"By March 2008, Wright testified, he had a handwritten version of what would become the bitcoin white paper. He reduced that to a 40-page typed version, then a 20-page version, then a 10-page version, which is what he sent Dave Kleiman, he said"

Kleiman v. Wright: Craig Wright Takes Stand Again in Final Day of Testimony.
Deirdra Funcheon
Nov 23, 202

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/11/23/kleiman-v-wright-craig-wright-takes-stand-again-in-final-day-of-testimony/

The Great Wiping Controversy.pdf

"Origins of the Bitcoin Whitepaper - Neo4j Tutorial on Digital Forensics and Document Fingerprinting" en YouTube
https://youtu.be/FdQV9ZudZzA

Wright's 'Bitcoin Bible' Copyright Win Slips Challenge - Law360
https://www.law360.com/articles/1449017/wright-s-bitcoin-bible-copyright-win-slips-challenge

It does not matter that 1 million home users find an error. They can’t do anything about it. The only way to report an error and reject the block is to find a new block.
 
Consequently, the entire claim that anything other than a node defined in the White Paper in section 5 that creates blocks matters is false.

It is not just misleading.
 
The claim being presented that UASF nodes have any power in any Blockchain system is misrepresenting the nature of the system as far as to even go into fraudulent misrepresentation, and it is bordering on criminal fraud. Those people promoting this are deceiving investors.

CSW
Jan 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1641415391441100?thread_ts=1641415391.441100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3630

Un tribunal de Londres se negó el miércoles a revisar una decisión que otorgaba al científico informático Craig Wright los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre la "biblia bitcoin". https://law360.com/articles/1449017…

To perjure is to knowingly make misleading or false statements under oath or to sign a legal document that you know to be false or misleading. The claim that these people have not been able to tell what a node is when a node is very clearly defined in my White Paper to be a system that creates blocks is when taken in any other light misleading.

Anybody who tells you that a bitcoin node can be counted if it has never created a block is lying and disseminating a false statement. Those who are bitcoin developers know the difference and understand what a node, is but they are actively promoting a falsehood to cover their lies and crimes.

It will not be me who faces perjury charges. It will be the members of COPA and the BTC developers who have actively promoted a falsehood in court that go and face perjury.

The claim that nodes can be unknown is also false. The Blockchain is always going to broadcast the addresses associated with a node that has found a block. Simply put, any exchange that accepts transactions from a system that is breaching rules and court orders will be cut off from the global financial system and hence, will cease to exist.

Moreover, you can enforce against the known miners. Any miner that fails to implement controls is also going to be held in breach. That is, even if only 50% of miners were known, that would be sufficient because the sale of blocks to exchanges that are unknown would need to be recorded and hence known.

Every single node utilises systems that go through the United States. Everyone users systems that go through Britain and Europe. The so-called claims that these are isolated are false. The Fibre relay network in itself forms a foundation that be acted against.

CSW
Jan 10, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1641822782070800?thread_ts=1641822782.070800&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3690

From the BitCoin White Paper:

- Not double spending.
- Not trusted third party.
- Peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server.
- From one party to another.
- Timestamps transactions by hashing.
- Chain of hash-based proof-of-work.
- Record in a public history of transactions
- Small casual transactions (micro transactions)
- Payment system based on cryptographic proof.
- Protect sellers from fraud.
- Routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented.
- Chronological order of transactions.
- Chain of digital signatures.
- Verify by the chain of
ownership.
- The earliest transaction is the one that counts.
- The proof-of-work solves the decision making.
- The honest chain will grow the fastest.
- Incentive make more profitable to play by the rules.
- Moore's Law, storage should not be a problem.
- Accept alerts from network nodes (WP Section: 8- SPV)
- Privacy: by keeping public keys anonymous.(similar to stock exchanges)
- A new key pair should be used for each transaction.
- Nodes do not need to be identified.


Not from the BitCoin White Paper:
- RBF (Replace By Fees)
- SegWit (Segregated Witness)
- Lingtning Network
- Taproot

https://t.me/BitcoinWP/406

10. Privacy

The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly
precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending
an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.
As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them
from being linked to a common owner. Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input
transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner.

https://t.me/BitcoinWP/403

In the COPA proceeding, the claim statesd that nodes run the network and that (8) “The Bitcoin White Paper also defines, inter alia, the steps required to operate as a computer node of the Bitcoin Network”.[1] This paper states the following:

5. Network
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.

2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.

3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.

4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.

5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.

6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

This process is very clear. In the definition, nodes only “vote” or process transactions through the creation of blocks and by building new blocks on previously broadcast blocks of accepted transactions. The number of nodes that have created blocks is publicly available. At most, 2016 nodes may operate as the difficulty adjustment period of two weeks only allows this number. Further, the claim that nodes can run and create blocks using different software versions is misleading as the other nodes will reject these blocks. The definition of how bitcoin works preclude this.

Bird and Bird want to make one claim in one proceeding and another in a separate one.

CSW
Jan 19, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1642619905047800?thread_ts=1642619905.047800&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3772

There is no accident - that is misleading.

Yes, by stating the client committed a perjury

No. That is not knowledge at that point

The WP is knowledge

CSW
Jan 19, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1642619994048500?thread_ts=1642619994.048500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3774

Equality of the Law
By Craig Wright
21 Jan 2022
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/equality-of-the-law/

https://archive.is/MPVDt

The concept is that everybody in the world HODL a little BTC, and then you have a separate layer where you have a loan in US dollars and other assets. I am sorry, but I fail to see how this is in any way related to the invention I noted in the whitepaper. There is no second layer of digital gold in the White Paper. There is no third-party trusted entity where you take out a fiat-backed loan in the whitepaper

And making a statement that there is any relevance between the two is, in fact, misleading.

In the abstract of my White Paper, I define  “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution”.

I’m sorry to say, but the system of digital gold held in exchanges and used against a fiat-based loan to exchange for US dollars is anything but the definition in my White Paper.

Peer-to-peer electronic cash means that you are exchanging money directly between individuals using the system and not going through third parties. This includes the nodes. The users of the system can send directly between each other. For example, suppose Alice and Bob want to exchange money. In that case, Alice can give a signed transaction incorporating all of the transaction details, including the hash of the invoice that Bob has exchanged with her and any identifying information that needs to be recorded. In giving this directly to Bob, Bob now needs to perfect the transaction by sending it to be recorded on the Blockchain. That is not what is becoming part of BTC or multilayered digital (sort of) gold coin.

CSW
Jan 25, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1643100175383300?thread_ts=1643100175.383300&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3832

Bitcoin addresses are not designed in the same form as PGP keys. There is a lot of cypherpunk mentality that has seeped into my invention. People argue this online and social media to demonstrate the ownership principles of possession created by cyberpunks and criminals. However, this was not how bitcoin is designed.

The same goes for issues such as paper wallet and keys.
The answer to much of this is very simple.

I was not the owner of 1Feex… Rather, as I’ve stated a corporation is the owner of the tokens held in that address. Note how I have said that. Not the company owns the address but rather the company owns the tokens. Addresses should not be reused and when I bought it; it wasn’t that valuable. The transfer was done to a single address. That was how I received it. I received from a third-party and did so for valid consideration.

When I received it, I recorded it on my tax for my company. Not mine personally but, the trust had a couple entities in Australia that linked to it and managed the trust and the Seychelles company.
When you are holding assets for a corporation, you have a fiduciary duty. The duty is not to protect the address but rather the tokens. The transfer of that amount was kept in a paper wallet for years. However, paper wallet can easily be lost or damaged. They can fade even when stored in a safe deposit box. Yes there are alternatives now based on metal and all sorts of other things but even safe-deposit boxes can get damaged. In moving this into a digital format the idea is not to protect the address but rather to protect the contents.

The address is not valuable, the tokens are.

People need to stop thinking cypherpunk PGP mentality and understand that bitcoin is not analogous to these and that the system described in the whitepaper is not similar in any way to PGP.

CSW
Feb 6, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644139009928599

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3928

Ver "Desayuno - Webinar: El libro blanco del Bitcoin" en YouTube
https://youtu.be/OKR5EoA0RrQ

Let me explain something to everyone about bitcoin. The protocol is fixed. There is a unilateral contract that was set in 2009 when the product was released. That contract has no provision for change. Rather, it has a promise of stability. While some of the codes that are currently disabled will not be re-enabled anytime soon others will be. None of this will impact any existing transaction now all that may exist in the future. But, you have no guarantee or promise of when some of the other codes that are not currently used will be implemented and you shouldn’t be developing anything that is based on them.

The operation of nodes is very simply defined in overview in section 5 of my White Paper. This is not negotiable. It does not matter that you don’t like it. It does not matter if you think it can be optimised in a better way or improved. That is it. Simplicity is actually a good thing in complex systems.

There is no consensus on block cap. Honestly, I’m getting tired of this and it should be what can be handled by the majority of nodes. That is by computational power. If the size of the blocks is too large for a node, this is capitalism and that node goes out of business. If you want to run a rasberrypie go to BTC.

In time... It will be an INTERESTING year

I won't say more for the moment

Welcome to another day in Bitcoin

CSW
Feb 23, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1645620494472599?thread_ts=1645620494.472599&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/4055