Before I leave you for the day, point you to the meaning of the word ownership as Black’s legal dictionary defines it.[1] The ownership of bitcoin has been upheld in its real sense across many court cases worldwide and in the UK. Ownership is different from mere possession. Moreover, the ability to have a bailment of assets in bitcoin differentiates it fundamentally. It is the first digital asset that this has been available to. That does not mean you cannot recover; bitcoin is not encrypted. I have stated this many times, and people have dismissed what I’ve said; whilst you cannot recover encrypted assets and files without a key, bitcoin is not encrypted in any way.
I have several papers, work for nChain, and several assignments that I need to get busy with over the next few days so, I shall leave you to cogitate further without my intervention. You may note, I shall be rather quiet for the next few days, I'm not avoiding people but I have assignments for four universities due by the weekend and I have at least eight papers to review for work each of which is about eighty pages in length.
For now, I will leave you with that word and the whitepaper. When you read the whitepaper, note that it defines ownership in the legal sense of the word. The Bitcoin White Paper does not define key holding.
[1] ownership (enacademic.com)
CSW
Feb 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614183557236000?thread_ts=1614183557.236000&cid=C5131HKFX
I have several papers, work for nChain, and several assignments that I need to get busy with over the next few days so, I shall leave you to cogitate further without my intervention. You may note, I shall be rather quiet for the next few days, I'm not avoiding people but I have assignments for four universities due by the weekend and I have at least eight papers to review for work each of which is about eighty pages in length.
For now, I will leave you with that word and the whitepaper. When you read the whitepaper, note that it defines ownership in the legal sense of the word. The Bitcoin White Paper does not define key holding.
[1] ownership (enacademic.com)
CSW
Feb 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614183557236000?thread_ts=1614183557.236000&cid=C5131HKFX
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.
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614420697350100?thread_ts=1614420697.350100&cid=C5131HKFX
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.
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614420697350100?thread_ts=1614420697.350100&cid=C5131HKFX
Forwarded from 2008 361 Satoshi Nakamoto SN (@RamonQuesada 🌷)
TY - JOUR
AU - Nakamoto, Satoshi
PY - 2009/03/24
SP -
T1 - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
JO - Cryptography Mailing list at https://metzdowd.com
ER -
AU - Nakamoto, Satoshi
PY - 2009/03/24
SP -
T1 - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
JO - Cryptography Mailing list at https://metzdowd.com
ER -
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3440802
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3440802
SSRN-id3440802.pdf
322.9 KB
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Forwarded from 2008 Property - Ownership vs Possession (@RamonQuesada 🌷)
Bitcoin is defined in section 2 as a chain of ownership.
You do not gain ownership through theft. Bitcoin is not defined as a chain of mere possession.
CSW
Feb 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614159752410100?thread_ts=1614159682.409900&cid=C5131HKFX
You do not gain ownership through theft. Bitcoin is not defined as a chain of mere possession.
CSW
Feb 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614159752410100?thread_ts=1614159682.409900&cid=C5131HKFX
You will note that I am very specific in the Whitepaper. In the sentence above,
_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._
I have stated that a public history of transactions is created that is computationally impractical for an attacker to change. This is an important aspect that people overlook. I have not stated that bitcoin cannot be changed. If the honest nodes are acting to enforce the system, they can always seek to make the necessary alterations that they are required to do. Miners acting within the law can change the system. Those changes will be recorded. This leaves an audit trail available for all people to inspect and act on if necessary.
It is not impractical for the honest nodes to seek to change the public history while leaving a record of the change. Honest nodes will act to stop people who have been found to be money launderers, drug dealers, dealers and illicit material including stolen art or property or child porn.
When you read that comment in the conclusion to the Whitepaper what you need to consider is the nature of both the statement and its alternative. I have clearly stated that it is computationally impractical for an attacker to seek to change the bitcoin network. To do this they will leave evidence and come under the law.
What is missed in this statement is that I have not said at any point that it is impractical for an honest node working in conjunction with the other nodes to make a change to the bitcoin blockchain or code. By nature, miners are able to vote on the implementation of changes. If they seek to vote to act against the law they will face the consequences the law and this will include confiscation and civil loss.
Bitcoin is not a cryptographic solution, it is not the desired anti-government thing that was wished for by cyberpunks, it is the product of my mind and I believe in law.
CSW
Sep 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569516609039600?thread_ts=1569516387.039500&cid=C5131HKFX
_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._
I have stated that a public history of transactions is created that is computationally impractical for an attacker to change. This is an important aspect that people overlook. I have not stated that bitcoin cannot be changed. If the honest nodes are acting to enforce the system, they can always seek to make the necessary alterations that they are required to do. Miners acting within the law can change the system. Those changes will be recorded. This leaves an audit trail available for all people to inspect and act on if necessary.
It is not impractical for the honest nodes to seek to change the public history while leaving a record of the change. Honest nodes will act to stop people who have been found to be money launderers, drug dealers, dealers and illicit material including stolen art or property or child porn.
When you read that comment in the conclusion to the Whitepaper what you need to consider is the nature of both the statement and its alternative. I have clearly stated that it is computationally impractical for an attacker to seek to change the bitcoin network. To do this they will leave evidence and come under the law.
What is missed in this statement is that I have not said at any point that it is impractical for an honest node working in conjunction with the other nodes to make a change to the bitcoin blockchain or code. By nature, miners are able to vote on the implementation of changes. If they seek to vote to act against the law they will face the consequences the law and this will include confiscation and civil loss.
Bitcoin is not a cryptographic solution, it is not the desired anti-government thing that was wished for by cyberpunks, it is the product of my mind and I believe in law.
CSW
Sep 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569516609039600?thread_ts=1569516387.039500&cid=C5131HKFX
Why on earth would any authority need to capture private keys.
I have not mentioned this in any post. You just need to know the address owned by the malfeasor. Forget an attacker, this is in the rules. Rules by definition are a superset of law. Any system of rules includes law. That is the definition of the word. If you argue that rules don't need to include law, you're doing some Orwellian 1984 bullshit.
The Whitepaper says an attacker. If a valid court order is issued, the attacker would be any individual miner deciding that they don't want to follow the decision of the courts. By not making the change to the blockchain, by not having exchanges follow this any entity that defects and does not implement the change is in contempt of court. If they continue to mine and they have together more than 51%, they have engaged in a computer crime.
It is not an invalid transaction, it's a change to say what the new output is. There is no attacker here is an attack that is a dishonest party. I'm tired of arguing anti-law anarchist bullshit. This is real world. Anarchist crap doesn't exist and never will. In fact it's a disingenuous powerplay mostly by collectivists seeking to implement their own will on others and realising that there are in the minority so that they can't use democratic processes.
The documentation would go on chain. Either linked by hash because BTC is too small and feeble all in full on real bitcoin.
There are less than there are less than 10 miners of any note. An exchange refusing to push the change would immediately become a global criminal organisation. It would be something that government would love to do individuals such as binance. They could basically walk 100 Federal agents into CZ's house, businesses et cetera and sees every asset that he is ever looked at let alone owned.
Bitcoin doesn't exist outside the real world. There is no online version of reality without physical systems and crypto has no value at all without the ability to exchange.
Any BTC fool that wanted to break off and have a forked coin would then have an immediately illegal asset that could not be traded ever. Mere possession would become a crime. You could be arrested and your other assets seized just because you have a copy of the old chain that you're still pushing.
For those in BTC, they seem to forget that digital gold means it has simplified seizure rights like gold. Gold was seized multiple times throughout history.
And here's the thing, seizing a million pennies is far harder than seizing $1 billion of gold.
CSW
Oct 31, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572518489101700?thread_ts=1572511059.077700&cid=C5131HKFX
I have not mentioned this in any post. You just need to know the address owned by the malfeasor. Forget an attacker, this is in the rules. Rules by definition are a superset of law. Any system of rules includes law. That is the definition of the word. If you argue that rules don't need to include law, you're doing some Orwellian 1984 bullshit.
The Whitepaper says an attacker. If a valid court order is issued, the attacker would be any individual miner deciding that they don't want to follow the decision of the courts. By not making the change to the blockchain, by not having exchanges follow this any entity that defects and does not implement the change is in contempt of court. If they continue to mine and they have together more than 51%, they have engaged in a computer crime.
It is not an invalid transaction, it's a change to say what the new output is. There is no attacker here is an attack that is a dishonest party. I'm tired of arguing anti-law anarchist bullshit. This is real world. Anarchist crap doesn't exist and never will. In fact it's a disingenuous powerplay mostly by collectivists seeking to implement their own will on others and realising that there are in the minority so that they can't use democratic processes.
The documentation would go on chain. Either linked by hash because BTC is too small and feeble all in full on real bitcoin.
There are less than there are less than 10 miners of any note. An exchange refusing to push the change would immediately become a global criminal organisation. It would be something that government would love to do individuals such as binance. They could basically walk 100 Federal agents into CZ's house, businesses et cetera and sees every asset that he is ever looked at let alone owned.
Bitcoin doesn't exist outside the real world. There is no online version of reality without physical systems and crypto has no value at all without the ability to exchange.
Any BTC fool that wanted to break off and have a forked coin would then have an immediately illegal asset that could not be traded ever. Mere possession would become a crime. You could be arrested and your other assets seized just because you have a copy of the old chain that you're still pushing.
For those in BTC, they seem to forget that digital gold means it has simplified seizure rights like gold. Gold was seized multiple times throughout history.
And here's the thing, seizing a million pennies is far harder than seizing $1 billion of gold.
CSW
Oct 31, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572518489101700?thread_ts=1572511059.077700&cid=C5131HKFX