoin system are able to exchange transactions directly over methodologies such as IP to IP or by leaving transactions on the blockchain that can be collected later. In this, the validators act in place of a trusted intermediary to ensure that no double spends, or invalid transactions are allowed. There is a public auditable record of all transactions that occur on the bitcoin network. Any individual can choose to select and view any transaction on the blockchain and ensure that it is accurate.

This however is not necessary due to the competitive nature of the proof of work system within bitcoin. Miners will validators do not seek to get the solution to a block, they seek to find a valid block solution and hash puzzle and have this propagated to all other miners, or at least the majority of them, prior to any other solution being discovered. When a block is discovered, each miner validates that block. They do this as bitcoin is a zero-sum game. Where a miner has discovered a solution to invalid block, the other miners will quickly invalidate it as there are a fixed number of blocks to be discovered in any time period. The system is constructed with a two-week difficulty period that leads to a fixed adjustment every 2016 blocks. The consequence of this is that miners compete not only to find a solution but to invalidate erroneous blocks from other miners. Miners self-regulate and self-enforced their own network.

The system works as long as the majority of miners remain honest and are not able to collude to cheat the system. The only real attack is the ability to double spend. This would allow a miner or other individual to collude in order to defraud a merchant or other party out of a payment. In doing this, the person submitting the transaction to be double spend and the miner colluding with them would be using a false representation or engaged in other forms of deceit. This is analogous to criminal cases where the defendant has used their credit card in full knowledge that they have exceeded their credit limit. They have made a purchase using a false representation that they had the authority to use the card and that the card issuer would honour the transaction (R v Lambie [1982] A.C. 449 HL).

This is a deceit-based crime as the perpetrator will have needed to sign multiple transactions using the same input coin. That is, they have fraudulently represented that the coin that they are giving to a merchant is unencumbered.

This scenario is possible where an individual believes they will get away with the act. One of the key aspects of fraud is a belief that you can commit the crime and not be detected. In the case of miners, both transactions would be available on the network. In particular, both the merchant and the miner would hold separate signed transactions. The merchant would be able to demonstrate that other miners had a copy of a publicly available double spent transaction. In some ways, this is analogous to a scenario where a criminal tries to pass off a fraudulent check and then comes back and delivers a signed statement that they have committed a crime around 10 minutes later.

CSW
Sep 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569339721257300?thread_ts=1569339673.256900&cid=C5131HKFX

CSW
Apr 23, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619203325384000?thread_ts=1619203325.384000&cid=C5131HKFX

"The word attack or attacker is used 24 times in the Whitepaper."

CSW
Sep 26, 2019
3/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2080

The word honest is important in the bitcoin White Paper. By nature the alternative for an attacker is dishonest. For fraud to be demonstrated, it requires dishonesty. It also requires that the attacker or dishonest miner is acting with an intent to make again for himself or another or even to cause loss to another entity even to expose another to a risk of loss.

CSW
Sep 26, 2019
2/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2079

_Hal Finney has implemented a variant of bit gold called RPOW (Reusable Proofs of Work). This relies on publishing the computer code for the "mint," which runs on a remote tamper-evident computer. The purchaser of of bit gold can then use remote attestation, which Finney calls the transparent server technique, to verify that a particular number of cycles were actually performed._

https://web.archive.org/web/20060329122942/https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

I wonder if anyone's ever noticed that Nick Szabo's so-called idea is just ecash ?

It's an ecash methodology selling Adam Backs hashcash. That is, not a set of competing systems but rather a bank or other entity who sells a solution of a particular depth. For instance, you could have different levels of coin based on the number of zeros in the useful proof of work. It doesn't actually satisfy double spends at all. More importantly, it is literally just an ecash based system with a central bank offering tokenised coins.

There is no distributed peer network here. In fact he never understood that concept. The concept is one where a shadow bank issues tokens of a particular level of difficulty. To these guys, Moore's law was actually a problem because the difficulty changed over time. This is why bit gold failed. The plan had been to create something along the lines of EGold. The central body would be able to issue a bit gold token. That would then be tradable.

The EGold all Liberty reserve type platform would be the central party dictating which particular spend had happened first in the same way that digicash did this with Banks. Effectively, the entire plan was to replicate the existing banking system without involving banks. That is, they would create a shadow bank system. Different levels of token would have been tied to different monetary amounts. The problem they had was that they could not set the value of each token so that it could be stable. No idea of economics in these guys.

It utterly fails because they fail to understand the basics of how firms develop. The concept of nobody having a specialisation and everybody doing everything is the foundation of communism. It is directly taken from Marx and the Communist manifesto. These guys are not in any way libertarian. Stalin and Lennin and Mao together a 1000 times closer to being libertarian than any of the cyberpunks.

*The one thing that they are all trying to remove in creating bit gold is a blockchain *

The argument here was that the string of zeros and ones is scarce and therefore it has value. That was literally Szabo's response to the concept of inflation. The nature of decentralisation as they saw it was that anybody could construct a proof of work token and sell it and anybody could have their own tokens. This dates back to Tim May's idea of every single person on earth having their own money. It is one of the most asinine, collectivist/Communist backward ideas demonstrating just how little knowledge of economics these guys have.

This is where lightning and other things come into it. This is why Greg Maxwell said that bitcoin was broken. To them, bitcoin is broken. It is designed as the opposite of all they sought to create. It is designed to be the anti-bit gold, not they even knew what the hell bit gold was until well into 2011. Wei Dai had pointed me towards Nick Szabo, but I still saw nothing interesting and didn't even read about it.

I only finally read about it because people kept telling me how similar it was to bitcoin. And then I started realising just how little they understood about bitcoin and how much they wanted something else.

This is where this concept of trust being distributed came from as well. It is not the trust model noted in the bitcoin White Paper. That is this sort of model :
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/1147/

CSW
Nov 1, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572607388248500

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2089

1/2
*Today's myth busting lesson.*

You cannot gain security by hashing a file. The myth that is propagated is that bitcoin miners secure bitcoin through hashing. This is absolutely incorrect. A hash is not a security function. A Hash may be part of a protocol that delivers security that cannot deliver security by itself. A hash is a message authentication and authorisation process and best and even this requires a protocol.

A hash is simply a mathematical means of indexing a file so that you do not need the full file. As any changes to the file, even a single bit, completely change the hash, it is a means of ensuring integrity and that the file itself has not changed.

Bitcoin miners use hashing of puzzles as a proof of work. This provides absolutely zero security. What it does, is demonstrate an investment. It is not the amount of hash rate that secures a network but rather the signal issued by the miner that they are willing to play by the rules and have something at risk.

What people fail to understand, is that hash rate alone is not a security tool. Hash rate is a method of signalling investment. The miner who signals investment demonstrates that they have skin in the game and something to lose. This is an important concept to understand. It is not the hash that secures bitcoin, it is the economic incentive of the invested capital that can be lost.

The reason a private blockchain cannot work stems directly from that statement. It is not the fact that there is a chain of hashes that secures the chain, it is the fact that there are hashes that are public.

The SPV chain allows people external to the miners to maintain a list of attestations. They can do this without having the full file. In collapsing the Merkel tree to a single hash value, you can encapsulate the entire stream of transactions in a single hash. In this, any alterations may be detected. Where you do not have a public chain, it is simple to run multiple chains simultaneously and thus to be able to do the Enron or Bernie Madoff scam. That is, an organisation could simply and easily run multiple sets of books.

The reason section 3 of the Whitepaper states that bitcoin is a timestamp server is that a hash has to be publicly validated by multiple parties at a point in time to be part of a security protocol.

_The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]._

It is for this reason that the bitcoin White Paper states the nature of proof:

_The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the time, obviously, in order to get into the hash. Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it._

Without some form of public attestation, without the hash being publicly recorded, there is no security. The solving of a proof of work puzzle is not what secures the network. As stated, this can provide no security on its own. There is no way to market the value of the token unless it is traded in a public system and openly. Without such a value, any party can set up a system that appears to be valid at face value and yet runs multiple copies with every possible history. This is why system such as hyper ledger and any other private blockchain are incredibly foolish. They are less secure than a native Oracle database with write controls enabled.

CSW
Nov 14, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1573721307272200?thread_ts=1573721307.272200&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2093

2. Transactions - the earliest transaction is the one that counts https://t.me/BitCoinWP

6. Incentive

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block
https://t.me/BitCoinWP

8. Simplified Payment Verification

...One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block,
https://t.me/BitCoinWP

11. Calculations
Binomial Random Walk

Bitcoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitCoinWP


La caminata aleatoria o paseo aleatorio o camino aleatorio, abreviado en inglés como RW (Random Walks),
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino_aleatorio


https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1766678/binomial-random-walk


The first part of this chapter introduces the random walk initially in a form with stochastic shocks generated by a random variable with a binomial distribution. In the simplest version of this process the random variable has two equally likely outcomes resulting in a symmetric binomial random walk. The idea is simple enough and the terminology is due to a problem posed by Pearson (see Hughes, 1995, p.53), although the concept dates from much earlier, originating in games of chance. Starting from the origin, at regular intervals a walker takes equally spaced steps either to the left (north) or to the right (south), with equal probability. The walker’s progress can be plotted in two dimensions by recording the distance from the origin on the vertical axis and the elapsed time on the horizontal axis; for example, one step to the north followed by one step to the south returns the walker to the origin. Such a graph will look like a series of equally sized steps, see Figure 1.1; perhaps surprisingly, the resulting path does not generally oscillate around zero, the theoretical mean of the process. This lack of ‘mean reversion’ is one of the key characteristics of a random walk. In this form the process has its origins in gambling, where the gambler gains or loses an equal amount at each gamble, with equal probability, and intuition might suggest that the gambler is not systematically losing or winning. The ‘distance from the origin’ corresponds to the gambler’s win/lose tally, which is one-dimensional and can be represented on the vertical axis.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230299306_1

Publication date 2008-10-03 https://archive.org/details/bitcoin-a-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash-system

Since 2007. At some point I became convinced there was a way to do this without any trust required at all and couldn't resist to keep thinking about it. Much more of the work was designing than coding.

Users can link identity.

See Section 10 of my Whitepaper.

At no point is identity removed from bitcoin. Rather, in the new privacy model of bitcoin identities are exchanged where needed between individual parties. Today, there are laws for cash and the transaction of money using cash. Because you're using cash does not mean that you can avoid recording identity.

Know your customer requirements, customer due diligence and anti-money laundering laws all cover cash.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-high-value-dealer-registration

Whether it is a single transaction or multiples, where the value is €10,000 or more, the person transacting would require registration as a high-value dealer.

This even applies if you make instalments or payments on account. Bitcoin is a cash money system. Consequently, all of the money laundering regulations concerning cash will apply.

If you're receiving small amounts of money, not only micro-payments but even if you're running a coffee shop or restaurant, there will be no requirement to register as a high-value dealer. A real estate broker offering commercial leases could easily exceed this amount and thus have to require registration.

The majority of exchanges made using bitcoin will not require registration. Any exchange or custodial service will require registration. Local bitcoin and related organisations will require registration. When people go wrong is to think that normal everyday coffee shops and related organisations will require registration.

The need for trust is mitigated using registered identity based keys and hierarchies of linked keys.

CSW
Mar 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1585249153076800?thread_ts=1585249153.076800&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2103