El litigio por la creación del White Paper de BitCoin.
Por Ramon Quesada https://foro.bsvespanol.org/t/craig-es-satoshi/64/14?u=ramonquesada

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611169641385000?thread_ts=1611169327.384500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/1968

And we have now left Europe and entered the

- The Final Countdown. Europe (Official Video)
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+final+countdown&docid=607994261061043386&mid=E8A0E403467AE64DCAD4E8A0E403467AE64DCAD4&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

so far Coobieee and crew
https://t.me/joinchat/VNOTBvWDr9d8ZCTc

Did you know that the bitcoin White Paper is included in the bitcoin database.

So, BTC and BCH are publishing a copy of the White Paper

you see, I didn't publish the White Paper I distributed it

So, unauthorised use and distribution is a breach of the copyright

yes, you could create a new Genesis block but then you would still require the old Blockchain to be able to validate all of the UTXO's

and that would still require licensing
so, I guess that's frypan or fire
rock and hard place

Unfortunately, this means they not only have to prove that I'm not Satoshi (i.e. try prove the truth is a lie) but also demonstrate that my version of bitcoin as I originally envisioned it before I even launched it in 2009 mirrors theirs

Oh, and if they act like Mr Ver and try and run away....

you know, jurisdiction issues et cetera and associated reasoning

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611169327384500?thread_ts=1611169327.384500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/1969

"you see, I didn't publish the White Paper I distributed it"

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611170002387600?thread_ts=1611169327.384500&cid=C5131HKFX

"you see, I didn't publish the White Paper I distributed it"

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611170002387600?thread_ts=1611169327.384500&cid=C5131HKFX

The word immutable means the record cannot be changed.

the law dictionary and Black's legal dictionary define this term rather well.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/immutable/

Rolling back the Blockchain is not a viable option as this destroys immutability.

I have noted a few times that accounting ledgers based on double-entry bookkeeping and never changed at the source.

When you make an error in a ledger, you can make corrections.

This is part of the notion of immutability in ledgers.

The bitcoin whitepaper defines the term ownership.

If you want to call your project bitcoin, it is bound by the conditions in the whitepaper.

It is not possession but rather ownership that is defined

I challenge you to read section 2 of my paper and come up with any other definition

Bitcoin is not a chain of digital signatures alone, which in itself by the way implies identity but rather it is as has been noted in the White Paper;

a system where...
"A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership."

Alert key is an alert - identity is separate and distributed

The Alert key makes it simpler - but there are other ways to announce theft - look at my actions.

That is completely daft.

Utterly ignoramus in form.

The stolen token no longer exists on the network other than a record that it has been cancelled. To think that means that they're gets to keep it is completely stupid.

CSW
Feb 25, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614251528412500?thread_ts=1614251528.412500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2014

The security of a "blockchain" is achieved (as per section 3 of my white paper) through the publication (widely and publicly) of the message digest. That is, the hash.

If the digest is private, it is not published and the security model of a "blockchain" *CANNOT*  be achieved.

- Dr. Craig S. Wright
Slack Metanet Icu
2019-12-03

https://www.coinbase.com/price/bitcoin-sv

Take a look to the WP https://bitcoinsv.io/bitcoin.pdf,

what about with Coinbase and BSV

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