The underlying claim
4- In this action, Dr Wright claims to be the owner of certain database rights which he says subsist in three databases, namely (i) the Bitcoin Blockchain, (ii) the Bitcoin Blockchain as it stood on 1 August 2017 at 14.11 – up to and including block 478,558 and (iii) another part of the Bitcoin Blockchain made in a particular period (the details of which do not matter for present purposes). Dr Wright also says he (or one of the Claimants) owns the copyright which subsist in (a) the White Paper and (b) what is called in the Particulars of Claim 'the Bitcoin File File Format'.
5- Dr Wright brings this claim because he objects to two 'Airdrops', each of which effected what he terms 'significant' changes to his Bitcoin System and which deviated from the principles and protocols he had created and specified. The first Airdrop occurred on 1 August 2017 and resulted in what Dr Wright calls the BTC Network. Nodes on the Bitcoin Network continued to operate the existing Bitcoin System but the Airdrop effectively created a branch in the chain, so that from block 478,558, the Bitcoin Blockchain continued adding blocks mined by its nodes thereby extending the Bitcoin Blockchain, with the BTC Blockchain running in parallel. The ticker 'BTC' has been adopted for the digital cash system operated by the BTC Network.
6 - The second Airdrop occurred on 15 November 2018 and created another new peer-to-peer network (the 'current BCH Network'), again which Dr Wright says implemented significant changes to his Bitcoin System. So from that date another parallel blockchain emerged, this called the BCH Blockchain. The ticker BCH is used for the digital cash system operated by the BCH Network.
7 - Although Dr Wright says he did not coin the ticker BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision), it is now used to designate the original Bitcoin digital cash system.
8 - Dr Wright's case is that the database rights and copyrights which he/the Claimants own provide a mechanism by which he can prevent the further operation of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain without his consent.
9 - Both the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain contain the Bitcoin Blockchain up to and including block 478,558. Dr Wright's claim is that the operation of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain result in the extraction and/or re-utilisation of all or substantial parts of the Databases in which he owns database right
0- The White Paper is included in block 230,009 of the Bitcoin Blockchain. There is no difficulty in literary copyright subsisting in the White Paper. The consequence is that use of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain entails reproduction of block 230,009 and reproduction of the entire White Paper, all done, so Dr Wright alleges, without the consent of him as the copyright owner.
1 - I was and am satisfied that the claims in database right and of infringement of copyright in the White Paper raise serious issues to be tried and therefore service out of the jurisdiction of those claims should be permitted. The issue addressed in this Judgment is whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding the allegations concerning the Bitcoin File Format.
The Bitcoin File Format
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
4- In this action, Dr Wright claims to be the owner of certain database rights which he says subsist in three databases, namely (i) the Bitcoin Blockchain, (ii) the Bitcoin Blockchain as it stood on 1 August 2017 at 14.11 – up to and including block 478,558 and (iii) another part of the Bitcoin Blockchain made in a particular period (the details of which do not matter for present purposes). Dr Wright also says he (or one of the Claimants) owns the copyright which subsist in (a) the White Paper and (b) what is called in the Particulars of Claim 'the Bitcoin File File Format'.
5- Dr Wright brings this claim because he objects to two 'Airdrops', each of which effected what he terms 'significant' changes to his Bitcoin System and which deviated from the principles and protocols he had created and specified. The first Airdrop occurred on 1 August 2017 and resulted in what Dr Wright calls the BTC Network. Nodes on the Bitcoin Network continued to operate the existing Bitcoin System but the Airdrop effectively created a branch in the chain, so that from block 478,558, the Bitcoin Blockchain continued adding blocks mined by its nodes thereby extending the Bitcoin Blockchain, with the BTC Blockchain running in parallel. The ticker 'BTC' has been adopted for the digital cash system operated by the BTC Network.
6 - The second Airdrop occurred on 15 November 2018 and created another new peer-to-peer network (the 'current BCH Network'), again which Dr Wright says implemented significant changes to his Bitcoin System. So from that date another parallel blockchain emerged, this called the BCH Blockchain. The ticker BCH is used for the digital cash system operated by the BCH Network.
7 - Although Dr Wright says he did not coin the ticker BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision), it is now used to designate the original Bitcoin digital cash system.
8 - Dr Wright's case is that the database rights and copyrights which he/the Claimants own provide a mechanism by which he can prevent the further operation of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain without his consent.
9 - Both the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain contain the Bitcoin Blockchain up to and including block 478,558. Dr Wright's claim is that the operation of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain result in the extraction and/or re-utilisation of all or substantial parts of the Databases in which he owns database right
0- The White Paper is included in block 230,009 of the Bitcoin Blockchain. There is no difficulty in literary copyright subsisting in the White Paper. The consequence is that use of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain entails reproduction of block 230,009 and reproduction of the entire White Paper, all done, so Dr Wright alleges, without the consent of him as the copyright owner.
1 - I was and am satisfied that the claims in database right and of infringement of copyright in the White Paper raise serious issues to be tried and therefore service out of the jurisdiction of those claims should be permitted. The issue addressed in this Judgment is whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding the allegations concerning the Bitcoin File Format.
The Bitcoin File Format
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
Forwarded from Arbusto (Get out of my way mode: on)
@Samooth ha encontrado el white paper en el bloque 230009
Forwarded from Tomas
Una multisig larga de un cojon de 1sats https://whatsonchain.com/tx/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713
Whatsonchain
Transaction: 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713
Leading Blockchain Explorer for Bitcoin SV. Blocks, Transactions tagged from memo.cash, yours.org, tokenized and OP_RETURN, BSV address balance, Bitcoin SV mining stats. Explorer for all your BSV needs
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/35959/how-is-the-whitepaper-decoded-from-the-blockchain-tx-with-1000x-m-of-n-multisi
cuanto más cosas sé, más me doy cuenta de lo poco que sé...
cuanto más cosas sé, más me doy cuenta de lo poco que sé...
Bitcoin Stack Exchange
How is the whitepaper decoded from the blockchain (Tx with ~1000x m of n multisig outputs)
The whitepaper is apparently encoded at 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713, which is an m of n multisig Tx with 947 outputs (just under the scriptsig limit of 20kB!).
...
...
Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (Ramon Quesada.)
Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (Ramon Quesada.)
Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (Ramon Quesada.)
Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (Ramon Quesada.)
Forwarded from CSW 150 Predicate machine Bitcoin (Ramon Quesada.)
Bitcoin is a predicate machine. Over the following months, we shall explore different aspects that were not explicitly contained within the white paper. These aspects are all parts of bitcoin, and are important. Some of these ideas were touched upon in the early years; now is the time to extrapolate and explain.
https://twitter.com/satoshi/status/1708886029636137256?t=YBSCKoqoJ_uLSEPJqixIGQ&s=19
https://twitter.com/satoshi/status/1708886029636137256?t=YBSCKoqoJ_uLSEPJqixIGQ&s=19
Sí, hay un texto de Satoshi Nakamoto donde escribe lo siguiente:
"Orphans are a necessary part of the system. They allow nodes to accept transactions without having to wait for confirmations, and they help to prevent double-spending attacks."
Este texto se encuentra en el artículo de Satoshi Nakamoto titulado "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", publicado en 2008. En este artículo, Satoshi explica cómo funciona el sistema de consenso de Bitcoin, que se basa en la cadena de bloques.
En el contexto de este artículo, Satoshi está explicando que los bloques huérfanos son transacciones que han sido validadas por un nodo, pero que no han sido confirmadas por la mayoría de la red. Estos bloques huérfanos son una parte necesaria del sistema porque permiten a los nodos aceptar transacciones sin tener que esperar a que se confirmen.
Además, los bloques huérfanos ayudan a prevenir ataques de doble gasto. Un ataque de doble gasto es un intento de gastar los mismos fondos dos veces. Los bloques huérfanos hacen que sea más difícil para un atacante ejecutar un ataque de doble gasto, ya que el atacante tendría que tener control sobre la mayoría de la red para que su transacción sea confirmada.
En resumen, los bloques huérfanos son una parte necesaria del sistema de Bitcoin porque permiten a los nodos aceptar transacciones sin tener que esperar a que se confirmen y ayudan a prevenir ataques de doble gasto.
El texto completo de Satoshi Nakamoto donde escribe lo mencionado anteriormente es el siguiente:
"Orphans are a necessary part of the system. They allow nodes to accept transactions without having to wait for confirmations, and they help to prevent double-spending attacks.
When a node receives a block, it must determine whether to accept it or not. If the block is valid, the node will broadcast it to its peers. If the block is not valid, the node will reject it.
If a node receives a block that it does not like, it can create a competing block that includes the same transactions as the first block, but with a different ordering. This competing block is called an orphan.
Orphans are a necessary part of the system because they allow nodes to accept transactions without having to wait for confirmations. If a node had to wait for confirmations before accepting transactions, it would be more difficult for users to make payments.
Orphans also help to prevent double-spending attacks. A double-spending attack is an attempt to spend the same funds twice. If a node were to successfully double-spend, it would need to create a block that is longer than all of the other blocks in the chain. This would be very difficult to do, as it would require the node to control more than half of the computing power in the network.
Orphans make it more difficult for an attacker to double-spend, as the attacker would need to create a block that is longer than all of the other blocks in the chain, including the orphan blocks. This would be very difficult to do, as it would require the attacker to control more than half of the computing power in the network."
https://g.co/bard/share/50e38ddc6126
"Orphans are a necessary part of the system. They allow nodes to accept transactions without having to wait for confirmations, and they help to prevent double-spending attacks."
Este texto se encuentra en el artículo de Satoshi Nakamoto titulado "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", publicado en 2008. En este artículo, Satoshi explica cómo funciona el sistema de consenso de Bitcoin, que se basa en la cadena de bloques.
En el contexto de este artículo, Satoshi está explicando que los bloques huérfanos son transacciones que han sido validadas por un nodo, pero que no han sido confirmadas por la mayoría de la red. Estos bloques huérfanos son una parte necesaria del sistema porque permiten a los nodos aceptar transacciones sin tener que esperar a que se confirmen.
Además, los bloques huérfanos ayudan a prevenir ataques de doble gasto. Un ataque de doble gasto es un intento de gastar los mismos fondos dos veces. Los bloques huérfanos hacen que sea más difícil para un atacante ejecutar un ataque de doble gasto, ya que el atacante tendría que tener control sobre la mayoría de la red para que su transacción sea confirmada.
En resumen, los bloques huérfanos son una parte necesaria del sistema de Bitcoin porque permiten a los nodos aceptar transacciones sin tener que esperar a que se confirmen y ayudan a prevenir ataques de doble gasto.
El texto completo de Satoshi Nakamoto donde escribe lo mencionado anteriormente es el siguiente:
"Orphans are a necessary part of the system. They allow nodes to accept transactions without having to wait for confirmations, and they help to prevent double-spending attacks.
When a node receives a block, it must determine whether to accept it or not. If the block is valid, the node will broadcast it to its peers. If the block is not valid, the node will reject it.
If a node receives a block that it does not like, it can create a competing block that includes the same transactions as the first block, but with a different ordering. This competing block is called an orphan.
Orphans are a necessary part of the system because they allow nodes to accept transactions without having to wait for confirmations. If a node had to wait for confirmations before accepting transactions, it would be more difficult for users to make payments.
Orphans also help to prevent double-spending attacks. A double-spending attack is an attempt to spend the same funds twice. If a node were to successfully double-spend, it would need to create a block that is longer than all of the other blocks in the chain. This would be very difficult to do, as it would require the node to control more than half of the computing power in the network.
Orphans make it more difficult for an attacker to double-spend, as the attacker would need to create a block that is longer than all of the other blocks in the chain, including the orphan blocks. This would be very difficult to do, as it would require the attacker to control more than half of the computing power in the network."
https://g.co/bard/share/50e38ddc6126
Google
Toma el rol de un estudioso de Bitcoin y de los texto que escribió Satoshi Nakamoto, me puedes decir si hay algún texto de Satoshi…
Created with Bard.
👍1
Forwarded from CSW. 300 Videos (all) (Ramon Quesada.)
Craig Wright Full Testimony: Hodlonaut v Craig Wright - Day 3
3h55
Bitcoin Magazine
129 K suscriptores
28.170 visualizaciones
14 sept 2022
This is the full video from Craig Wright's testimony on day 3 of the Hodlonaut v Craig Wright trial on September 14th, 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zkweFcpQMs
0:00 - 2:09 - Craig Wright Sworn In
2:09 - 18:13 - Reviewing Tweets on Craig Wright
18:13 - 19:58 - Bitcoin Privacy and Scaling According to Craig Wright
19:58 - 25:35 - Craig Wright debate with Peter Todd
25:35 - 27:24 - Craig Wright debate with Jameson Lopp and Charlie Lee
27:24 - 40:34 - Craig Wright Background
40:34 - 41:29 - Blacknet
41:29 - 43:21 - BDO
43:21 - 45:38 - CSW Coding
45:38 - 49:14 - Development of Bitcoin
49:14 - 49:47 - Encryption and Mining FUD
49:47 - 1:14:37 - Bitcoin Whitepaper
1:14:37 - 1:20:03 - Bitcoin Mining
1:20:03 - 1:23:24 - Relationship with Gavin Andresen
1:23:24 - 1:30:39 - 2011 - 2015 Craig Wright Work
1:30:39 - 1:37:28 - Gizmo and Wired Magazine Claims
1:37:28 - 1:55:10 - Reviewing points in Jameson Lopp Article
1:55:10 - 2:00:26 - Craig Altering Posts
2:00:26 - 2:01:10 - Dave Kleinman 50/50 Partnership
2:01:10 - 2:09:27 - KPMG Report
2:09:27 - 2:10:16 - Inaudible Norwegian Talk
2:10:16 - 2:11:09 - Conclude KPGM / Manipulation of Documents
2:11:09 - 2:12:39 - John Matones Signing Session
2:12:39 - 2:19:04 - Gavin Andresen Signing Session
2:19:04 - 2:21:46 - Gavin Andresen Criticism
2:21:46 - 2:22:38 - O'Hagan Cryptographic Proof
2:22:38 - 2:24:30 - Patents
2:24:30 - 2:25:41 - Craig Wright's Approach
2:25:41 - 3:48:56 - Cross Examination of Craig Wright by Hodlonaut Lawyers
3:48:56 - 3:53:29 - Question from Judge
3:53:29 - 3:54:24 - Craig Lawyer Follow-up Question
3:54:24 - 3:54:59 - Craig Wright Final Remarks
3h55
Bitcoin Magazine
129 K suscriptores
28.170 visualizaciones
14 sept 2022
This is the full video from Craig Wright's testimony on day 3 of the Hodlonaut v Craig Wright trial on September 14th, 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zkweFcpQMs
0:00 - 2:09 - Craig Wright Sworn In
2:09 - 18:13 - Reviewing Tweets on Craig Wright
18:13 - 19:58 - Bitcoin Privacy and Scaling According to Craig Wright
19:58 - 25:35 - Craig Wright debate with Peter Todd
25:35 - 27:24 - Craig Wright debate with Jameson Lopp and Charlie Lee
27:24 - 40:34 - Craig Wright Background
40:34 - 41:29 - Blacknet
41:29 - 43:21 - BDO
43:21 - 45:38 - CSW Coding
45:38 - 49:14 - Development of Bitcoin
49:14 - 49:47 - Encryption and Mining FUD
49:47 - 1:14:37 - Bitcoin Whitepaper
1:14:37 - 1:20:03 - Bitcoin Mining
1:20:03 - 1:23:24 - Relationship with Gavin Andresen
1:23:24 - 1:30:39 - 2011 - 2015 Craig Wright Work
1:30:39 - 1:37:28 - Gizmo and Wired Magazine Claims
1:37:28 - 1:55:10 - Reviewing points in Jameson Lopp Article
1:55:10 - 2:00:26 - Craig Altering Posts
2:00:26 - 2:01:10 - Dave Kleinman 50/50 Partnership
2:01:10 - 2:09:27 - KPMG Report
2:09:27 - 2:10:16 - Inaudible Norwegian Talk
2:10:16 - 2:11:09 - Conclude KPGM / Manipulation of Documents
2:11:09 - 2:12:39 - John Matones Signing Session
2:12:39 - 2:19:04 - Gavin Andresen Signing Session
2:19:04 - 2:21:46 - Gavin Andresen Criticism
2:21:46 - 2:22:38 - O'Hagan Cryptographic Proof
2:22:38 - 2:24:30 - Patents
2:24:30 - 2:25:41 - Craig Wright's Approach
2:25:41 - 3:48:56 - Cross Examination of Craig Wright by Hodlonaut Lawyers
3:48:56 - 3:53:29 - Question from Judge
3:53:29 - 3:54:24 - Craig Lawyer Follow-up Question
3:54:24 - 3:54:59 - Craig Wright Final Remarks
YouTube
Craig Wright Full Testimony: Hodlonaut v Craig Wright - Day 3
This is the full video from Craig Wright's testimony on day 3 of the Hodlonaut v Craig Wright trial on September 14th, 2022.
#bitcoin #hodlonaut #craigwright #hodlonautvcraigwright #bitcoinmagazine #news #bitcoinnews #defamationtrial
0:00 - 2:09 - Craig…
#bitcoin #hodlonaut #craigwright #hodlonautvcraigwright #bitcoinmagazine #news #bitcoinnews #defamationtrial
0:00 - 2:09 - Craig…