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

There are separate legislations here in the United Kingdom but I won't go into in detail but in the United States, the majority of states in the US have implemented the uniform commercial code.

Article 2 of the UCC governing contracts for sales of goods and other exchanges. and this also covers commodities.

Bitcoin is a commmodity.

The UCC rules concerning sales contracts are mandatory and cannot be mitigated or removed using a warranty

So, where software warranties state that the merchantability doesn't matter, this is not valid.

The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose that comes under UCC section 2-315 does not allow you to exclude parts of the software and being that the bitcoin White Paper promises protection to the buyer and not merely the possessor, this cannot be excluded.

Ownership is defined within the White Paper (p. 2, 6.)

Possession is not.

If you wonder why I have studied international law and letters of credit, why I wrote about documentary credit contracts before bitcoin,

https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/commodities-types-of-contract-disputes

It becomes necessary to remember that bitcoin is a commodity. As a commodity it is covered under a variety of different acts There was always a reason for not making bitcoin an account based system

CSW
May 3, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1620074377419900?thread_ts=1620074377.419900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2182

These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.

Take the time to read this properly.

This does not state that you send to the network and that the network sends to you.

This states that one person can make a payment to another person.

if you don't get that, the following paragraph makes this very clear.

"allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party."
@BitCoinWP

Again, this is not stating that you send to the nodes to validate your transaction it is saying that Bob sends to Alice and that Alice can use the Blockchain to record the transaction

To have the network as the intermediary is to have an intermediary

i.e. a trusted third-party

CSW
May 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1620136352495100?thread_ts=1620136352.495100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2195

Follow up with Quotes

Dr. Craig Wright awarded USA Copyright for Bitcoin White Paper
The USA Copyright office has awarded Dr. Craig Steven Wright the copyright for the original Bitcoin whitepaper, which Dr. Wright originally published online in 2008 under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.
The copyright was awarded after the Copyright office was presented with the concrete proof that Dr. Wright was indeed the author of the seminal paper which started the Bitcoin revolution.
In addition to the original Bitcoin whitepaper, the USA Copyright office awarded Dr. Wright the copyright for most of the original Bitcoin code (version 0.1).
The copyrights can be found here.
 U.S. copyright registration no. TXu 2-136-996, effective date April 11, 2019, for the paper entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, with year of completion 2008. The registration recognizes the author as Craig Steven Wright, using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.
 U.S. copyright registration no. TX-8-708-058, effective date April 13, 2019, for computer program entitled Bitcoin, with year of completion 2009 and date of first publication January 3, 2009. The registration recognizes the author as Craig Steven Wright, using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Wright wrote most of version 0.1 of the Bitcoin client software, and the registration covers the portions he authored.

Wright originally come out as the creator of Bitcoin in 2016, and provided proof to several people, including Gavin Anderson former lead developer of the Bitcoin project. However, the Bitcoin Core (BTC) group, who had commandeered the Bitcoin project, led a successful smear campaign against Dr. Wright.
The group had twisted the original vision of Bitcoin by stifling scaling attempts and creating secondary settlement networks, like the Lighting Network, which take transactions off chain and away from what Bitcoin was meant to be.
It was this bastardization, twisting and crippling of Bitcoin that turned it into what BTC is today. This pushed Wright to lift the Satoshi Nakamoto veil for good.
Dr. Wright explains, “When I wrote the bitcoin Whitepaper, I uploaded it on the bitcoin.org domain so that people would start understanding bitcoin. I've come to understand that few people if any of taken the time to understand what is written in this paper so I have formally published it and registered it with the copyright registry so that I can start teaching people the true meaning of what bitcoin is about and stop people twisting the narrative.”
That twisted narrative lead to criminals, like drug dealers and money launders, to become the face of Bitcoin. The accountability and traceability that the Bitcoin blockchain provides was left on the back burner, and it was marketed to the worst elements of society. Wright could not stand for that.
“The last thing that I said to Gavin Anderson in 2011 when I handed him the control of the code was that "I wish you wouldn't keep talking about me as a mysterious shadowy figure, the press just turns that into a pirate currency angle,” Dr. Wright recalls. “Maybe instead make it about the open source project and give more credit to your dev contributors; it helps motivate them.”
Now that Wright has reclaimed ownership of the Bitcoin whitepaper, he’s hoping his creation can regain the original mission it was meant to have. “Bitcoin was designed to be honest and not another criminal coin,” he said. “It's time for people to learn that and see that I'm (as Satoshi) not just some shady figure because I didn't want publicity”
Dr. Wright will be attending the upcoming CoinGeek Toronto scaling conference, and will feature prominently in a Fireside chat with Bitcoin Association Founding President Jimmy Nguyen. The conversation is bound to have plenty of revelations about the early history of Bitcoin, so it will be well worth attending.

https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registratio

CSW
May 21, 2019
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2220

BitCoin White Paper
En castellano
Traducción:
@breathingdog

https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353

"Bitcoin Whitepaper Series Part 1: Introduction, Transactions, and Timestamp Server" Bitcoin and beyond - 12 sept 2018 - 41:17
https://youtu.be/8UXGMudloTM

"The Majority Decision is Represented by the Longest Chain"" Bitcoin and Beyond - 12 sept 2018 -1h17
https://youtu.be/TwfNBgjaa0o

2- "Miners, Inflation, and The Bitcoin (Cash) Whitepaper" Bitcoin and Beyond - 26 sept 2018 -1h
https://youtu.be/7nqKyfWl5aI

3 "The Bitcoin Whitepaper Series Part 3: Sections 7-12" Bitcoin and Beyond - 03 oct 2018 -1h01
https://youtu.be/rEF5f78gNBU