S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841386594286358960
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1034
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841386594286358960
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1034
When a patent expires, it signifies the culmination of an individual’s rightful claim to their creation, the product of their mind. For 20 years, the inventor is granted the exclusive right to profit from the fruits of their intellect and labor, as they should be.
But when that period ends, the invention, no longer confined to a single mind, becomes a gift to the world—a tribute to human achievement.
This is not a loss but an opportunity.
The expiration of a patent opens the doors for others to innovate, to build upon that foundation without infringing on the creator's rights. It is a signal that the market is now free to explore, expand, and evolve ideas that were once protected.
For those with the ability and vision, this is a chance to take the seeds of one man’s ingenuity and grow them into something greater, something new. It is the proper cycle of innovation—one where creators are rewarded for their genius, but where stagnation is impossible.
Only those who are truly inventive will understand that the expiration of a patent is not a call to imitate, but a challenge to advance.
Those who understand the value of intellectual property respect the boundaries of a patent’s life, and when those boundaries dissolve, they see it as an opportunity to contribute their own vision to the marketplace of ideas.
Once the patent fully expires, it cannot be renewed, and the protection it provided ceases to exist.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841386594286358960
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1034
But when that period ends, the invention, no longer confined to a single mind, becomes a gift to the world—a tribute to human achievement.
This is not a loss but an opportunity.
The expiration of a patent opens the doors for others to innovate, to build upon that foundation without infringing on the creator's rights. It is a signal that the market is now free to explore, expand, and evolve ideas that were once protected.
For those with the ability and vision, this is a chance to take the seeds of one man’s ingenuity and grow them into something greater, something new. It is the proper cycle of innovation—one where creators are rewarded for their genius, but where stagnation is impossible.
Only those who are truly inventive will understand that the expiration of a patent is not a call to imitate, but a challenge to advance.
Those who understand the value of intellectual property respect the boundaries of a patent’s life, and when those boundaries dissolve, they see it as an opportunity to contribute their own vision to the marketplace of ideas.
Once the patent fully expires, it cannot be renewed, and the protection it provided ceases to exist.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841386594286358960
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1034
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (@CsTominaga) on X
When a patent expires, it signifies the culmination of an individual’s rightful claim to their creation, the product of their mind. For 20 years, the inventor is granted the exclusive right to profit from the fruits of their intellect and labor, as they should…
👍1
Cuando una patente expira, significa que un individuo ha cumplido con su derecho a reclamar su creación, el producto de su mente. Durante 20 años, el inventor tiene el derecho exclusivo de beneficiarse de los frutos de su intelecto y su trabajo, como debe ser.
Pero cuando ese período termina, la invención, que ya no está confinada a una sola mente, se convierte en un regalo para el mundo, un tributo al logro humano.
Esto no es una pérdida sino una oportunidad.
La expiración de una patente abre las puertas para que otros innoven, para construir sobre esa base sin infringir los derechos del creador. Es una señal de que el mercado ahora es libre de explorar, expandir y desarrollar ideas que antes estaban protegidas.
Para quienes tienen la capacidad y la visión, esta es una oportunidad de tomar las semillas del ingenio de un hombre y hacerlas crecer hasta convertirlas en algo más grande, algo nuevo. Es el ciclo adecuado de la innovación: uno en el que los creadores son recompensados por su genio, pero donde el estancamiento es imposible.
Solo aquellos verdaderamente inventivos comprenderán que la expiración de una patente no es un llamado a imitar, sino un desafío a avanzar.
Aquellos que comprenden el valor de la propiedad intelectual respetan los límites de la vida de una patente, y cuando esos límites se disuelven, lo ven como una oportunidad de aportar su propia visión al mercado de las ideas.
Una vez que la patente expira por completo, no se puede renovar y la protección que brindaba deja de existir.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
02 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841386594286358960
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1034
Pero cuando ese período termina, la invención, que ya no está confinada a una sola mente, se convierte en un regalo para el mundo, un tributo al logro humano.
Esto no es una pérdida sino una oportunidad.
La expiración de una patente abre las puertas para que otros innoven, para construir sobre esa base sin infringir los derechos del creador. Es una señal de que el mercado ahora es libre de explorar, expandir y desarrollar ideas que antes estaban protegidas.
Para quienes tienen la capacidad y la visión, esta es una oportunidad de tomar las semillas del ingenio de un hombre y hacerlas crecer hasta convertirlas en algo más grande, algo nuevo. Es el ciclo adecuado de la innovación: uno en el que los creadores son recompensados por su genio, pero donde el estancamiento es imposible.
Solo aquellos verdaderamente inventivos comprenderán que la expiración de una patente no es un llamado a imitar, sino un desafío a avanzar.
Aquellos que comprenden el valor de la propiedad intelectual respetan los límites de la vida de una patente, y cuando esos límites se disuelven, lo ven como una oportunidad de aportar su propia visión al mercado de las ideas.
Una vez que la patente expira por completo, no se puede renovar y la protección que brindaba deja de existir.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
02 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841386594286358960
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1034
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (@CsTominaga) on X
When a patent expires, it signifies the culmination of an individual’s rightful claim to their creation, the product of their mind. For 20 years, the inventor is granted the exclusive right to profit from the fruits of their intellect and labor, as they should…
❤1
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841362844534943853
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1037
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841362844534943853
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1037
I've finally automated linking Overleaf to Zotero for bibliography management, but now I’ve realised I've accidentally doubled up on references.
Time to hunt down where in my massive LaTeX structure I’ve defined two bibliography formats... I’ll need to check for multiple bibliography commands, like \bibliography{references} or \addbibresource{references.bib}, that might be lurking in different sections of the document.
Finalmente he automatizado la vinculación de Overleaf con Zotero para la gestión de la bibliografía, pero ahora me he dado cuenta de que accidentalmente he duplicado las referencias.
Es hora de buscar dónde en mi enorme estructura LaTeX he definido dos formatos de bibliografía... Tendré que buscar múltiples comandos de bibliografía, como \bibliography{references} o \addbibresource{references.bib}, que podrían estar ocultos en diferentes secciones del documento.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841362844534943853
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1037
Time to hunt down where in my massive LaTeX structure I’ve defined two bibliography formats... I’ll need to check for multiple bibliography commands, like \bibliography{references} or \addbibresource{references.bib}, that might be lurking in different sections of the document.
Finalmente he automatizado la vinculación de Overleaf con Zotero para la gestión de la bibliografía, pero ahora me he dado cuenta de que accidentalmente he duplicado las referencias.
Es hora de buscar dónde en mi enorme estructura LaTeX he definido dos formatos de bibliografía... Tendré que buscar múltiples comandos de bibliografía, como \bibliography{references} o \addbibresource{references.bib}, que podrían estar ocultos en diferentes secciones del documento.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841362844534943853
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1037
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
The right to form a corporation, to hold a patent, to safeguard the fruits of one's intellect—these are not gifts from the government, but rather hard-won freedoms that individuals have extracted from the claws of control and coercion.
They are the cornerstones of capitalism, the system that champions the individual above all else.
A corporation is not some monstrous entity, as the anarchists and cypherpunks would have you believe. It is, in fact, a magnificent creation that allows individuals to join forces while protecting their personal liberty and assets. It is the ultimate expression of freedom, where individuals can pool their resources, share their talents, and yet remain protected from the liabilities and failures of others.
Consider the alternative. In a partnership, if one individual fails—whether through bankruptcy, incompetence, or misfortune—the burden falls on all.
The productive are shackled to the unproductive. This is not freedom; this is the forced collectivism that anarchists and their ilk would have you return to. It is the denial of individual rights, the rejection of personal responsibility and reward. A corporation, by contrast, allows the individual to engage in enterprise, to take risks, and to innovate without the fear of being dragged down by the failures of others. It is the embodiment of personal autonomy in the marketplace.
Patents, too, are not instruments of control, but rather the ultimate protection of intellectual freedom. A patent is the recognition of one's mind as their property—their invention, their creation, their idea. To deny the inventor their patent is to steal the product of their intellect. It is to declare that the mind is not sovereign, that anyone is free to loot and pillage the thoughts of others without recompense.
Patents ensure that the mind, the most powerful tool of human progress, is protected. They prevent the strong from simply overwhelming the innovative, the new, the creative. Without patents, the world would descend into intellectual anarchy, where might makes right, and those with the most resources can simply take what they want.
Yet, in their dishonesty, the anarchists and cypherpunks would have you believe that these protections—corporations and patents—are the very things that bind us.
They rail against them not because they seek freedom, but because they seek control.
Their world is one where no individual can safeguard their creations, where no enterprise can protect its future. They mask their intentions under the guise of "freedom," but what they offer is not liberty—it is a system where the powerful, without the constraints of law or rights, would dominate the weak. It is a system that destroys the individual, reducing them to a cog in the collective, forced to fend off every attempt to steal what they create, without the means to protect it.
True capitalism, true freedom, is built on rights—the right to form corporations, the right to protect one’s inventions, the right to one's own mind and the products of that mind.
The anarchists and cypherpunks pretend to be against control, but what they offer is nothing more than chaos—a chaos in which the strong can take without giving, in which the innovator is punished for daring to create, in which the individual is stripped of their defenses.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
They are the cornerstones of capitalism, the system that champions the individual above all else.
A corporation is not some monstrous entity, as the anarchists and cypherpunks would have you believe. It is, in fact, a magnificent creation that allows individuals to join forces while protecting their personal liberty and assets. It is the ultimate expression of freedom, where individuals can pool their resources, share their talents, and yet remain protected from the liabilities and failures of others.
Consider the alternative. In a partnership, if one individual fails—whether through bankruptcy, incompetence, or misfortune—the burden falls on all.
The productive are shackled to the unproductive. This is not freedom; this is the forced collectivism that anarchists and their ilk would have you return to. It is the denial of individual rights, the rejection of personal responsibility and reward. A corporation, by contrast, allows the individual to engage in enterprise, to take risks, and to innovate without the fear of being dragged down by the failures of others. It is the embodiment of personal autonomy in the marketplace.
Patents, too, are not instruments of control, but rather the ultimate protection of intellectual freedom. A patent is the recognition of one's mind as their property—their invention, their creation, their idea. To deny the inventor their patent is to steal the product of their intellect. It is to declare that the mind is not sovereign, that anyone is free to loot and pillage the thoughts of others without recompense.
Patents ensure that the mind, the most powerful tool of human progress, is protected. They prevent the strong from simply overwhelming the innovative, the new, the creative. Without patents, the world would descend into intellectual anarchy, where might makes right, and those with the most resources can simply take what they want.
Yet, in their dishonesty, the anarchists and cypherpunks would have you believe that these protections—corporations and patents—are the very things that bind us.
They rail against them not because they seek freedom, but because they seek control.
Their world is one where no individual can safeguard their creations, where no enterprise can protect its future. They mask their intentions under the guise of "freedom," but what they offer is not liberty—it is a system where the powerful, without the constraints of law or rights, would dominate the weak. It is a system that destroys the individual, reducing them to a cog in the collective, forced to fend off every attempt to steal what they create, without the means to protect it.
True capitalism, true freedom, is built on rights—the right to form corporations, the right to protect one’s inventions, the right to one's own mind and the products of that mind.
The anarchists and cypherpunks pretend to be against control, but what they offer is nothing more than chaos—a chaos in which the strong can take without giving, in which the innovator is punished for daring to create, in which the individual is stripped of their defenses.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Telegram
CSW S. Tominaga
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
👍1
It is government, when kept within its proper bounds, that protects these rights. It is not the enemy of freedom but the framework within which freedom can thrive. Without the recognition of patents and corporations, the marketplace would devolve into the law of the jungle, where there is no recourse for theft, no protection for innovation. The anarchists reject these safeguards not because they oppose tyranny, but because they oppose the individual's right to protect what is theirs.
They are not champions of freedom but of a twisted collectivism, where the rights of the individual are subsumed by the chaos they create.
This is their dishonesty: they speak of freedom, but they advocate for a world in which the individual has no protection, no recourse, and no rights.
They do not fight for liberty; they fight for a system in which the strong devour the weak, where the mind is subservient to brute force, and where freedom is reduced to an empty slogan.
True freedom, real capitalism, is built on the rights we have wrested from government—the right to form corporations, to hold patents, to protect our intellectual and financial autonomy. And it is only within this system that individuals can truly be free.
2/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
They are not champions of freedom but of a twisted collectivism, where the rights of the individual are subsumed by the chaos they create.
This is their dishonesty: they speak of freedom, but they advocate for a world in which the individual has no protection, no recourse, and no rights.
They do not fight for liberty; they fight for a system in which the strong devour the weak, where the mind is subservient to brute force, and where freedom is reduced to an empty slogan.
True freedom, real capitalism, is built on the rights we have wrested from government—the right to form corporations, to hold patents, to protect our intellectual and financial autonomy. And it is only within this system that individuals can truly be free.
2/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
💯1
El derecho a formar una corporación, a tener una patente, a salvaguardar los frutos del propio intelecto no son regalos del gobierno, sino más bien libertades duramente ganadas que los individuos han extraído de las garras del control y la coerción.
Son las piedras angulares del capitalismo, el sistema que defiende al individuo por encima de todo lo demás.
Una corporación no es una entidad monstruosa, como los anarquistas y los ciberpunks quieren hacernos creer. Es, de hecho, una magnífica creación que permite a los individuos unir fuerzas mientras protege su libertad y sus bienes personales. Es la máxima expresión de la libertad, donde los individuos pueden poner en común sus recursos, compartir sus talentos y, sin embargo, permanecer protegidos de las responsabilidades y los fracasos de los demás.
Consideremos la alternativa. En una sociedad, si un individuo fracasa, ya sea por quiebra, incompetencia o desgracia, la carga recae sobre todos.
Los productivos están encadenados a los improductivos. Esto no es libertad; Éste es el colectivismo forzado al que los anarquistas y sus semejantes quieren que volvamos. Es la negación de los derechos individuales, el rechazo de la responsabilidad y las recompensas personales. Una corporación, por el contrario, permite al individuo emprender, asumir riesgos e innovar sin el temor de verse arrastrado por los fracasos de los demás. Es la encarnación de la autonomía personal en el mercado.
Las patentes tampoco son instrumentos de control, sino más bien la protección definitiva de la libertad intelectual. Una patente es el reconocimiento de la mente de uno como su propiedad: su invención, su creación, su idea. Negarle al inventor su patente es robar el producto de su intelecto. Es declarar que la mente no es soberana, que cualquiera es libre de saquear y pillajear los pensamientos de los demás sin recompensa.
Las patentes garantizan que la mente, la herramienta más poderosa del progreso humano, esté protegida. Evitan que los fuertes simplemente abrumen a los innovadores, a los nuevos, a los creativos. Sin patentes, el mundo caería en una anarquía intelectual, donde la fuerza hace el derecho y aquellos con más recursos pueden simplemente tomar lo que quieran.
Sin embargo, en su deshonestidad, los anarquistas y los ciberpunks quieren hacernos creer que estas protecciones (corporaciones y patentes) son las mismas cosas que nos atan.
Se oponen a ellas no porque busquen la libertad, sino porque buscan el control.
Su mundo es uno en el que ningún individuo puede salvaguardar sus creaciones, donde ninguna empresa puede proteger su futuro. Enmascaran sus intenciones bajo el disfraz de la "libertad", pero lo que ofrecen no es libertad, es un sistema en el que los poderosos, sin las restricciones de la ley o los derechos, dominarían a los débiles. Es un sistema que destruye al individuo, reduciéndolo a un engranaje del colectivo, obligado a defenderse de todo intento de robar lo que crea, sin los medios para protegerlo.
El verdadero capitalismo, la verdadera libertad, se construye sobre derechos: el derecho a formar corporaciones, el derecho a proteger las propias invenciones, el derecho a la propia mente y los productos de esa mente.
Los anarquistas y los cypherpunks pretenden estar en contra del control, pero lo que ofrecen no es nada más que caos: un caos en el que los fuertes pueden tomar sin ceder, en el que el innovador es castigado por atreverse a crear, en el que el individuo es despojado de sus defensas.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
02 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Son las piedras angulares del capitalismo, el sistema que defiende al individuo por encima de todo lo demás.
Una corporación no es una entidad monstruosa, como los anarquistas y los ciberpunks quieren hacernos creer. Es, de hecho, una magnífica creación que permite a los individuos unir fuerzas mientras protege su libertad y sus bienes personales. Es la máxima expresión de la libertad, donde los individuos pueden poner en común sus recursos, compartir sus talentos y, sin embargo, permanecer protegidos de las responsabilidades y los fracasos de los demás.
Consideremos la alternativa. En una sociedad, si un individuo fracasa, ya sea por quiebra, incompetencia o desgracia, la carga recae sobre todos.
Los productivos están encadenados a los improductivos. Esto no es libertad; Éste es el colectivismo forzado al que los anarquistas y sus semejantes quieren que volvamos. Es la negación de los derechos individuales, el rechazo de la responsabilidad y las recompensas personales. Una corporación, por el contrario, permite al individuo emprender, asumir riesgos e innovar sin el temor de verse arrastrado por los fracasos de los demás. Es la encarnación de la autonomía personal en el mercado.
Las patentes tampoco son instrumentos de control, sino más bien la protección definitiva de la libertad intelectual. Una patente es el reconocimiento de la mente de uno como su propiedad: su invención, su creación, su idea. Negarle al inventor su patente es robar el producto de su intelecto. Es declarar que la mente no es soberana, que cualquiera es libre de saquear y pillajear los pensamientos de los demás sin recompensa.
Las patentes garantizan que la mente, la herramienta más poderosa del progreso humano, esté protegida. Evitan que los fuertes simplemente abrumen a los innovadores, a los nuevos, a los creativos. Sin patentes, el mundo caería en una anarquía intelectual, donde la fuerza hace el derecho y aquellos con más recursos pueden simplemente tomar lo que quieran.
Sin embargo, en su deshonestidad, los anarquistas y los ciberpunks quieren hacernos creer que estas protecciones (corporaciones y patentes) son las mismas cosas que nos atan.
Se oponen a ellas no porque busquen la libertad, sino porque buscan el control.
Su mundo es uno en el que ningún individuo puede salvaguardar sus creaciones, donde ninguna empresa puede proteger su futuro. Enmascaran sus intenciones bajo el disfraz de la "libertad", pero lo que ofrecen no es libertad, es un sistema en el que los poderosos, sin las restricciones de la ley o los derechos, dominarían a los débiles. Es un sistema que destruye al individuo, reduciéndolo a un engranaje del colectivo, obligado a defenderse de todo intento de robar lo que crea, sin los medios para protegerlo.
El verdadero capitalismo, la verdadera libertad, se construye sobre derechos: el derecho a formar corporaciones, el derecho a proteger las propias invenciones, el derecho a la propia mente y los productos de esa mente.
Los anarquistas y los cypherpunks pretenden estar en contra del control, pero lo que ofrecen no es nada más que caos: un caos en el que los fuertes pueden tomar sin ceder, en el que el innovador es castigado por atreverse a crear, en el que el individuo es despojado de sus defensas.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
02 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Telegram
CSW S. Tominaga
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
❤1
El gobierno, cuando se mantiene dentro de sus límites adecuados, es el que protege estos derechos. No es el enemigo de la libertad, sino el marco dentro del cual la libertad puede prosperar. Sin el reconocimiento de las patentes y las corporaciones, el mercado se convertiría en la ley de la jungla, donde no hay recurso para el robo ni protección para la innovación. Los anarquistas rechazan estas salvaguardas no porque se opongan a la tiranía, sino porque se oponen al derecho del individuo a proteger lo que es suyo.
No son campeones de la libertad, sino de un colectivismo retorcido, donde los derechos del individuo quedan subsumidos por el caos que ellos mismos crean.
En eso consiste su deshonestidad: hablan de libertad, pero abogan por un mundo en el que el individuo no tenga protección, recurso ni derechos.
No luchan por la libertad; luchan por un sistema en el que los fuertes devoran a los débiles, donde la mente está subordinada a la fuerza bruta y donde la libertad se reduce a un eslogan vacío.
El gobierno, cuando se mantiene dentro de sus límites adecuados, es el que protege estos derechos. No es el enemigo de la libertad, sino el marco dentro del cual la libertad puede prosperar. Sin el reconocimiento de las patentes y las corporaciones, el mercado se convertiría en la ley de la jungla, donde no hay recurso para el robo ni protección para la innovación. Los anarquistas rechazan estas salvaguardas no porque se opongan a la tiranía, sino porque se oponen al derecho del individuo a proteger lo que es suyo.
No son campeones de la libertad, sino de un colectivismo retorcido, donde los derechos del individuo quedan subsumidos por el caos que ellos mismos crean.
En eso consiste su deshonestidad: hablan de libertad, pero abogan por un mundo en el que el individuo no tenga protección, recurso ni derechos.
No luchan por la libertad; luchan por un sistema en el que los fuertes devoran a los débiles, donde la mente está subordinada a la fuerza bruta y donde la libertad se reduce a un eslogan vacío.
La verdadera libertad, el capitalismo real, se basa en los derechos que le hemos arrebatado al gobierno: el derecho a formar corporaciones, a tener patentes, a proteger nuestra autonomía intelectual y financiera. Y solo dentro de este sistema los individuos pueden ser verdaderamente libres.
2/2
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
2 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
2/2
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
2 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
No son campeones de la libertad, sino de un colectivismo retorcido, donde los derechos del individuo quedan subsumidos por el caos que ellos mismos crean.
En eso consiste su deshonestidad: hablan de libertad, pero abogan por un mundo en el que el individuo no tenga protección, recurso ni derechos.
No luchan por la libertad; luchan por un sistema en el que los fuertes devoran a los débiles, donde la mente está subordinada a la fuerza bruta y donde la libertad se reduce a un eslogan vacío.
El gobierno, cuando se mantiene dentro de sus límites adecuados, es el que protege estos derechos. No es el enemigo de la libertad, sino el marco dentro del cual la libertad puede prosperar. Sin el reconocimiento de las patentes y las corporaciones, el mercado se convertiría en la ley de la jungla, donde no hay recurso para el robo ni protección para la innovación. Los anarquistas rechazan estas salvaguardas no porque se opongan a la tiranía, sino porque se oponen al derecho del individuo a proteger lo que es suyo.
No son campeones de la libertad, sino de un colectivismo retorcido, donde los derechos del individuo quedan subsumidos por el caos que ellos mismos crean.
En eso consiste su deshonestidad: hablan de libertad, pero abogan por un mundo en el que el individuo no tenga protección, recurso ni derechos.
No luchan por la libertad; luchan por un sistema en el que los fuertes devoran a los débiles, donde la mente está subordinada a la fuerza bruta y donde la libertad se reduce a un eslogan vacío.
La verdadera libertad, el capitalismo real, se basa en los derechos que le hemos arrebatado al gobierno: el derecho a formar corporaciones, a tener patentes, a proteger nuestra autonomía intelectual y financiera. Y solo dentro de este sistema los individuos pueden ser verdaderamente libres.
2/2
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
2 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
2/2
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
2 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Telegram
CSW S. Tominaga
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841335283390042505
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
❤1
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
The BTC people have one little flaw they’d rather not speak about. They can’t. Not really. But it sits there all the same, like a rock in the shoe. The thing about BTC is, it can’t be used as digital cash. Not in the way that matters. It was supposed to be, but somewhere along the line, it got lost.
The idea, the vision, it slipped through their fingers like sand, and now they’re holding onto something brittle. Useless in the hands of the people who need it most.
It was meant to be simple. A thing you could use. Day in, day out. The way you use your money for the bus, for coffee, for the thousand small things that make up a life. But that’s not what it is anymore.
What it’s become is a relic, something for the speculators to toss around. It’s no longer for the everyday person. Not for the person who needs to buy bread or pay a bill.
They’ll tell you otherwise. They’ll tell you it’s coming. That it’ll change. That they’re working on it. But the truth is simpler than they care to admit.
BTC can’t be used as digital cash.
It just can’t.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1044
The idea, the vision, it slipped through their fingers like sand, and now they’re holding onto something brittle. Useless in the hands of the people who need it most.
It was meant to be simple. A thing you could use. Day in, day out. The way you use your money for the bus, for coffee, for the thousand small things that make up a life. But that’s not what it is anymore.
What it’s become is a relic, something for the speculators to toss around. It’s no longer for the everyday person. Not for the person who needs to buy bread or pay a bill.
They’ll tell you otherwise. They’ll tell you it’s coming. That it’ll change. That they’re working on it. But the truth is simpler than they care to admit.
BTC can’t be used as digital cash.
It just can’t.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1044
Telegram
CSW S. Tominaga
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
💯1
Los partidarios del BTC tienen un pequeño defecto del que preferirían no hablar. No pueden. En realidad no. Pero sigue ahí, como una piedra en el zapato. El problema con el BTC es que no se puede utilizar como dinero digital. No de la forma que importa. Se suponía que debía ser así, pero en algún momento se perdió.
La idea, la visión, se les escapó de las manos como arena, y ahora se aferran a algo frágil. Inútil en manos de las personas que más lo necesitan.
Se suponía que iba a ser algo sencillo. Algo que se pudiera utilizar. Día tras día. De la misma forma que se utiliza el dinero para el autobús, para el café, para las miles de pequeñas cosas que componen una vida. Pero eso ya no es así.
Se ha convertido en una reliquia, algo para que los especuladores lo tiren a la basura. Ya no es para la gente común. No para la persona que necesita comprar pan o pagar una factura.
Te dirán lo contrario. Te dirán que está por llegar. Que cambiará. Que están trabajando en ello. Pero la verdad es más simple de lo que quieren admitir.
BTC no se puede usar como dinero digital.
Simplemente no se puede.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
02 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1044
La idea, la visión, se les escapó de las manos como arena, y ahora se aferran a algo frágil. Inútil en manos de las personas que más lo necesitan.
Se suponía que iba a ser algo sencillo. Algo que se pudiera utilizar. Día tras día. De la misma forma que se utiliza el dinero para el autobús, para el café, para las miles de pequeñas cosas que componen una vida. Pero eso ya no es así.
Se ha convertido en una reliquia, algo para que los especuladores lo tiren a la basura. Ya no es para la gente común. No para la persona que necesita comprar pan o pagar una factura.
Te dirán lo contrario. Te dirán que está por llegar. Que cambiará. Que están trabajando en ello. Pero la verdad es más simple de lo que quieren admitir.
BTC no se puede usar como dinero digital.
Simplemente no se puede.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
02 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1044
Telegram
CSW S. Tominaga
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
Oct 02, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841282738978247154
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1039
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 2, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841332997032952059?t=ZXr4ebUE4TMFhOVwXGDwPw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1047
Oct 2, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841332997032952059?t=ZXr4ebUE4TMFhOVwXGDwPw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1047
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 2, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841329671847432655?t=iomcTuwTsp8CJ2h5QnkkrQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1048
Oct 2, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841329671847432655?t=iomcTuwTsp8CJ2h5QnkkrQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1048
🔥1
When discussing BTC in the context of Bitcoin, there's a significant misrepresentation at play, especially when you consider how BTC Core proponents market it as Bitcoin, tying it to the original vision in the White Paper. The White Paper outlines Bitcoin as a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system," emphasizing low-cost transactions, efficiency, and scalability. However, when we look at BTC today, especially with transaction fees sometimes soaring beyond $50, it raises a stark contradiction to the fundamental design and purpose described in that document.
From a consumer’s perspective, they are being led to believe that when they buy BTC, they are buying into the original vision of Bitcoin—a decentralized digital cash system that allows for fast, inexpensive transactions. But the reality of BTC is far from that. It has become a highly speculative asset, with fees so exorbitant at times that using it as "cash" becomes nearly impossible, especially for small, everyday transactions. This is not just a deviation from the White Paper; it's a complete abandonment of the core principles laid out by Satoshi Nakamoto.
In England, the law on misrepresentation provides a clear lens through which to examine this issue. Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement of fact, inducing another party to enter into a contract. There are three main types of misrepresentation under English law: fraudulent, negligent, and innocent. In this case, the claim that BTC is Bitcoin and represents the system described in the White Paper could be viewed as a misrepresentation, particularly if consumers are misled into buying BTC under false pretenses.
A key element here is the reliance of consumers on the representation that BTC is Bitcoin as described in the White Paper. If someone buys BTC, believing they are purchasing a form of digital cash that allows for low-cost and efficient transactions, yet they are later confronted with high fees and slow transaction times, they may argue that they were misled. The reality of BTC’s high fees and its shift away from being a digital cash system could amount to a false statement of fact—BTC is no longer what it claims to be.
This type of misrepresentation might not necessarily be fraudulent unless it can be shown that BTC proponents knew their claims were false and intended to deceive buyers. However, it could easily fall under negligent misrepresentation if BTC proponents ought to have known that their representations about BTC’s role as digital cash were inaccurate. Given the widespread knowledge within the industry that BTC no longer functions as low-cost, peer-to-peer digital cash, it could be argued that BTC supporters who market it as such are acting negligently.
Further, from a consumer protection standpoint, there’s an inherent dishonesty in presenting BTC as something it no longer is. When consumers are induced to buy something under a false impression—especially something as significant as BTC—they may suffer financial harm. With fees that can exceed $50, BTC clearly does not serve as an effective medium for microtransactions or daily commerce. Instead, it operates more as a speculative asset, which is a far cry from what consumers expect when they hear the term "digital cash system."
Moreover, the reputational damage to Bitcoin itself as a concept cannot be ignored. Bitcoin, as envisioned, was meant to solve real-world problems of financial exclusion and inefficiency. By continuing to call BTC "Bitcoin" while it fails to function in the ways originally intended, BTC Core proponents mislead the public and distort the very idea of what Bitcoin was supposed to be. In doing so, they undermine trust not just in BTC, but in the broader concept of cryptocurrency as a whole.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 2, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841329671847432655?t=iomcTuwTsp8CJ2h5QnkkrQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1048
From a consumer’s perspective, they are being led to believe that when they buy BTC, they are buying into the original vision of Bitcoin—a decentralized digital cash system that allows for fast, inexpensive transactions. But the reality of BTC is far from that. It has become a highly speculative asset, with fees so exorbitant at times that using it as "cash" becomes nearly impossible, especially for small, everyday transactions. This is not just a deviation from the White Paper; it's a complete abandonment of the core principles laid out by Satoshi Nakamoto.
In England, the law on misrepresentation provides a clear lens through which to examine this issue. Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement of fact, inducing another party to enter into a contract. There are three main types of misrepresentation under English law: fraudulent, negligent, and innocent. In this case, the claim that BTC is Bitcoin and represents the system described in the White Paper could be viewed as a misrepresentation, particularly if consumers are misled into buying BTC under false pretenses.
A key element here is the reliance of consumers on the representation that BTC is Bitcoin as described in the White Paper. If someone buys BTC, believing they are purchasing a form of digital cash that allows for low-cost and efficient transactions, yet they are later confronted with high fees and slow transaction times, they may argue that they were misled. The reality of BTC’s high fees and its shift away from being a digital cash system could amount to a false statement of fact—BTC is no longer what it claims to be.
This type of misrepresentation might not necessarily be fraudulent unless it can be shown that BTC proponents knew their claims were false and intended to deceive buyers. However, it could easily fall under negligent misrepresentation if BTC proponents ought to have known that their representations about BTC’s role as digital cash were inaccurate. Given the widespread knowledge within the industry that BTC no longer functions as low-cost, peer-to-peer digital cash, it could be argued that BTC supporters who market it as such are acting negligently.
Further, from a consumer protection standpoint, there’s an inherent dishonesty in presenting BTC as something it no longer is. When consumers are induced to buy something under a false impression—especially something as significant as BTC—they may suffer financial harm. With fees that can exceed $50, BTC clearly does not serve as an effective medium for microtransactions or daily commerce. Instead, it operates more as a speculative asset, which is a far cry from what consumers expect when they hear the term "digital cash system."
Moreover, the reputational damage to Bitcoin itself as a concept cannot be ignored. Bitcoin, as envisioned, was meant to solve real-world problems of financial exclusion and inefficiency. By continuing to call BTC "Bitcoin" while it fails to function in the ways originally intended, BTC Core proponents mislead the public and distort the very idea of what Bitcoin was supposed to be. In doing so, they undermine trust not just in BTC, but in the broader concept of cryptocurrency as a whole.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 2, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841329671847432655?t=iomcTuwTsp8CJ2h5QnkkrQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1048
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (@CsTominaga) on X
When discussing BTC in the context of Bitcoin, there's a significant misrepresentation at play, especially when you consider how BTC Core proponents market it as Bitcoin, tying it to the original vision in the White Paper. The White Paper outlines Bitcoin…
⚡1
The misrepresentation here goes beyond mere confusion. It strikes at the heart of consumer trust, which is paramount in financial markets. Consumers have the right to make informed decisions based on accurate information, especially when it comes to something as volatile and complex as cryptocurrency. By clinging to the White Paper and marketing BTC as the true Bitcoin, despite all evidence to the contrary, BTC proponents may be engaging in a form of negligent misrepresentation, if not outright dishonesty.
The law in England on misrepresentation seeks to protect individuals from being misled in precisely this way. If a consumer can demonstrate that they relied on the misrepresentation (i.e., that BTC was Bitcoin as defined in the White Paper) when purchasing BTC, and that this reliance led to financial harm (in the form of exorbitant transaction fees and a product that doesn’t function as advertised), then there could be grounds for legal recourse.
In essence, BTC is not Bitcoin in any meaningful sense, at least not in the way it was originally conceived. And continuing to market it as such, when it clearly fails to serve as digital cash, is a disservice to consumers. This is a classic case where the law of misrepresentation could come into play, safeguarding the rights of those who are being misled into buying something that isn’t what it claims to be.
2/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 2, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841329671847432655?t=iomcTuwTsp8CJ2h5QnkkrQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1048
The law in England on misrepresentation seeks to protect individuals from being misled in precisely this way. If a consumer can demonstrate that they relied on the misrepresentation (i.e., that BTC was Bitcoin as defined in the White Paper) when purchasing BTC, and that this reliance led to financial harm (in the form of exorbitant transaction fees and a product that doesn’t function as advertised), then there could be grounds for legal recourse.
In essence, BTC is not Bitcoin in any meaningful sense, at least not in the way it was originally conceived. And continuing to market it as such, when it clearly fails to serve as digital cash, is a disservice to consumers. This is a classic case where the law of misrepresentation could come into play, safeguarding the rights of those who are being misled into buying something that isn’t what it claims to be.
2/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 2, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841329671847432655?t=iomcTuwTsp8CJ2h5QnkkrQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1048
⚡1🔥1
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 3, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841679245028032765?t=ZQTe-qi-VCxjG4SYGWU6kQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1051
Oct 3, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841679245028032765?t=ZQTe-qi-VCxjG4SYGWU6kQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1051
👍1
The list received by the court, which was not the Shadders one, was never presented as a list of my addresses. Instead, it was explicitly stated to the court that this list came from an anonymous email, purportedly sent by someone pretending to be Denis, though it was clear that this individual was not Denis.
This was fully and clearly documented in our filing to the court, ensuring that the provenance and authenticity of the list were called into question from the outset.
The legal requirements were clear: any information regarding addresses (any addresses, of any Providence) had to be submitted to the court.
We complied with this requirement, explicitly noting that we had no way of verifying whether the information was genuine or not.
I again state that the list, received from an anonymous source pretending to be Denis, was submitted with the clear disclaimer that its authenticity could not be ascertained.
I had no knowledge of any of it. What we had were just a series of emails—more than one—each with different lists attached. These were all presented to the court as required. Some were obviously fakes, and others we simply couldn't verify. That’s all there was to it. None of these lists were what people are now trying to portray them as. We were clear from the start: we had no idea about their authenticity, and we made that clear to the court.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 1, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841233381591486957?t=Q0FtnCPozLJxk_7uzToTWw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1052
This was fully and clearly documented in our filing to the court, ensuring that the provenance and authenticity of the list were called into question from the outset.
The legal requirements were clear: any information regarding addresses (any addresses, of any Providence) had to be submitted to the court.
We complied with this requirement, explicitly noting that we had no way of verifying whether the information was genuine or not.
I again state that the list, received from an anonymous source pretending to be Denis, was submitted with the clear disclaimer that its authenticity could not be ascertained.
I had no knowledge of any of it. What we had were just a series of emails—more than one—each with different lists attached. These were all presented to the court as required. Some were obviously fakes, and others we simply couldn't verify. That’s all there was to it. None of these lists were what people are now trying to portray them as. We were clear from the start: we had no idea about their authenticity, and we made that clear to the court.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 1, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841233381591486957?t=Q0FtnCPozLJxk_7uzToTWw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1052
La lista que recibió el tribunal, que no era la de Shadders, nunca se presentó como una lista de mis direcciones. En cambio, se le indicó explícitamente al tribunal que esta lista provenía de un correo electrónico anónimo, supuestamente enviado por alguien que se hacía pasar por Denis, aunque estaba claro que esa persona no era Denis.
Esto quedó documentado de manera completa y clara en nuestra presentación ante el tribunal, lo que garantiza que la procedencia y autenticidad de la lista se pusieran en tela de juicio desde el principio.
Los requisitos legales eran claros: cualquier información sobre direcciones (cualquier dirección, de cualquier provincia) debía presentarse al tribunal.
Cumplimos con este requisito, señalando explícitamente que no teníamos forma de verificar si la información era genuina o no.
Declaro nuevamente que la lista, recibida de una fuente anónima que se hacía pasar por Denis, se presentó con la clara exención de responsabilidad de que no se podía determinar su autenticidad.
No tenía conocimiento de nada de eso. Lo que teníamos era solo una serie de correos electrónicos, más de uno, cada uno con diferentes listas adjuntas. Todas estas listas fueron presentadas ante el tribunal como se requería. Algunas eran obviamente falsas y otras simplemente no pudimos verificarlas. Eso es todo. Ninguna de estas listas era lo que la gente ahora intenta presentar como tal. Fuimos claros desde el principio: no teníamos idea de su autenticidad y se lo dejamos claro al tribunal.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
1 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841233381591486957?t=Q0FtnCPozLJxk_7uzToTWw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1052
Esto quedó documentado de manera completa y clara en nuestra presentación ante el tribunal, lo que garantiza que la procedencia y autenticidad de la lista se pusieran en tela de juicio desde el principio.
Los requisitos legales eran claros: cualquier información sobre direcciones (cualquier dirección, de cualquier provincia) debía presentarse al tribunal.
Cumplimos con este requisito, señalando explícitamente que no teníamos forma de verificar si la información era genuina o no.
Declaro nuevamente que la lista, recibida de una fuente anónima que se hacía pasar por Denis, se presentó con la clara exención de responsabilidad de que no se podía determinar su autenticidad.
No tenía conocimiento de nada de eso. Lo que teníamos era solo una serie de correos electrónicos, más de uno, cada uno con diferentes listas adjuntas. Todas estas listas fueron presentadas ante el tribunal como se requería. Algunas eran obviamente falsas y otras simplemente no pudimos verificarlas. Eso es todo. Ninguna de estas listas era lo que la gente ahora intenta presentar como tal. Fuimos claros desde el principio: no teníamos idea de su autenticidad y se lo dejamos claro al tribunal.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
1 de octubre de 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841233381591486957?t=Q0FtnCPozLJxk_7uzToTWw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1052
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 3, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841679245028032765?t=ZQTe-qi-VCxjG4SYGWU6kQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1055
Oct 3, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841679245028032765?t=ZQTe-qi-VCxjG4SYGWU6kQ&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1055