La venta de viviendas registra en marzo su mejor dato en 15 años, según el INE

"En el tercer mes del año se inscribieron 59.272 compraventas de viviendas, máximos desde enero de 2008. Las operaciones crecen casi un 27% hasta marzo"
20 mayo 2022,
https://www.idealista.com/news/inmobiliario/vivienda/2022/05/20/796734-ine-la-venta-de-viviendas-registra-en-marzo-su-mejor-dato-desde-principios-de-2008

Alomejor tú conoces a alguien que le puede ganar este reto a Craig.

Cómo ves el asunto?

"...If you can demonstrate that there are 1,000 nodes on the network at any time, I will pay 100 million British pounds however you want within three months.

If you can prove my claim wrong that there are only 15 to 20 nodes on the BTC network and that a small number of nodes does not control it and that the consensus methodology somehow uses hundreds or thousands of nodes, I will also pay."

The challenge
2022 05 20
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/challenge-craig-s-wright

"Global IEEE 5G-IoT Blockchain Summit Rabat: Craig Wright paints picture of true peer-to-peer world" en YouTube
https://youtu.be/h2BRlGZg3Ew

"To help this process along, he has instigated many a lawsuit. He wants the courts to recognise that he owns the intellectual property and architecture of bitcoin, and that versions of bitcoin other than his are fraudulent. His aim is to return the system to what he sees as its original purpose: as a form of scalable digital cash.

From his position as chief scientist at the blockchain company he founded, NChain, he has taken on Cobra, which plays a key role in maintaining BTC through its bitcoin.org website. And he’s now also suing crypto exchanges Coinbase and Kraken"

Bitcoin’s Aussie ‘founder’ on why the crypto pretenders will go bust.
Hans van Leeuwen
2022 05 20
https://archive.ph/H5cCr

https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/bitcoin-s-aussie-founder-on-why-the-crypto-pretenders-will-go-bust-20220517-p5alvs?s=09

""Intro to Bitcoin SV" Kevin Healy 2022 05 20" en YouTube
https://youtu.be/cQDMmba4Fp0

"...He says bitcoin should have only the one immutable protocol, and he, as Nakamoto, is contractually bound to offer that.

This is why he can argue that his effort to stop other people infringing his claimed patent and database rights is not a bid for control. He is obliged to keep things as they are.


“It’s literally law of contract. The whole thing is, if I make a promise that it’s set in stone then I’m bound by that. And anyone using the system, if I change anything, can sue me.

“I mean, ironically, everyone talks about giving away power. But I am completely bound by my promise.”"

Bitcoin’s Aussie ‘founder’ on why the crypto pretenders will go bust.
Hans van Leeuwen
2022 05 20
https://archive.ph/H5cCr

U°Today
🔥 GameStop Finally Launches Its Crypto and NFT Wallet https://u.today/gamestop-finally-launches-its-crypto-and-nft-wallet
@

Período Tokugawa

Era de la paz ininterrumpida (1603-1868) es una división de la historia de Japón, que se extiende desde el 24 de marzo de 1603 hasta el 3 de mayo de 1868.

Período Edo - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per%C3%ADodo_Edo

"In the Tokugawa period, Japan entered a period of internal peace and political stability. It allowed the development of economic growth, while simultaneously limiting the freedom of individuals in their lives. Friday (2012) notes how Tokugawa Iemitsu implemented a system of control over the Daimyo that required them to reside in Edo every year yet equally created semiautonomous domains that remained tightly under the control of the shogunate for over 250 years."

https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/state-power-and-ordinary-people-from-the-tokugawa-period-through-the-20th-century/?s=09

Jon Matonis and Craig Wright - Shinseiki Evangerion - Arnhem 2017 -June 30th

The Future of Bitcoin

30/06/2017 BitCoin SUPERVIDEO

1h23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgqtcu0zo-k&t=12s



30/06/2017 BitCoin SUPERVIDEO

1h21

Craig Wright - Future of Bitcoin talk, Arnhem Netherlands 2017 Bitcoin.TV

Conference 2017- Arnhem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdJexAYjrDw&t=1007s




https://gist.githubusercontent.com/harding/b7067d2943706e2e3d3f7aab539a67c5/raw/6de6a0a6f5a840ffe69fdeeb71b243f5fa166ad5/craig-wright-2017-06-30.md


[This is a transcript of Craig Wright's presentation at the Future of

Bitcoin conference on 30 June 2017. This transcription should not be seen as an endorsement of Mr. Wright, a person who previously

fraudulently claimed to be the creator of Bitcoin, among many other fraudulent claims. Note that ellipses in the text ("...") represent the speaker trailing off or switching topics mid-sentence, rather than the omission of any text by the transcriber. All comments and additions from the transcriber appear between square brackets. Q&A not currently included, but may be added later.] Alright. So, first of all, what's this about. Anyone know their manga? We have the genesis of a new century. So, that's what that's about. This is genesis of a new century. Now current problem: we have seven (which is really four) sort of issues: 1. We have this little tiny scaling issue. Which is nothing. See that whole screen? That whole screen is payments. See that little pixel there? That's Bitcoin. That's what we are right now. We are right down there---that little tiny pixel is Bitcoin. We are nothing. We like to think we're something right at the moment. We are not. If we want to be something, we need to scale and radically. Not offchain. Not moving some of the security into sidechains and splitting the model. We need to, right now, today, start scaling. In two thousand and nine, we had more scalability than we do right now. Problem. We have this idea; we have things that are being said; we have people changing the story; we have a lot of 1984 doublespeak. We have people telling us what we should believe. People lying to us about what shou... what everyone wants to think [sic]. And we're going to change that narrative. Not because we want, well, an idea that someone has of an idea. But because we want scientific truth; we want evidence; we want facts; we want more. What we need: we need the unseen. Everyone know, our famous little economist/journalist from France: "the seen and the unseen". Bastiat, who.... People considered him not an economist. In France, the Philisophs [?] said he was not an economist because he says things that are so obvious. The seen and the unseen. We are seeing Bitcoin; we are not seeing the entire system. The entire system is everything we are competing with---which will crush us. We have other things that we're trying to build into the system that will crush us. When we split Bitcoin into millions and millions of pegged systems. When we add inflation. When we create these sidechains that, by the way, are patented and are controlled and happened to be owned and happened to be managed and monitored. Then we give away the security model. If 100% of everything mines Bitcoin and controls Bitcoin, that's a security model that is hard; that no government can take over; that no company can take over; no one takes over. Bitcoin can scale. Right now. [Slide showing tweet allegedly from Peter Todd: "How could a capacity upgrade do that? There's no upper limit to demand, and the Bitcoin protocol doesn't scale.] What is it. Well we can't do that. There's no limit on demand. Good! I don't a limit on demand. I want every person on this globe using not altcoins not whatever else; I want them using Bitcoin. I don't some bullshit argument about "oh, people will use it and it will be bad". Very simple; very easy: good! When every single person on this globe pays for their cup of coffee---pays for their whatever they want---every day using one single central currency (and I'll say central; one distrib

uted central currency) that is not controlled, that is hard money. That's what Bitcoin is about: hard central controlled, no one can change, money. The problem is central banks inflate. Who here actually knows what the genesis block message was about? Who's read the Times page? [Audience reply inaudible.] What happened in the page? What was being discussed? [Audience inaudible.] They were considering buying the toxic assets. The government was saying, "the naughty banks who we've just given billions to refuse to change their business model and risk their money again, and if they don't do it, we're going to buy them and nationalize them." So, great, we're going to incentivize banks further to make crappier loans. What a great thing. [Points to alleged Peter Todd quote.] No upper limit to scale. Good! [New slide.] Economic game theoretic systems. This is what Bitcoin is about. It is economic. Timing models; one vote per CPU. This is a republic; it is not a demagoguery. It is not where people get to yell and scream and lie. And very soon we're going to change that narrative. Very soon people are going to discover that when you start lying and when you troll, there are consequences. So. What is a node? A node is not every little tiny Raspberry Pi running everywhere. The machines running Bitcoin in 2009 were bigger than every single Raspberry Pi. The machines Hal [Finney] ran. The machines Bear [Ray Dillinger] ran. Everyone else who joined this thing at that point had bigger machines running these damn things [sic]. And now we have this idea that we can't run it on a little tiny insy winsy insignificant machine. Who cares? What is more important: you having a copy of the block chain, or you having money that no one can manipulate. Honestly, start thinking. These whole utopian ideas of how you spend money are wrong. Economic fundamentals matter. Lightning doesn't work because nobody spends that way. I don't go over to [store name] and ask them to take a bag of carrots and give money. That's the bi-directional models. They don't work. I don't go down the road in some big co-op, and go, "well, I've just made a box of widgets; how 'bout you give money for it and whatever else." Barter never really existed. Ever. What we have now is a system that changes everything. Our new generation, our new genesis, is the creation of the first ever hard money. The first money that allows for freedom. Gold was never hard because we never had it. When Nixon took America off the gold exchange standard, which wasn't a gold standard, do you know how much of that gold was actually there? [Inaudible audience responses.] About five percent. So they didn't actually have the gold they were backing their currency with. [Side, SPV and merchants] So SPV and merchants. Merchants give a [inaudible]. When you go and you pay a merchant they care that they get the payment. They're the ones who want zero-conf; they're the ones who know what they can and can't risk. When you pay a merchant, you don't care that your payment has or hasn't been accepted straight away. You care that you've handed the payment over and you've walked out the store with the goods, and you've got a receipt. More than that, who cares? You're not going to want to sit there and validate that the merchant actually got paid. Really, you don't care. So what we need: we need to move these silly ideas that we need split Bitcoin into little bits so that everyone can own their little bit of Bitcoin. "Everyone wants segwit" - 1984 segwit. Everyone does not want segwit. Everyone is being cowed. I'm sure everyone has seen the fun media about myself and my family. Well, here's the thing for you: I do have those degrees. That so-called PGP key to Mr. Maxwell, I would say, because the Australian tax office approached Blockstream and asked them about my affairs and dealings in May 2015. The people involved in the tax office have been arrested. So, my taxes issues are zero. But there are some issues for other people about to come, because when you lie and when you say things that aren't true, there are con

sequences. And we're going to make sure that these consequences are going to hit these people hard. [Side, SegWit is NOT scale. Line chart allegedly comparing "Bitcoin vs SegWit"] Segwit is not scale. That [points to one line] is what get with a block size increase; that [points to other line] is what we get with segwit. If you have a 4 meg block; if you have a 16 meg block; you multiply it by 4. That is not scale. What you do to scale is increase the throughput, and you get more for a 4 meg block than you do any time that you have this split system that needs to be run that you can't really delete if you're a merchant or a financial organization. Saying "oh, well, you can keep it," where the hell is the actual benefit of deleting that you can't delete? Each transaction requires more bandwidth. It's very simple: it takes more. The answers you've been given about how terrible all this is: run multi-threaded systems; stop arguing that it needs to be put on Raspberry Pis so that they can lie to you and tell that it needs to be moved off to other systems. It doesn't. One of the things we, yes, we patent---I'm not afraid to say that. Unlike Greg [Maxwell?] and whatever else, we will choose what we do with our technology. That's not bad. I created things, I get to choose. My choice. I will put some out free. We will put some out otherwise. Our choice. But, at the end of the day, scale needs to happen---and it needs to happen now. And it's not quadratic due to these other problems they're saying. [New slide, looks like screencap of GitHub showing a some lines of code in Bitcoin Core.] Here's a thing no one's talking about: this quadratic scaling issue. It's added to Bitcoin. It is added. Follow the codebase. It is easy to fix. I know several, [such as] Bitcrust, Bitcoin Unlimited, and our team independently picked this out and fixed it. Our team did it in about three hours. That's sure scalability. Doing multithreading about putting things off to [unknown term; sounds like "Xeon fi cards"]... any idea how many sigops we can achieve now? Anyone? Five hundred thousand per second. That's scale. And yes, that's a $20,000 machine. Quite frankly, I don't care about Raspberry Pis. If you have been in Bitcoin since 2009 and you can't afford a $20,000 node to help this network, piss off. [Audience applause.] And I will say that one again, if you will not do this; if you will not help this network; and if you will not take this thing that has given you financial sovereignty, you financial freedom, you financial independence, and help other people by spending a little bit of money on a decent network, fuck off! [More audience applause.] [New slide, Scale is quadratic due to code flaws. Shows a diff with two added lines, one removed line in mempool management.] That's it: O-2 [sic; slide says O(n^2)]. Poor code. Shit code. That's why we need competition. That's why, not just Core, anyone should be release their own and compete fairly. If you make a better solution and you put it out to market, you compete fairly. Through competition, because people use your product. Not because you're cowed into... DDoS attacks or anything like that. Not because of all of that. Bitcoin Unlimited found the flaw as well. Some of these thing that Unlimited have been doing [are] very innovated. [New slide, Moore's Law is our friend] At the end of the day, Moore's Law [is] our friend. The smallest transistor---well, I'm probably being superseded already, but I've got a paper coming out on this, and the editors picked out a mistake because I said a 2 nanometer transistor and it turns out there's now a 1 nanometer transistor. When all this happened, people were arguing that because of quantum tunneling, this is impossible. "At six nanometers, it will never be done." Guess what? It's been done. So stop this, "oh, we can't do it" and "oh, everything's bad" idea. The reality is we need to start being optimistic, positive, and build. Allow competition. Allow free access to code. Allow people to actually start competing. No building little walled bloody gardens. [New

slide, The original method was flood Control] [Note: the following seems to be about transaction fees.] Bitcoin... I've got lots of people saying this is bullshit. It's in the code: flood control. It worked. Why? Because of the value of it. It didn't work way back then, and people could've done these things, and Hal and Bear go their way and put this bloody cap in there. Quite frankly, I'm disgusted with half the community. Anyone know who Bear is? Bear is Cryddit; that's his name on Reddit and whatever else. Bear was the third person involved, properly running nodes and whatever else. You can look up who he is; he's a friend of mine. So... One of the things that happened to him. He came on and started talking. Mr. Maxwell, others, ripped the shit out of him and he's gone back to being curmudgeon like I like being. He doesn't talk; he doesn't get involved anymore---and he's a shit hot coder. Better than anyone I have met in any of the core areas, by far, and he's no longer involved. Not because his ideas are shit but because people didn't like what he was saying; made death threats against him; added things against his family. That's got to change. Flood control works. If you are getting a big block and someone's paying you to put transaction in there because we want 5 billion people using this, which miner is going to turn it away? If you get paid a little tiny amount per transaction, then you buy another hard drive and you take it. This is capitalism. It is competition. It is brutal and ruthless and it works. If you can't keep up, bye-bye. Segregated Witness, typical problem right now in this bloody industry. Scientific method: it doesn't exist. We just tell people, "this is what you're going to do." When you want a scientific process, you come up with an idea and then you test it. Removing incentives. What incentive is there to be a miner of a little bit of a shitcoin settlement for everything else when you're getting money from everyone? How does Coke make money sugar water? They do it because volume. They don't make huge profit because charging you 99% of the can. They make a fraction of a cent on every can, but they sell a lot. Miners what to make money, then velocity matters. Velocity of money scales the price. If you increase use, you double right now bitcoin, and velocity formula tells you that you 2 times .94 with the inflationary amount times the value. If you scale 100 times, price from velocity alone increases 94 times. What miner will not take a hundred times the block size if they one hundred times the fees? Any miner here [want to] say, "piss off, I don't want a hundred times the amount of value from bitcoin"? No? Ok. Overall, every time we split into sidechains, we take away a little bit about what secures the network. Every time we do that, it becomes less secure. Every time we create an altcoin, less secure. Every competing option that takes something from the overall network makes this one, once in a lifetime, once in any part of history, experiment less viable. Bitcoin differs in that it's the only scarce good that has truly existed. Gold wasn't. Gold has been manipulated, changed, et cetra. Gold has been flooded. After the Spanish came and discovered the Americas, or rediscovered really, there was something called the rain [or reign] of gold and the rain of silver. Ships, big galleons, would come in and deposit all the silver and gold they'd taken, and within weeks it was all gone. No industries were build, just luxuries. And that's the difference. As soon as you start inflating things, soon as you start changing it---allowing sidechains---then, well, you take everything that matters away. Selfish mining: a lot of these problems started because of that. We got a paper coming out soon. It's gone through editing and all the rest. There are several versions because my mathematical version is going to scare the shit out of everyone because I actually happen to be a mathematician; a scary word that. Basically it's flawed premises. Bitcoin is not a Poisson model; it approximates a Poisson model. When we h

ave these little diagrams that people like to do for queuing models, well one you would need to use a negative binomial to be right there---but that's even wrong. They're only correct if you have no deviation; if no one defects. The Poisson is only approximate if everyone is doing what their meant to do and never changes. So we're releasing the actual mathematics and how things work in Bitcoin, which some people will understand and those who don't can put it into a computer program and a computer can simulate it. Then we start getting all these things correct. Now, the model. Emmons [?] deleted every aspect of any code he ever wrote for his model, but luckily I have some. I kept it and archived it for him because, well, he would never want the fact that he missed all these things lost to posterity. Now, when you create a model in science, you test it. You don't test your model; that's what we're all doing right now and we're testing our model. That just tells you you have a model. Who cares? If you can't run it on Bitcoin, who cares? One of the things in Slack channels I've been doing at the moment is I've been incentivizing people to do things I've already done. There is a selfish miner test run on VMs going on at the moment. Real VMs, real tests, real whatever else. And I'm funding it. That doesn't mean it's not independent. I have said you get paid, because I've put it in third-party escrow, either way. I've put bitcoin up to pay for all the VMs and all the testing and all the code, and it will all be public. So it's not just my math; I'm getting it independently verified by other people in the community. Over and over. So, Turing completeness. I've had a lot of shit about this one. Guess what: you're all wrong, it is. What you're not going to get is that you've missed it. There are actually, we have what is called a decider in Bitcoin. It follows some of the predicate logic of Gödel. Gödel, back around the time of Turing, wrote a lot of mathematics around the idea of predicate systems. If you're a mathematician, you would know this shit, but not everyone is. So Bitcoin a 2-PDA. Now, 2-PDA, all those little squiggleys, unfortunately once again, they're from a paper that is coming out. Those little squiggleys actually mean that it is Turing complete. I'm not going to explain that to you right at the moment. I'm going to say that... any recognize what that is? That's a Wolfram 110. Anyone know what a Wolfram 110 is? It's the simplest Turing-complete system. That's in Bitcoin. It was running until a few months ago. We had PSOs in Bitcoin, running. Unfortunately they starved to death---fees. So we had the first self-evolving in Bitcoin, that ran for two years. There are people that know about these now; that's why I'm mentioning them. They've been discovered. It's not just me. They're dead! Because they can't afford the fees. And I'm not going to fund a thing requires $3.00 every bloody block to keep running, it becomes expensive very quickly. When it's low fees, all sort of things can run. So, these are there. IP to IP transactions. Does no one look at the old code any more? We keep saying, "this is not meant to be there." The market database in Bitcoin allowed IP to IP transactions. There was a reason for these. The whole idea is to have a merchant-type solution. I should be able to go up and just tap something, and I don't even give a shit whether my transaction has settled properly. All I care about is going up to the merchant, and the merchant will propagate my transaction. Why will the merchant propagate my transaction? Because they want to get paid. Merchants are not going to sit there and go, "well, maybe at the end of the month I'll run all this shit." They won't, because you will double spend. Merchants have the incentive to ensure that zero-conf works right now. Why? Because they want to be paid! It's very simple. Economics makes this work. It is not security toys. It is not any of these little fluffy bits of crap that we say are really security the network. I've work in the security industry for a long time. I