The different Bitcoin Cash development teams did not reach an agreement regarding important consensus changes.
What important consensus changes does this refer to exactly? Wikipedia is no better...
The split originated from what was described as a "civil war" in two competing bitcoin cash camps. The first camp, supported by entrepreneur Roger Ver and Jihan Wu of Bitmain, promoted the software entitled Bitcoin ABC (short for Adjustable Blocksize Cap), which would maintain the block size at 32 MB. The second camp led by Craig Steven Wright and billionaire Calvin Ayre put forth a competing software version Bitcoin SV, short for "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", which would increase the block size limit to 128 MB.
Is it really just as simple as a disagreement between 32 MB and 128 MB?
The different Bitcoin Cash development teams did not reach an agreement regarding important consensus changes.
What important consensus changes does this refer to exactly? Wikipedia is no better...
The split originated from what was described as a "civil war" in two competing bitcoin cash camps. The first camp, supported by entrepreneur Roger Ver and Jihan Wu of Bitmain, promoted the software entitled Bitcoin ABC (short for Adjustable Blocksize Cap), which would maintain the block size at 32 MB. The second camp led by Craig Steven Wright and billionaire Calvin Ayre put forth a competing software version Bitcoin SV, short for "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", which would increase the block size limit to 128 MB.
Is it really just as simple as a disagreement between 32 MB and 128 MB?
In December 2015, two parallel investigations by Wired and Gizmodo suggested that Wright may have been the inventor of bitcoin. Subsequent reporting, however, raised concerns that Wright was engaged in an elaborate hoax. Hours after Wired published their allegations, Wright's home in Gordon, New South Wales and associated business premises in Ryde, New South Wales were raided by the Australian Federal Police. According to the AFP, the raid was part of an Australian Tax Office investigation. On 2 May 2016, the BBC and The Economist published articles claiming that Wright had digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of bitcoin's development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or "mined" by Satoshi Nakamoto
Self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor Craig Wright has appeared to claim that he was the hacker of Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox in 2011, when 79,956 Bitcoin—worth $751 million today—was stolen. In a letter sent to Bitcoin services provider Blockstream, Wright’s law firm SCA Ontier alleges that he has control over two Bitcoin addresses. One of the addresses specified is the same address that received the Bitcoin stolen from Mt. Gox, according to then Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles.
Voici LA chronique à découvrir, intitulée: La guerre contre Bitcoin. Idéal pour comprendre certains tenants et aboutissants
Voici LA chronique à découvrir, intitulée: La guerre contre Bitcoin. Idéal pour comprendre certains tenants et aboutissants… Bonne découverte! La guerre contre Bitcoin Bitcoin est peut-être le meilleur outil de liberté économique de cette génération, et peut-être depuis plusieurs générations. Malheureusement, Bitcoin a été furieusement étouffé par une guerre civile brutale depuis environ cinq ans maintenant; menée par des ingénieurs sociaux professionnels de certaines des entreprises les plus puissantes des médias sociaux. Leur talent dans l'art et la science de la manipulation a permis aux "Bitcoiners" de se battre largement entre eux plutôt que de chercher à créer des modèles commerciaux innovants basés sur les données qui pourraient révolutionner l'économie mondiale via Bitcoin. À la suite de la guerre civile de Bitcoin, trois versions concurrentes de Bitcoin ont vu le jour (BTC, BCH et BitcoinSV ), mais il en est de même pour environ 3000 autres projets et jetons de « crypto-monnaie » se faisant passer pour des entreprises légitimes, souvent jusqu'à un "exit scam" presque garanti, le fait de disparaitre du jour au lendemain avec tout l'argent des utilisateurs. Le principal bienfaiteur de la guerre civile Bitcoin a été Ethereum: une cryptomonnaie qui fonctionne comme une machine à états mondiale et permet un déploiement facile de tokens et de contrats intelligents. Mais le protocole Ethereum ne peut pas évoluer, et parmi les milliers de projets lancés, seule une poignée pourrait même être présentés comme pouvant devenir des entreprises légitimes. La plupart des autres sont des stratagèmes de Ponzi ou des émissions d'actions illégales enrichissant les développeurs et escroquant les investisseurs amateurs. C'est dans ce contexte que les défenseurs de BTC et de BCH, les porte-parole d'Ethereum et les altcoiners (nom donné pour englober toutes les autres cryptomonnaies) de tous bords s'alignent pour attaquer sans cesse le protocole Bitcoin préservé uniquement par le réseau BSV. Une industrie composée presque entièrement de criminels, de fraudes et d'arnaqueurs s'est unie contre BSV citant - et c'est là l'ironie! - une prétendue fraude et arnaque présumée qui serait l'existence même de BSV. Nous devons nous demander pourquoi ? Quel est le différenciateur clé de BSV? Pourquoi tous les arnaqueurs se sont-ils unis contre lui? Je suis fermement convaincu que pour la plupart, la motivation est la peur de la capacité de BSV à absorber l'économie mondiale et tous les autres projets «crypto» qui vont avec. Pour les autres, ou ceux qui ne comprennent pas le pouvoir du Bitcoin, ils sont entraînés dans une guerre civile et culturelle qui les dépasse. Il est essentiel de comprendre les pouvoirs en jeu et leurs implications pour Bitcoin et l'économie mondiale. Une histoire brève de Bitcoin Bitcoin a été lancé avec un "livre blanc" sur la liste de diffusion de cryptographie en 2008. Le pseudonyme « Satoshi Nakamoto » a déclaré une solution au problème de la double dépense. Or il s'agit là du problème de tous les systèmes de paiement électronique précédents, et c'était le seul facteur limitant l'adoption d'une monnaie digitale fonctionnelle. Mais qu'est-ce que le problème de la double dépense ? Pour faire simple, il était impossible de prouver exactement qui possédait quelles unités d'argent sur des registres distribués, de sorte que les utilisateurs ne pouvaient pas avoir confiance dans le système, et ces projets mourraient assez vite. Bitcoin a résolu ce problème avec un concept appelé la « preuve de travail ». Il pose la question: qui a utilisé le plus de puissance de calcul pour résoudre des énigmes arbitraires ? ceci afin de rendre compte de l'état du registre d'une manière qui coûte de l'argent, de sorte qu'il y ait une incitation économique à tenir un compte honnête des avoirs de chacun des participants. Ce processus est souvent appelé « exploitation minière » car les nœuds honnêtes qui maintiennent l'état du registre sont récompensés pour leur travail avec des nouveaux Bitcoins toutes les dix minutes - un peu à la même manière d'un mineur d'or qui est récompensé par de l'or en échange de son travail. Étant donné que Bitcoin n'avait aucune valeur lors de son lancement, il était extrêmement facile à miner et également gratuit d'envoyer des tonnes de transactions. En théorie, il s'agissait d'un vecteur d'attaque par déni de service (DoS). Une attaque DoS ou DDoS se produit lorsque les nœuds d'un réseau sont inondés de plus de données qu'ils ne peuvent en gérer et qu'ils se mettent donc à planter. Sur le jeune réseau Bitcoin, un crash comme celui-ci aurait été considéré comme un échec du réseau. Pour empêcher cela, un plafond de 1 Mo de données par chaque dix minutes de transactions a été codé en dur dans le logiciel - semant la première graine de la guerre civile Bitcoin. De 2009 à 2017, cette limite de 1 Mo sur le total des transactions était l'aspect technique le plus controversé du bitcoin et le déclencheur de la plus grande guerre civile virtuelle de l'univers de la cryptomonnaie. Pourquoi est-ce aussi important? Une seule transaction basique Bitcoin est relativement petite du point de vue des données, donc 1 Mo toutes les dix minutes donne environ trois à sept transactions par seconde avant que le réseau ne devienne trop encombré. Satoshi Nakamoto le créateur, a plaidé pour un nombre de transactions du niveau de Visa et bien plus, ainsi que son successeur direct en tant que développeur principal du projet, Gavin Andresen. Certains des premiers Bitcoiners influents comme Mike Hearn et Jeff Garzik ont également plaidé pour plus de données par bloc pour permettre à Bitcoin de se développer et de rester le meilleur système de paiement électronique. Ils étaient pour des «gros blocs» contrairement au camp des «petits blocs» qui préconisaient une permanence de la limitation de 1 Mo des blocs. Le camp des "petits blocs" estiment que Bitcoin n'est pas un réseau de paiement, mais plutôt qu'il s'apparente davantage à une banque décentralisée conçue pour stocker des Bitcoins qui ne bougent jamais: une sorte de coffre-fort d'or numérique. Ils voulaient que la limite de taille des blocs de 1 Mo reste permanente sous les auspices de chaque personne exécutant un «nœud complet» sans avoir à payer trop d'espace sur le disque dur. Cela signifierait qu'en période de congestion, les frais de transaction deviendraient absurdement élevés, mais cela n'aurait pas d'importance car le bitcoin ne devrait pas être utilisé pour des envois sauf en grosses quantités de toute façon, selon eux. En décembre 2017 les frais de BTC ont ainsi atteint les $50 par transaction. L'autre problème est que s'il est bon marché de rejoindre la gouvernance de Bitcoin, alors le réseau est facile à attaquer par Sybil, et je dirais que BTC est régi par des sybilles à ce jour. Le camp des "gros-blocs" estime que tout le monde sur terre devrait être en mesure d'échanger et de faire ses affaires sur Bitcoin pour des frais infimes, de l'ordre d'un centième ou millième de centime par transaction, afin d'apporter à la population mondiale la liberté monétaire, y compris aux pays les plus pauvres qui sont gardés en dehors du système actuel car considérés comme pas assez profitables pour des entreprises comme Visa. Les "petits-blocs" pensent que tout le monde devrait être en mesure de gérer soi-même le registre mondial chez soi, mais que seules certaines personnes très riches devraient pouvoir effectuer des transactions, ce qui est le cas quand les frais sont à $50 par transaction comme en 2017. Après des années de querelles, en 2017, Bitcoin s'est scindé en deux chaînes distinctes, et en 2018, il s'est à nouveau divisé. Alors quelle est la différence entre ces trois versions ? BTC est actuellement la version qui a le prix le plus élevé, avec la plus petite taille de bloc et la plus grande puissance de calcul. On peut dire que BTC à gagné la guerre médiatique. Malheureusement, il est régi par des développeurs et des sybilles qui contrôlent le consensus grâce à une utilisation intelligente de logiciels malveillants appelés «soft-fork» qui leur permet de saper les règles du Bitcoin. Ils utilisent ce pouvoir pour changer les règles des transactions en mentant aux nœuds et en leur disant de les valider quand même. Toute la culture BTC consiste à acheter du BTC afin de le conserver jusqu'à un moment dans le futur où il serait revendu à un prix exorbitant. Le but est de spéculer au maximum. Les paiements avec BTC, particulièrement les petits paiements, ou les transactions de toute nature non-monétaires, sont méprisés. BCH est un réseau basé sur Bitcoin qui pense que les blocs devraient être à peine légèrement plus grands, mais ils ont également des développeurs en charge des règles, tout comme BTC, et ils pensent que Bitcoin devrait être utilisé uniquement pour le commerce de détail, mais rien de plus. Le réseau change de règles tous les six mois. Les transactions non commerciales sont en général méprisées. Un nouveau scindement de BCH est prévu pour novembre 2020 suite à des conflits internes et l'incapacité à avoir un système de gouvernance dans un projet où les règles changent en permanence. BSV est la version restaurée du protocole Bitcoin original avec tous les paramètres ouverts afin que les nœuds honnêtes puissent s'engager dans un consensus conformément au livre blanc de Bitcoin - par la preuve de travail ! Le protocole est gravé dans la pierre afin que les développeurs de logiciels ne puissent pas bricoler les règles. Cela permet aux entreprises de planifier des décennies d'utilisation du réseau et d'investir en toute confiance. Il s'agit d'apporter une réelle innovation technologique au monde plutôt que de spéculer. En tant que seul réseau bitcoin totalement sans besoin d'autorisation, le commerce de toute nature est encouragé sur BSV. Tout, allant des réseaux sociaux aux expériences de science des données météorologiques ou aux tests de disponibilité du réseau, est encouragé. Paiements de détail, tokenisation, ou tout autre type de contrat intelligent est simple à déployer sans limitations. Bitcoin SV n'a aucune limite dans son protocole sauf l'esprit humain, l'innovation et l'esprit d'entreprise. Il vise également une adoption mondiale notamment par les pays pauvres afin d'apporter la liberté monétaire et l'inclusion à l'économie mondiale de ceux que les grandes entreprises actuelles comme Visa dédaignent comme pas assez profitables pour leur accorder leur services. Et c'est la racine de la haine envers BSV. Les "petits-blocs" ont investi toute leur réputation et leurs moyens de subsistance sur la notion que le bitcoin est incapable de s'adapter. Pendant des années, des experts présumés ont convaincu de nombreuses personnes que les limites de taille de bloc de 2 Mo, 8 Mo ou 22 Mo casseraient littéralement Bitcoin. Ils ont furieusement mis en jeux leur réputation sur ces fausses notions. Et ensuite, BSV a eu de nombreux blocs de plus de 100 Mo. En fait, il y en a même eu quelques-uns de plus de 300 Mo! prouvant que les petits-blocs se trompaient depuis le début sur les limites du réseau. Mais cette prise de conscience est une menace pour l'hégémonie de l'histoire médiatique qui a été crée sur Bitcoin. Depuis 2015, lorsque le Dr Craig Wright est apparu sur les lieux pour expliquer que le bitcoin avait en réalité ZERO limitations, il a créé un tollé massif parmi l'intelligentsia des petits-blocs. Les leaders d'opinion de l'époque étaient payés pour prendre la parole lors de conférences où ils expliquaient à tort que Bitcoin n'était rien d'autre qu'une réserve de valeur rare sans autre utilité, et surtout pas à usage des plus pauvres. Le Dr Wright parlait de l'échelle illimitée du réseau, de son exhaustivité de Turing, de l'objectif d'inclure enfin les plus pauvres dans l'économie mondiale, et d'autres notions inconcevables (à l'époque) sur Bitcoin. Sa passion et ses connaissances se sont heurtées à des calomnies et des railleries. Ils se sont concentrés sur l'attaque de son personnage au lieu de discuter de Bitcoin! C'est devenu l'une des principales méthodes d'attaque des petits-blocs. Lorsque de gros-blocs parlent des capacités de Bitcoin, ils sont ridiculisés en tant qu'escrocs et le sujet est toujours dirigé très loin de la discussion technique, car les petits-blocs savent bien qu'ils sortiraient perdants. Ils fouillent les dossiers personnels et cherchent des moyens de faire taire les gens du camp des grands-blocs de Bitcoin par des attaques personnelles - de la même manière que les guerriers de la justice sociale s'engagent dans la culture d'annulation contre leurs ennemis politiques. Qui est le Dr Craig Wright et que fait-il? Craig Wright est le scientifique en chef d'une société de recherche sur Bitcoin au Royaume-Uni appelée nChain : une société de 150 à 200 informaticiens. Craig dirige l'équipe qui étudie les possibilités de Bitcoin et de ses applications dans le monde. Il est l'un des experts en criminalité numérique les plus reconnus au monde avec les certifications SANS et GIAC ainsi que les titres GSE CISSP, CISA, CISM, CCE, GCFA, GLEG, GREM et GSPA. En outre, il est un polymathe multidisciplinaire de troisième cycle: un doctorat en informatique, économie et théologie et titulaire d'une maîtrise en statistique et en droit commercial international. En 2015, il a également été exposé par une publication conjointe de WIRED et Gizmodo en tant que Satoshi Nakamoto, le créateur de Bitcoin. Quelques jours après cette révélation, les gens qui le soutenaient ont vu leurs clés d'accès au code de Bitcoin révoquées, et de nombreux autres ont été instantanément bannis. Craig a été mis sous enquête par le bureau des impôts australien pour ce qu'il considérait être une erreur de comptabilisation probable de ses bitcoins. Les retombées ont été agressives et rapides, avec une gigantesque armée de petits-blocs, organisée sur Reddit et d'autres forums, et nouvellement financés par l'argent de la startup pro petits-blocs appelée «Blockstream». Leur message était clair: Bitcoin doit garder de petits blocs. Le Bitcoin ne peut pas évoluer et doit rester réservé aux riches, et toute personne proche de Craig Wright sera harcelée pour se conformer à une armée de comptes Twitter anonymes et sans visage. Voici un schéma qui retrace les financements de Blockstream et révèle comment le groupe Bilderberg, la banque centrale américaine (FED) et Mastercard on pris le contrôle du réseau BTC via Blockstream afin de le soumettre à leur propre profit: https://imgur.com/eFApDVE Au cours des années suivantes, Ira Kleiman, frère du défunt Dave Kleiman, a poursuivi Craig Wright en justice pour sa part du prétendu «Partenariat Satoshi Nakamoto», affirmant que son frère Dave était plus impliqué qu'il ne l'était réellement, et l'affaire est en cours actuellement, jusqu'à courant 2021. Ira Kleiman pense que Craig est Satoshi et il a investi une fortune incalculable dans cette attaque et a obtenu l'argent d'investisseurs extérieurs pour poursuivre sa poursuite. Il est clair que les bailleurs de fonds d'Ira pensent que Craig est également Satoshi. Les critiques qualifient souvent la révélation publique et le procès public de Wright de ternir énormément sa réputation, mais il convient de noter que les deux sont arrivés à Wright malgré sa volonté et qu'il ne souhaitait clairement pas être pris dans l'une ou l'autre situation. Au lieu de cela, Craig est un défenseur passionné de la vision d'un Bitcoin avec de gros blocs, appelant à la professionnalisation, à la légalisation et à l'utilisation mondiale de Bitcoin pour une utilisation à tous les niveaux du commerce. La réponse à la passion de Craig et à ses affirmations a été d'attaquer sa réputation et d'endosser Internet avec le surnom de «Faketoshi». Lorsque de simples brimades ont échoué contre le Dr Wright, des attaques ont été intensifiées pour remettre en question ses divers diplômes, des pétitions aux universités pour enquêter sur lui pour plagiat dans divers travaux, y compris des thèses de doctorat, etc. Wright a même revendiqué des menaces contre la vie des membres de sa famille et il y a plus qu'une preuve que, selon Ian Grigg, une des légendes de la cryptographie: «des gens sont morts pour Bitcoin, croyez moi, des gens sont morts». Les attaques en cours Cela ne peut être assez souligné: la communauté des petits-blocs est construite autour de tactiques d'ingénierie sociale professionnelles. Gregory Maxwell, co-fondateur de la société Blockstream, a été formé à la pratique de l'ingénierie sociale et l'a utilisé de manière si subversive comme un outil de propagande pendant son mandat en tant que modérateur rémunéré de Wikipedia, qu'il a finalement été démis de ses fonctions avec les journaux d'administration citant une litanie d'infractions, notamment: «Gmaxwell s'est engagé dans la création de faux comptes en masse…» - Alhutch 00:05, 23 janvier 2006 (UTC) «Menaces, insultes grossières, usurpations d'identité d'un administrateur», -Husnock 03:18, 25 janvier 2006 (UTC) «Son comportement est scandaleux. Franchement, il est hors de contrôle à ce stade. Son comportement d'intimidation doit cesser.» - FearÉIREANN 19:36, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC) «Sa liste de contributions est hors de propos. C'est du vandalisme. C'est un comportement auquel je m'attendrais d'un éditeur en furie, et franchement, c'est ce qu'est Gmaxwell.» - Splashtalk 20h00, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC) «Prétend être un administrateur, menaçant de bloquer les personnes qui ne sont pas d'accord avec lui, fait régulièrement des attaques personnelles» - SlimVirgin (talk) 12h22, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC) Il passe beaucoup de temps sur Reddit et d'autres forums à semer la peur sur les dangers des gros blocs, et il a été surpris en train de faire semblant d'être plusieurs comptes à la fois en train d'avoir de très longues discussions techniques sur Reddit destinées à submerger les nouveaux arrivants avec ce qui ressemble à un débat intellectuel contre une version de Bitcoin libéré de ses limites. Qui d'autre est attaqué? L'autre cible commune de la machine de guerre médiatique anti-BSV est Calvin Ayre: un milliardaire à la tête de l'empire du groupe Ayre. Calvin est un entrepreneur canadien et antiguais qui a lancé un incubateur Internet à Vancouver au tout début du boom Internet. Fils d'un éleveur, Ayre est surtout connu en dehors de l'économie Bitcoin pour la création et la professionnalisation de l'industrie du jeu sur Internet. Plus particulièrement, sous la marque Bodog, Ayre a aidé à moderniser les lois financières américaines obsolètes en poussant les limites dans les marchés gris qui existent où les dollars américains sont utilisés à travers les frontières pour s'engager dans un commerce juridiquement compliqué comme le jeu d'argent. Son travail dans ce domaine lui a valu une petite fortune et un passage sur la liste des «plus recherchés» du gouvernement des USA pour blanchiment d'argent. C'est un point sur lequel les petits-blocs aiment se concentrer, mais ils le sortent complètement de son contexte. Calvin a finalement plaidé coupable à une accusation mais a été le fer de lance de la modernisation des lois américaines qui existent aujourd'hui sur les marchés. Il est respecté pour son travail dans l'industrie du jeu, des médias et de la philanthropie. Calvin est le bienvenu aux États-Unis malgré la critique souvent citée selon laquelle il serait une sorte de hors-la-loi. Calvin Ayre Dans l'économie Bitcoin, Ayre est une figure de proue dans la gestion de nœuds Bitcoin honnêtes depuis plusieurs années sous les marques CoinGeek et TAAL, et il est un investisseur dans nChain ainsi que plusieurs startups de l'espace BSV. Bien qu'il soit probablement le plus gros investisseur à ce jour, il n'est pas le monopole que les petits-blocs laisseraient croire. Il est important de comprendre que des segments entiers de l'écosystème BSV existent complètement en dehors de son influence. Twetch, par exemple, est une entreprise indépendante appartenant à l'écosystème BSV, célèbre pour ses attaques contre les médias sociaux centralisés qui abusent de la censure. Ils sont même connus pour se moquer des entreprises qui acceptent l'argent d'Ayre, en plaisantant que Calvin possède tout sauf Twetch. Bien sûr, ce n'est pas vrai. Un autre excellent exemple est l'investisseur / entrepreneur indépendant Jack Liu : ancien dirigeant de Circle et OKEX. Liu possède la marque de hackathons CambrianSV ainsi que des propriétés précieuses dans l'espace BSV telles que RelayX, Streamanity, Output Capital, FloatSV et Dimely. Les autres acteurs clés sont MatterPool Mining et leur écosystème Mattercloud: une joint-venture entre des acteurs indépendants de l'écosystème BSV, avec des connexions directes aux protocoles BoostPOW et 21e8 et des relations avec des développeurs BSV indépendants. Bien sûr, il existe également des marques précieuses financées par Ayre. Il s'agit notamment de la propriété partielle via l'investissement dans HandCash, Centi, TonicPow et Planaria Corp de Unwriter. Une autre mesure importante à prendre en compte est la distribution de la puissance de hachage (autre nom pour la puissance de calcul du résau). Alors qu'au tout début de BSV, les entreprises appartenant à Ayre représentaient une quantité importante de hachage sur bitcoin, afin d'assurer sa survie, BSV est aujourd'hui en grande partie exploité par des mineurs concurrents de Ayre tels que Binance, F2Pool, OKEX et ViaBTC - dont aucun n'est «ami» de BSV ou d'Ayre, mais beaucoup se déclarent les ennemis. Ces mineurs soulignent bien la nature ouverte et sans permission de BSV qui permet à quiconque de participer, notamment à ses ennemis! Ayre est un acteur important, mais en aucun cas un contrôleur de la direction de la blockchain ou des entreprises indépendantes dans l'économie BSV. Mais pourquoi Craig poursuit-il des gens en justice ? Tout d'abord, et c'est crucial, le procès le plus important de Craig est l'affaire Kleiman. Les autres cas existent uniquement à cause de la diffamation publique du Dr Wright. Le hashtag #CraigWrightIsAFraud circule largement, poussé en grande partie par un mélange de personnages anonymes sur Twitter. Plus particulièrement Magnus Granath AKA «Hodlonaut» a été averti qu'une accusation publique de fraude courait à son encontre. La carrière du Dr Wright est en informatique et en criminalistique numérique, donc le déclarer publiquement une fraude sans preuve cause un préjudice financier au Dr Wright dans son domaine d'expertise commerciale. Puisque «Hodlnaut» a refusé de cesser, on lui a envoyer une requête pour être vu au tribunal afin de pouvoir apporter les preuves de ses accusations. Cela a causé le célèbre podcasteur de petits-blocs Peter McCormack à mendier d'être poursuivi aussi - en augmentant la rhétorique diffamatoire contre le Dr Wright. À la demande de McCormack, il a lui aussi été attaqué en justice pour être vu au tribunal. Le Dr Wright à depuis abandonné tous ses procès pour diffamation à l'exception de celui contre McCormack qu'il souhaite continuer pour faire exemple. Cela a aussi engendré la campagne #DelistBSV menée en grande partie par «CZ», le PDG charismatique de Binance-Exchange. Divers autres échanges comme Shapeshift et Kraken ont publié des sondages twitter demandant s'ils devaient emboîter le pas, et des petits-blocs bien organisés ont voté en masse pour retirer BSV de leurs échanges - citant la toxicité du Dr Wright pour avoir intenté des poursuites en diffamation contre Hodlonaut et McCormack. Finalement, BSV a été retiré de Binance, ShapeShift et Kraken. Il a également été noté publiquement par Coinbase et Gemini qu'ils ne soutiendraient pas cette version de bitcoin à la suite de ce drame public. Il faut noter qu'après 2 ans, Binance a retourné sa veste et est aujourd'hui devenu un des principaux mineurs de BSV. Au fur et à mesure que les choses progressaient, le fondateur de bitcoin .com, Roger Ver, a également réalisé une vidéo publique déclarant Wright comme arnaqueur. C'était après avoir travaillé sournoisement avec les développeurs Bitcoin ABC pour coder des points de contrôle dans le logiciel ABC de Bitcoin Cash, divisant de manière permanente le réseau Bitcoin pour la deuxième et dernière fois - un acte auquel le Dr Wright s'était opposé et pour lequel Roger est également poursuivi par d'autres parties privées en Floride. Roger Ver a été averti que s'il continuait, des poursuites juridiques similaires se présenteraient à sa porte pour avoir diffamé le Dr Wright, mais il à décidé de poursuivre les accusations publiques jusqu'à ce qu'il soit également entendu devant le tribunal pour fournir une preuve de la fraude de Wright, sous peine de sanctions pour diffamation publique. Aucune preuve n'a jamais été fournit, mais le Dr Wright a depuis abandonné ses poursuites contre Roger Ver pour se concentrer sur son procès avec Kleiman et celui avec McCormack ainsi que son travail sur Bitcoin. Et maintenant que se passe-t-il ? Nous avons établi l'histoire du Bitcoin, de sa guerre civile, des attaques publiques contre Wright, Ayre et BSV. Au moment d'écrire ces lignes, nous pouvons revenir sur les attaques contre Thomas Lee, Tim Draper et Jimmy Wales pour avoir eu une proximité avec BSV. Malgré la pression sociale, le rapport technique Fundstrat de Lee a rendu un examen élogieux du protocole fixe et de l'évolutivité infinie de BSV. Lee et son équipe étaient heureux de prendre la parole lors des événements précédents de CoinGeek, même après le tollé public. Pour la conférence CoinGeek 2020 à New York, McCormack, Hodlonaut, « Arthur Van Pelt » et d'autres acteurs tels que le Dan Held de Kraken et une cacophonie de trolls anonymes sur Twitter ont mis à profit leur expérience de la culture d'annulation à la bolchevique pour faire pression sur l'orateur Gary Vaynerchuk ainsi que d'autres orateurs prévus pour cette conférence, afin de les forcer à annuler leur participation. Cette attaque sociale contre BSV, Dr. Wright, Ayre et les autres entreprises qui utilisent le réseau BSV pourrait être un gigantesque cas de fraude à la consommation. Ils trompent activement les gens en leur faisant croire que le protocole fixe et l'évolutivité infinie de Bitcoin BSV sont en quelque sorte dangereux, alors qu'en fait, le protocole et le réseau sont imperméables à toutes les attaques, à l'exception de leur ingénierie sociale. Bitcoin SV s'est développé professionnellement avec un portefeuille de brevets de protection de niveau mondial. Il est utilisé par des entreprises indépendantes afin d'apporter des innovations technologiques et possède un groupe décentralisé de nœuds honnêtes qui se font concurrence. Le réseau est fixe, sécurisé et en croissance grâce aux investissements de petites entreprises et de gestionnaires de capitaux. Les transactions sont instantanées avec des frais de 0.0002€ par transaction en moyenne, explosant tous les records de compétitivité de l'écosystème et permettant aux plus pauvres de la planète d'enfin accéder à l'économie digitale mondiale. Les mensonges sont basés sur une campagne massive de dénigrement perpétrée par les communautés d'autres cryptomonnaies qui craignent l'adoption mondiale de BSV comme outil de commerce et ce que cela signifiera pour eux. L'histoire ne sera pas gentille avec ces manipulateurs et leurs réseaux qui sont financés par les fraudes probables des échanges de crypto-monnaies off-shore, le (très probablement) frauduleux Tether Stablecoin, et l'économie des arnaques de "pump-and-dump" qui sous-tend 95% du volume de négociation de l'ensemble de l'économie cryptomonnaie actuelle. C'est une guerre civile. Il y aura toujours des victimes, mais alors que BTC et BCH se concentrent sur les ragots et les affaires illicites, BSV veut que le monde entier soit plus libre, plus souverain et plus capable de coopérer sur le registre mondial de la vérité afin que les entrepreneurs du monde puissent s'engager à créer des entreprises ou de simples nano-services sont rendus possibles uniquement par Bitcoin. Bitcoin est un test d'intelligence. Au fil du temps, les personnes intelligentes pourront voir à travers le brouillard de distorsion de la réalité créé pour confondre les innocents et reconnaître cela pour ce que c'est, une attaque coordonnée pour tenter de supprimer une technologie qui à un potentiel unique dans l'histoire, et qui les rendrait obsolètes. Des exemples d'applications Bitcoin que vous pouvez utiliser dès aujourd'hui ? Les applications qui sont construites sur Bitcoin et interagissent entre elles par ce biais créent ce qu'on appelle le "Metanet". Si vous vous sentez prêt à faire le premier pas dans le futur vous êtes libres de tester les applications les plus populaires du Metanet sur https://metastore.app/apps?sort=money Le site le plus populaire du Metanet à ce jour est Twetch, une version de twitter incensurable sur la blockchain que vous trouverez ici : bit.ly/twetchapp _______________________ sources: inspiré de https://coingeek.com/the-war-on-bitcoin/ image : https://imgur.com/1Yb0Yle Voici un schéma qui retrace les financements de Blockstream et révèle comment le groupe Bilderberg, la banque centrale américaine (FED) et Mastercard on pris le contrôle du réseau BTC afin de le soumettre à leur propre profit: https://imgur.com/eFApDVE
Wright's Ph.D. flying the coop? Shouldn't have put his eggs in one basket! Who did he think was that gull-ible?
This post might ruffle feathers but no sense incubating a lark. I'm just going to wing it. After years of Wright puffin up his accomplishments some hawk-eyed observer spotted that most of them were parroted! He probably thought leaving twitter was da skies enough to avoid being caged for his ill eagle activities but he should have spent more time defending his nest and stayed out of Satoshi's territory. While some might applaud his respect for national tradition, I don't think that this albatross is anything to emu-late. His raven about Bitcoin's Turing completeness generated much mocking but those it flew over were left thinking of him as Coq-of-the-walk. Now even his flock will know that he's a turkey. Even CSU has to find this too hard to swallow. Degree printer may go Brrrrrr but Brrrr-d is a cardinal sin! Letting it stand would cheepen their reputation. Wright's migration to the UK has no doubt made handling the ensuing flap pretty cuckoo. Although I'm sure he'll keep preening, I bet he privately r-egrets hatching this plan. I fully expect he'll be dis-quail-ified. Once he re-terns his ducktorate will he get a booby prize or will he be left brooding over a goose egg? Either way I don't think it will be long before his fowl play goes entirely tits up and we hear the swan song of a caw-nvicted jail bird and, at last, the end of his robin.
We now know the answer to the "mystery" of why Craig failed his Theory of Computation class. It turns out a decade before he took the class Craig got and then recovered from cancer. The 10+ year old memory of his cancer made him understandably unable to pass his class.
My favourite parts of that transcript dump are Craig's grades, which range from mediocre to actively terrible, and that it shows Craig literally failing the course that would have taught him what Turing Complete meant.
To which a CSW super-fan replied:
You mean when he didn't receive credits because he had dropped out temporarily because he had cancer.
Public CodeValley/Emergent Consensus questioning and investigation Thread. Ask your hard questions and dispel your doubts here.
What is going on here? I am asking some hard questions for the CodeValley Company, which recently proposed a new revolutionary software development paradigm called Emergent Coding at the latest big Bitcoin Cash conference in Australia. I am asking these questions because, as I (and ~150 people who agreed with me) noticed, there are stunning similarities between CodeValley and the companies who have tried and succeeded in crippling Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash: nChain and Blockstream. According to me, as it looks now, similarities between these 3 companies (nChain, Blockstream, CodeValley) are the following: }- Sources of funding are extremely unclear or openly hostile to Bitcoin }- At first and even second glance, there is no product, no way to make money }- Whitepaper & Documentation is missing, hollow or total abstract bullshit, company has no logical sense of existence }- Detailed specifications or proofs of operation are not available }- Main products are closed-source patented blobs (BSV, Liquid, Emergent Coding) }- They have huge influences in the industry or try to establish themselves in such position to have the infuences I am here (and you are here, I assume) because we want to find out the truth, whatever the truth is. The point of this topic is to ask the hardest possible questions in order to estimate the probability of CodeValley company being legit. But this is also a chance for CodeValley to clear their name by providing sufficient information that proves that (after 4 years of having working company and 10+ years of having patents [Archived]) they actually have a working product and are a legit company, and not an infiltrator designed and paid by banks/TPTB in order to cripple and destroy Bitcoin Cash. Also if they truly are what they claim and they truly have such a revolutionary technology, this is a great opportunity for promotion. To show the world that the tech actually works. I will ask my questions and you can ask your questions as well. Don't make them easy. Don't have mercy (but these things work better when you are polite). Let's begin the trial by fire! Calling nlovisa My Questions/Tasks for CodeValley: [Of course you actually don't have to answer any of them or you can give us bullshit answers again, but in such case the community may conclude that you actually are next nChain/Blockstream and an enemy infiltrator, reject you and shoot down all your efforts. So the choice is yours] @@@@ 1. Please upload your actual businessplan which you presented to the people in power who gave you funding(VCs? Government?) to create $50 Million BCH tech park. A businessplan which is supposed to explain spending of $50 million AUD should have at least 7 pages (but more probably 20+). Some names and unimportant details (but NOT money/financial numbers) can be redacted. -- You have 6 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 2. Please list your current VCs and >%5 shareholders, with CEO names and HQ locations of each of them. -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 3. Few days ago you promised to upload freely-accessible documentation to https://codevalley.com/docs subpage which would describe emergent coding in greater details. @ - What happened to that promise? @@@@ 4. After I accused that your company is bullshit and your product is hollow, you immediately started to praise me and offered me a trip to Australia [Archived]. @ - So, do you always praise and offer a paid trip across the world to Australia to all people on the Internet who heavily criticize you? Is this a common practice in your company? @@@@ 5. A travel from Poland to Australia and back would cost something under $2000 AUD, counting buses, with hotels that would make something close to $2500 AUD even for few days. Based on this, I estimate your "invite random people from the internet to Australia in order to show them the product" budget has to consist of at least $50.000 AUD yearly (but $100.000 - $200.000 is more probable of course). @ A) In your financial books, what exactly is called the Excel position of your budget expenses under which would your secretary put my trip's expenses? @ B) How do you maintain such a large budget for such frivolous spending and how do you explain it to your shareholders/VCs? @@@@ 6. Few days ago you answered somebody a question: "The trust model is also different. The bulk of the testing happens before the project is designed not after. Emergent Coding produces a binary with very high integrity and arguably far more testing is done in emergent coding than in incumbent methods you are used to.". @ A) Who EXACTLY does the testing? People? Software? AI? Non-bullshit answer, please. @ B) Why exactly is there "more testing" in Emergent Coding than in normal software creation paradigm? Why is emergent coding different? Do the developers who work in this paradigm are somehow special? Are the programming languages magical? @ C) What are the specific software tools used for this "testing"? "Agents" is a non-answer, so don't even try. @@@@ 7. Please provide a simple demo binary of a simple program created completely using your "Emergent Coding" and also provide all the binary sub-component files that make up the final binary. Requirements: There has to be a minimum of 3 sub - binaries making up the final big binary for this to be valid. 2 or less does not count. None of the binaries can be obfuscated, they have to be clean X86/X86_64 machine code binaries. Notes: It should be incredibily simple, quick and easy task for you, since designing such a complex and apparently breakthough system must have required thousands, tens of thousands if not hundereds of thousands tests. All of these tests produced working binaries - after all you wouldn't claim you have a working marvellous revolutionary product without extensive testing, right? -- You have 18 hours for this task -- Of course, If you are saying the truth and have truly developed this revolutionary "emergent coding" binary-on-the-fly-merging technology, this should normally take you under 18 minutes to just find the test samples and upload them. @@@@ 8. Please construct a simple (binary or source) single-use-compiler demo that will combine 3 or more sub-binaries into final working product. Please upload the sub-binaries and the "single-use compiler" to publicly available site so people in our community can verify that your product is actually working. The single-use-compiler binary can be obfuscated with proper tool in order to hide your precious intellectual property. The 3 sample sub-binaries cannot be obfuscated. They have to be pure, clean, binary X86/X86_64 machine code. Everything has to be working and verifable of course. -- You have 72 hours to complete this task -- I understand all your technologies are patented with patents that basically predate Bitcoin and you are giving us obfuscated binaries, so you don't have to worry about anybody stealing your company's intellectual property, right? @@@@ 9. You mentioned the only application I need to create programs using Emergent Coding is the pilot app. @ - What programming language(s) is the pilot app written in? @@@@ 10. When you developed the Emerging Coding, before it started existing, you couldn't have used emergent coding to create the first (test & development) applications because it is a chicken and egg problem. @ - What programming language did you use to create first client/serveapi/daemon/tool used to merge multiple binaries into one in Emergent Coding? @@@@ 11. Please list all of your current programmers and programming language each of them is using next to their name. Also provide LinkedIn profiles if applicable. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 12. Please also list all Development Environments (IDEs) used by your current programmers next to their name. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 13. Please list all compilers used by your current programmers next to their name. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 14. So if I understand correctly CodeValley will be the company who runs $50 million BCH tech park and the tech will house multiple Bitcoin Cash-related startup and companies. Let's say I have a BCH startup and I would like to rent a loft/spot in your "tech park". A) Please provide a PDF of sample basic contract you have (hopefully) prepared for such startups. -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- B) How much does the rent cost per a room (or m2/sqft) for a month and for a year? @@@@ 15. Please submit the list of compilers that produce X86/X86_64/ARM binaries compatibile with Emergent Coding "mash-it-together" "binary compiler". -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 16. Is it possible for Emergent Coding to merge multiple non-binary applications (like Python or PHP programs) together? Or is it just binaries? Who are you? I am a freedom thinker and individual independent from all infuences who just does what he finds appropriate at the moment. Disclaimer to preempt questions: }- I do not work for anybody }- I do not have any hidden agenda }- I am only doing what I think is right }- I am a born revolutionist, this is why I am in Bitcoin Why are you doing this? }- Because I believe in truth above all. Truth will save us. }- Because I believe in Satoshi's peer-to-peer cash for the world vision and I will not stray from this path. }- Because most people are apparently missing psychological immune system which is why attempts like Blockstream, nChain appear and are repetedly [at least partially] successful. I have an anti-bullshit immune system that works great against this type of attacks. I was actually one of the first to be banned in /Bitcoin sub for pointing out their lies with manipulations and to spot Craig Wright's attempt to infiltrate and bend /btc sub to his will.. }- Because I was fooled twice by entities similar to CodeValley before (namingly nChain and Blockstream) and I will not be fooled again. Bitcoin Cash will not be co-opted easily as long as I am here. }- Because if Bitcoin Cash community is an organism, then I became a B lymphocyte cell. I produce antibodies. I show you how to defend yourself from bullshit, lies and manipulation. This is my basic function. }- Because I am here to kill the bank
I just see to Bitcoin Wikipedia page this [quote]Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin. Wright, named himself as the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview. Wright apparently proved his claim by using 'signature' bitcoins associated with its inventor. Wright said 'his admission is an effort to end speculation about the identity of the originator of the currency.' In December 2015, Wired and Gizmodo, magazines also named Wright as likely to be bitcoin's creator.[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin this is completely false info and lure to misunderstanding. I dont know who are the editors of this article. The article is semi lock and i cannot edit. First Wright never sign a transaction. Second Gizmodo and Wired in the end and with new article announce that they have do mistake about wright claims. This hoaxer's name must remove from bitcoin wikipedia asap. edit 1: it seems wikipedia page has corrected. It says now "Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview in 2016. He offered to prove this claim cryptographically several days later, without offering an explanation of the delay. The circumstantial proof he provided was picked apart by cryptography experts, with one describing it as "flimflam and hokum"." edit 2: i think we must remove completely the Wright name from wikipedia bitcoin page. He has nothing to do with bitcoin history, he is not part of it.
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part 2]
Part 1 It's been a bit of time since the first post during which I believe things have crystallised further as to the intentions of the three primary bitcoin variants. I was going to go on a long winded journey to try to weave together the various bits and pieces to let the reader discern from themselves but there's simply too much material that needs to be covered and the effort that it would require is not something that I can invest right now. Firstly we must define what bitcoin actually is. Many people think of bitcoin as a unit of a digital currency like a dollar in your bank but without a physical substrate. That's kind of correct as a way to explain its likeness to something many people are familiar with but instead it's a bit more nuanced than that. If we look at a wallet from 2011 that has never moved any coins, we can find that there are now multiple "bitcoins" on multiple different blockchains. This post will discuss the main three variants which are Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. In this respect many people are still hotly debating which is the REAL bitcoin variant and which bitcoins you want to be "investing" in. The genius of bitcoin was not in defining a class of non physical objects to send around. Why bitcoin was so revolutionary is that it combined cryptography, economics, law, computer science, networking, mathematics, etc. and created a protocol which was basically a rule set to be followed which creates a game of incentives that provides security to a p2p network to prevent double spends. The game theory is extremely important to understand. When a transaction is made on the bitcoin network your wallet essentially generates a string of characters which includes your public cryptographic key, a signature which is derived from the private key:pub key pair, the hash of the previous block and an address derived from a public key of the person you want to send the coins to. Because each transaction includes the hash of the previous block (a hash is something that will always generate the same 64 character string result from EXACTLY the same data inputs) the blocks are literally chained together. Bitcoin and the blockchain are thus defined in the technical white paper which accompanied the release client as a chain of digital signatures. The miners validate transactions on the network and compete with one another to detect double spends on the network. If a miner finds the correct solution to the current block (and in doing so is the one who writes all the transactions that have elapsed since the last block was found, in to the next block) says that a transaction is confirmed but then the rest of the network disagree that the transactions occurred in the order that this miner says (for double spends), then the network will reject the version of the blockchain that that miner is working on. In that respect the miners are incentivised to check each other's work and ensure the majority are working on the correct version of the chain. The miners are thus bound by the game theoretical design of NAKAMOTO CONSENSUS and the ENFORCES of the rule set. It is important to note the term ENFORCER rather than RULE CREATOR as this is defined in the white paper which is a document copyrighted by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. Now if we look at the three primary variants of bitcoin understanding these important defining characteristics of what the bitcoin protocol actually is we can make an argument that the variants that changed some of these defining attributes as no longer being bitcoin rather than trying to argue based off market appraisal which is essentially defining bitcoin as a social media consensus rather than a set in stone rule set. BITCOIN CORE: On first examination Bitcoin Core appears to be the incumbent bitcoin that many are being lead to believe is the "true" bitcoin and the others are knock off scams. The outward stated rationale behind the bitcoin core variant is that computational resources, bandwidth, storage are scarce and that before increasing the size of each block to allow for more transactions we should be increasing the efficiency with which the data being fed in to a block is stored. In order to achieve this one of the first suggested implementations was a process known as SegWit (segregating the witness data). This means that when you construct a bitcoin transaction, in the header of the tx, instead of the inputs being public key and a signature + Hash + address(to), the signature data is moved outside of header as this can save space within the header and allow more transactions to fill the block. More of the history of the proposal can be read about here (bearing in mind that article is published by the bitcoinmagazine which is founded by ethereum devs Vitalik and Mihai and can't necessarily be trusted to give an unbiased record of events). The idea of a segwit like solution was proposed as early as 2012 by the likes of Greg Maxwell and Luke Dash Jnr and Peter Todd in an apparent effort to "FIX" transaction malleability and enable side chains. Those familiar with the motto "problem reaction solution" may understand here that the problem being presented may not always be an authentic problem and it may actually just be necessary preparation for implementing a desired solution. The real technical arguments as to whether moving signature data outside of the transaction in the header actually invalidates the definition of bitcoin as being a chain of digital signatures is outside my realm of expertise but instead we can examine the character of the individuals and groups involved in endorsing such a solution. Greg Maxwell is a hard to know individual that has been involved with bitcoin since its very early days but in some articles he portrays himself as portrays himself as one of bitcoins harshest earliest critics. Before that he worked with Mozilla and Wikipedia and a few mentions of him can be found on some old linux sites or such. He has no entry on wikipedia other than a non hyperlinked listing as the CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream was a company founded by Greg Maxwell and Adam Back, but in business registration documents only Adam Back is listed as the business contact but registered by James Murdock as the agent. They received funding from a number of VC firms but also Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman and there are suggestions that MIT media labs and the Digital Currency Initiative. For those paying attention Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman have links to Jeffrey Epstein and his offsider Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine is the daughter of publishing tycoon and fraudster Robert Maxwell (Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, a yiddish orthodox czech). It is emerging that the Maxwells are implicated with Mossad and involved in many different psyops throughout the last decades. Greg Maxwell is verified as nullc but a few months ago was outed using sock puppets as another reddit user contrarian__ who also admits to being Jewish in one of his comments as the former. Greg has had a colourful history with his roll as a bitcoin core developer successfully ousting two of the developers put there by Satoshi (Gavin Andreson and Mike Hearn) and being referred to by Andreson as a toxic troll with counterpart Samon Mow. At this point rather than crafting the narrative around Greg, I will provide a few links for the reader to assess on their own time:
Now I could just go on dumping more and more articles but that doesn't really weave it all together. Essentially it is very well possible that the 'FIX' of bitcoin proposed with SegWit was done by those who are moral reprobates who have been rubbing shoulders money launderers and human traffickers. Gregory Maxwell was removed from wikipedia, worked with Mozilla who donated a quarter of a million to MIT media labs and had relationship with Joi Ito, the company he founded received funding from people associated with Epstein who have demonstrated their poor character and dishonesty and attempted to wage toxic wars against those early bitcoin developers who wished to scale bitcoin as per the white paper and without changing consensus rules or signature structures. The argument that BTC is bitcoin because the exchanges and the market have chosen is not necessarily a logical supposition when the vast majority of the money that has flown in to inflate the price of BTC comes from a cryptographic USD token that was created by Brock Pierce (Might Ducks child stahollywood pedo scandal Digital Entertainment Network) who attended Jeffrey Epstein's Island for conferences. The group Tether who issues the USDT has been getting nailed by the New York Attorney General office with claims of $1.4 trillion in damages from their dodgey practices. Brock Pierce has since distanced himself from Tether but Blockstream still works closely with them and they are now exploring issuing tether on the ethereum network. Tether lost it's US banking partner in early 2017 before the monstrous run up for bitcoin prices. Afterwards they alleged they had full reserves of USD however, they were never audited and were printing hundreds of millions of dollars of tether each week during peak mania which was used to buy bitcoin (which was then used as collateral to issue more tether against the bitcoin they bought at a value they inflated). Around $30m in USDT is crossing between China to Russia daily and when some of the groups also related to USDT/Tether were raided they found them in possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of counterfeit physical US bills. Because of all this it then becomes important to reassess the arguments that were made for the implementation of pegged sidechains, segregated witnesses and other second layer solutions. If preventing the bitcoin blockchain from bloating was the main argument for second layer solutions, what was the plan for scaling the data related to the records of transactions that occur on the second layer. You will then need to rely on less robust ways of securing the second layer than Proof Of Work but still have the same amount of data to contend with, unless there was plans all along for second layer solutions to enable records to be deleted /pruned to facilitate money laundering and violation of laws put in place to prevent banking secrecy etc. There's much more to it as well and I encourage anyone interested to go digging on their own in to this murky cesspit. Although I know very well what sort of stuff Epstein has been up to I have been out of the loop and haven't familiarised myself with everyone involved in his network that is coming to light. Stay tuned for part 3 which will be an analysis of the shit show that is the Bitcoin Cash variant...
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? An analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). Part 3
Part 1 Part 2 So I have been subbed to /bitcoin since it had less than two thousand subs but haven't posted there in years. I think I took a break from researching bitcoin to take a foray into the world of conspiracy around 2014 and only got back in to it around the beginning of 2017 but with a bit of sense of skepticism and cynicism about everything. I think I returned to /bitcoin around that time but there had been a rift that had emerged in the community between those that said that bitcoin was censoring any discussion around big blocks but then also just censorship in general. This lead to the formation of /btc which became the main spot for big blockers to gather to talk about protocol development. Following the fork of Bitcoin Cash and SegWit (BTC) in August 2017 the camps were further divided when the fence sitters were denied their SegWit2x compromise. Many from the fence sitters then deferred back to the incumbent bitcoin as citing muh network effect, liquidity, and hashpower while some who felt betrayed by the failure of getting S2X through went to support BCH for some attempt at on chain scaling rather than through pegged side chains or Lightning Network. Bitcoin cash initially went with a modest doubling of the blocksize to 2MB but implemented some other features like a new more rapidly adjusting difficulty algorithm to protect themselves against hashpower fluctuations from the majority chain. In about July of that year I had seen what I potentially thought was someone LARPing on /biz/ but screencapped, that segwit2x which was scheduled for november 2017 would be called off and then hashpower would switch to BCH causing congestion and chain death spiral on BTC and BCH would pump massively. I was partial to the idea as the game theory and incentives on a big block bitcoin should attract miners. About a month after SegWit2x was indeed called off while the BTC blockchain was hugely congested, BCH went through a violent pump reaching 0.5 BTC/BCH on a European exchange called Kraken while it also pumped ridiculously on American exchange coinbase. Shortly afterwards the market took a giant dump all over those people who bought the top and it has since retraced to roughly 30:1 or so now. After that pump though BCH kind of gained some bagholders I guess who started to learn the talking points presented by personalities like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet. Craig S Wright by this time had been outed as Satoshi but had in 2016 publicly failed to convince the public with the cryptographic proof he provided. To which he later published the article I don't have the courage to prove I am the bitcoin creator. In essence this allowed many to disregard anything he offered to the crypto community though his company nChain was very much interested in providing the technical support to scale what he saw as the true implementation of bitcoin. Following debate around a set of planned protocol upgrades between a bitcoin node implementation by his company nChain and the developers of another client Bitcoin ABC (adjustable block cap), the two parties both dug their heels in and wouldn't compromise. As it became clear that a fork was imminent there was a lot of vitriol tossed out towards Wright, another big billionaire backer Calvin Ayre and other personalities like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Craig's credibility was disregarded because of his failure to provide convincing cryptographic proof but still people who wanted to pursue the protocol upgrades that nChain were planning (as it best followed their interpretation of the bitcoin white paper) pursued his variant, while others who followed the socia consensus deferred to the positions of their personalities like Wu, Ver, and Sechet but even developers from Ethereum and other protocols chimed in to convince everyone that CSW is a fraud. This was referred to as the hash war and was the first time that the bitcoin protocol had been contentiously hard forked. Hashpower is the CPU cycles you can commit to the Proof of Work function in bitcoin and the majority will generate the longest chain as they have the most proof of work. To win the contentious hard fork legitimately and make sure your chain will always be safe going forward you need to maintain your version of the blockchain with 51% of the hashpower on the network and force the other parties to continue to spend money on building a blockchain that is never going to be inserted in to the majority chain. As well as this you need to convince exchanges that you have the majority chain and have them feel safe to accept deposits and withdrawals so that they don't lose money in the chaos. This is how it would play out if both parties acted according to the rules of bitcoin and the Nakamoto Consensus. There was a lot of shit talking between the two parties on social media with Craig Wright making a number of claims such as "you split, we bankrupt you" "I don't care if there is no ability to move coins to an exchange for a year" and other such warnings not to engage in foul play.. To explain this aftermath is quite tedious so It might be better to defer to this video for the in depth analysis but basically Roger Ver had to rent hashpower that was supposed to be mining BTC from his mining farm bitcoin.com, Jihan Wu did the same from his Bitmain Mining Farm which was a violation of his fiduciary duty as the CEO of a company preparing for an IPO. In this video of a livestream during the hashwar where Andreas Brekken admits to basically colluding with exchange owners like Coinbase, Kraken (exchange Roger Ver invested in), Bitfinex and others to release a patched ABC client to the exchanges and introducing "checkpoints" in to the BCH blockchain (which he even says is arguably "centralisation") in order to prevent deep reorgs of the BCH blockchain. >"We knew we were going to win in 30 mins we had the victory because of these checkpoints that we released to a cartel of friendly businesses in a patch so then we just sat around drinking beers all day". By releasing a patched client that has code in it to prevent deep reorgs by having the client refer to a checkpoint from a block mined by someone who supported BCHABC if another group of hash power was to try to insert a new chain history, this cartel of exchanges and mining farm operators conspired in private to change the nature of the bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto Consensus. Since the fork there have been a number of other BCH clients that have come up that require funding and have their own ideas about what things to implement on the BCH chain. What began to emerge was actually not necessarily an intention of scaling bitcoin but rather to implement Schnorr signatures to obfuscate transactions and to date the ABC client still has a default blocksize of 2MB but advertised as 16MB. What this demonstrates for BCH is that through the collusion, the cartel can immediately get a favourable outcome from the developers to keep their businesses secure and from the personalities/developers to work on obfuscating records of transactions on the chain rather than scaling their protocol. After the SegWit fork, many from the BCH camp alleged that through the funding to Blockstream from AXA and groups that tied to the Bilderbergs, Blockstream would be beholden to the legacy banking and would be a spoke and hub centralised model, so naturally many of the "down with central banks anarcho capitalist types" had gathered in the BCH community. Through these sympathies it seems that people have been susceptible to being sold things like coin mixing and obfuscation with developers offering their opinions about how money needs to be anonymous to stop the evil government and central banks despite ideas like Mises’ Regression Theorem, which claims that in order for something to be money in the most proper sense, it must be traceable to an originally non-monetary barter commodity such as gold. What this suggests is that there is an underlying intent from the people that have mechanisms to exert their will upon the protocol of bitcoin and that if obfuscation is their first priority rather than working on creating a scalable platform, this demonstrates that they don't wish to actually be global money but more so something that makes it easier to move money that you don't want seen. Roger Ver has often expressed sentiments of injustice about the treatment of Silk Road found Ross Ulbricht and donated a large amount of money to a fund for his defence. I initially got in to bitcoin seeking out the Silk Road and though I only wanted to test it to buy small quantities of mdma, lsd, and mescaline back in 2011 there was all sorts of criminal activity on there like scam manuals, counterfeits, ID, Credit Card info, and other darknet markets like armoury were selling pretty crazy weapons. It has been alleged by Craig Wright that in his capacity as a digital forensics expert he was involved with tracing bitcoin that was used to fund the trafficking of 12-16 year olds on the silk road. There have been attempts at debunking such claims by saying that silk road was moderated for such stuff by Ulbricht and others, but one only has to take a look in to the premise of pizza gate to understand that there it may be possible to hide in plain site with certain code words for utilising the market services and escrow of websites like the silk road. The recent pedo bust from South Korea demonstrates the importance of being able to track bitcoin transactions and if the first thing BCH wanted to do after separating itself from Satoshi's Vision and running on developer and cartel agendas was to implement obfuscation methods, this type of criminal activity will only proliferate. Questions one must ask oneself then are things like why do they want this first? Are some of these developers, personalities and cartel businesses sitting on coins that they know are tarnished from the silk road and want to implement obfuscation practices so they can actually cash in some of the value they are unable to access? Merchants from the silk road 1 are still being caught even as recently as this year when they attempted to move coins that were known to have moved through the silk road. Chain analytics are only becoming more and more powerful and the records can never be changed under the original bitcoin protocol but with developer induced protocol changes like Schnorr signatures, and coinjoin it may be possible to start laundering these coins out in to circulation. I must admit with the cynicism I had towards government and law enforcement and my enjoying controlled substances occasionally I was sympathetic to Ross and donated to his legal fund back in the day and for many years claimed that I wouldn't pay my taxes when I wanted to cash out of bitcoin. I think many people in the space possess this same kind of mentality and subsequently can be preyed upon by people who wish to do much more in the obfuscation than dodge tax and party. Another interesting observation is that despite the fact that btc spun off as a result of censorship around big block scaling on bitcoin, that subreddit itself has engaged in plenty of censorship for basically anyone who wants to discuss the ideas presented by Dr Craig Wright on that sub. When I posted my part 2 of this series in there a week ago I was immediately met with intense negativity and ad hominems so as to discourage others from reading the submission and my post history was immediately throttled to 1 comment every 10 mins. This is not quite as bad as cryptocurrency where my post made it through the new queue to gather some upvotes and a discussion started but I was immediately banned from that sub for 7 days for reason "Content standards - you're making accusations based on no evidence just a dump of links that do nothing to justify your claims except maybe trustnodes link (which has posted fabricated information about this subreddit mods) and a Reddit post. Keep the conspiracy theories in /conspiracy" My post was also kept at zero in bitcoin and conspiracy so technically btc was the least censored besides C_S_T. In addition to the throttling I was also flagged by the u/BsvAlertBot which says whether or not a user has a questionable amount of activity in BSV subreddits and then a break down of your percentages. This was done in response to combat the "toxic trolls" of BSV but within bitcoincashSV there are many users that have migrated from what was originally supposed to be a uncensored subreddit to discuss bitcoin and many such as u/cryptacritic17 has have switched sides after having been made to essentially DOXX themselves in btc to prove that they aren't a toxic troll for raising criticisms of the way certain things are handled within that coin and development groups. Other prominent users such as u/jim-btc have been banned for impersonating another user which was in actual fact himself and he has uploaded evidence of him being in control of said account to the blockchain. Mod Log, Mod Damage Control, Mod Narrative BTFO. Interestingly in the comments on the picture uploaded to the blockchain you can see the spin to call him an SV shill when in actual fact he is just an OG bitcoiner that wanted bitcoin to scale as per the whitepaper. What is essentially going on in the Bitcoin space is that there is a battle of the protocols and a battle for social consensus. The incumbent BTC has majority of the attention and awareness as it is being backed by legacy banking and finance with In-Q-Tel and AXA funding blockstream as well as Epstein associates and MIT, but in the power vaccum that presented itself as to who would steward the big block variant, a posse of cryptoanarchists have gained control of the social media forums and attempted to exert their will upon what should essentially be a Set In Stone Protocol to create something that facilitates their economic activity (such as selling explosives online)) while attempting to leverage their position as moderators who control the social forum to spin their actions as something different (note memorydealers is Roger Ver). For all his tears for the children killed in wars, it seems that what cryptoanarchists such as u/memorydealers want is to delist/shut down governments and they will go to any efforts such as censorship to make sure that it is their implementation of bitcoin that will do that. Are we really going to have a better world with people easier able to hide transactions/launder money? Because of this power vacuum there also exists a number of different development groups but what is emerging now is that they are struggling for money to fund their development. The main engineering is done by self professed benevolent dictator Amaury Sechet (deadalnix) who in leaked telegram screen caps appears to be losing it as funding for development has dried up and money raised in an anarchist fashion wasn't compliant with laws around fundraising sources and FVNI (development society that manages BCH development and these donations) is run by known scammer David R Allen. David was founder of 2014 Israeli ICO Getgems (GEMZ) that scammed investors out of more than 2500 Bitcoins. The SV supported sky-lark who released this information has since deleted all their accounts but other users have claimed that sky-lark was sent personal details about themselves and pictures of their loved ones and subsequently deleted all their social media accounts afterwards. There are other shifty behaviours like hiring Japanese influencers to shill their coin, recruiting a Hayden Otto that up until 2018 was shilling Pascal Coin to become a major ambassador for BCH in the Australian city of Townsville. Townsville was claimed to be BCH city hosting a BCH conference there and claiming loads of adoption, but at the conference itself their idea of demonstrating adoption was handing a Point of Sale device to the bar to accept bitcoin payments but Otto actually just putting his credit card behind the bar to settle and he would keep the BCH that everyone paid. In the lead up to the conference the second top moderator of btc was added to the moderators of townsville to shill their coin but has ended up with the townsville subreddit wanting to ban all bitcoin talk from the subreddit. Many of the BCH developers are now infighting as funding dries up and they find themselves floundering with no vision of how to achieve scale or get actual real world adoption. Amaury has recently accused Peter Rizun of propagandising, told multiple users in the telegram to fuck off and from all accounts appears to be a malignant narcissist incapable of maintaining any kind of healthy relationship with people he is supposed to be working with. Peter Rizun has begun lurking in bitcoincashSV and recognising some of the ideas coming from BSV as having merit while Roger has started to distance himself from the creation of BCH. Interestingly at a point early in the BCH history Roger believed Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi, but once CSW wouldn't go along with their planned road map and revealed the fact he had patents on blockchain technology and wanted to go down a path that worked with Law, Roger retracted that statement and said he was tricked by Craig. He joined in on the faketoshi campaign and has been attempted to be sued by Dr Wright for libel in the UK to which Roger refused to engage citing grounds of jurisdiction. Ironically this avoidance of Roger to meet Dr Wright in court to defend his claims can be seen as the very argument against justice being served by private courts under an anarchocapitalist paradigm with essentially someone with resources simply being able to either flee a private court's jurisdiction or engage a team of lawyers that can bury any chances of an everyday person being able to get justice. There is much more going on with the BCH drama that can be explained in a single post but it is clear that some of the major personalities in the project are very much interested in having their ideals projected on to the technical implementation of the bitcoin protocol and have no qualms spouting rhetoric around the anti-censorship qualities of bitcoin/BCH while at the same time employing significant censorship on their social media forums to control what people are exposed to and getting rid of anyone who challenges their vision. I posit that were this coin to become a success, these "benevolent dictators" as they put it would love their new found positions of wealth/dominance yet if their behaviour to get there is anything to go by, would demonstrate the same power tripping practices of censorship, weasel acts, misleading people about adoption statistics and curating of the narrative. When the hashrate from Rogers bitcoin.com minging operation on BCH dropped dramatically and a lot of empty blocks were being mined, his employer and 2IC moderator u/BitcoinXio (who stepped in to replace roger as CEO) was in the sub informing everyone it was simply variance that was the reason when only a few days later it was revealed that they had reduced their hash power significantly. This is not appropriate behaviour for one of the primary enterprises engaged in stewarding BCH and encouraging adoption nor is the inability to be accountable for such dishonest practices as well. It seems bitcoin.com treats btc as their own personal spam page where Roger can ask for donations despite it being against the sub rules and spin/ban any challenge to the narrative they seek to create. Let's see how the censorship goes as I post this around a few of the same places as the last piece. Stay tuned for the next write up where I take a deep dive in to the coin that everyone doesn't want you to know about.
An example of a high profile CSW shill /u/sharklaserrrrr [Arian Kuqi co-founder cryptonize.it] dishonest behavior - he lies 3x in a row and when called out for proof, he runs away with: "I actually have work to do"
It is important to expose lies, especially such blatant and clear cut ones such as this one, whenever or whoever makes them. This is even more important when a relatively high profile figure spreads lies because lies are what lead to hijacking of BTC, we need to expose them early to prevent the same fate for BCH. It is also important because the same modus operandi is employed by all of the astroturfers, be it CSW shills or any other kinds of shills. It's important to recognize. The lies that Ari told were in response to this thread where it is proven that the following passage was plagiarized from planetmath.org verbatim by CSW in his "Beyond Godel" paper where he purports to show that Bitcoin is Turing complete:
Starting from the simplest primitive recursive functions, we can build more complicated primitive recursive functions by functional composition and primitive recursion. In this entry, we have listed some basic examples using functional composition alone. In this entry, we list more basic examples, allowing the use of primitive recursion:
The source is from planetmath.org, and they explicitly state on their home page that ’The entries are contributed under the terms of the Creative Commons By/Share-Alike License’ and the license itself states: You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Right from the get go he is dishonest because the issue is plagiarism, which is completely different than copyright, but even on that point he is wrong because the license requires attribution so CSW is in breach of both:
He broke academic ethics by plagiarism
He broke copyright as he did not include attribution as the license requires
When this is pointed out to Ari is where the ugly lies commence. He points to Kleene, S., (1952) “Introduction to Metamathematics” as the original source of the claim, accusing planetmath.org of the actual plagiarism - this is a blatant lie, there are 0 results when you search for "In this entry" in that book And when this is pointed out to him, he runs away with a weak excuse as any common troll ever:
I actually have work to do so if you don’t mind, do your own research
2019 in Review: Community, Crime, Courtcases, Craig & Consolidation
https://preview.redd.it/r7dmpveldia41.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=f7dc87d5b58c4391d3e04359c4dc111d771246a1 2019 has been a tumultuous but amazing year for the development and advancement of blockchain technology. Following the rally to the all-time-highs at the end of 2017 and the intense infrastructure development and ongoing Bear Market of 2018 it was clear things were changing quickly. We are about to enter a new decase and the team at Aelf wanted to look back at 2019 and reflect on some of the events that occurred over the last year to see where the industry might be headed in 2020. https://preview.redd.it/tccwloemdia41.png?width=384&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c9feac47c8e8accc602dee7e738df86facc3e2e Although the year has been considered a continuation of the 2018 bear market, it didn’t stop development, progression and a myriad of crazy events from occurring. This included the challenges associated with global regulations, the upcoming Bitcoin halving event in May 2020, announcement of the Facebook Libra and Telegram Open Network’s (TON) launch delay. This year also saw a myriad of debacles from self-proclaimed Bitcoin creator Craig Wright, the Justin Sun and Warren Buffet lunch situation, the recent claim of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s goal to modify Twitter into a decentralized version of the platform, and President Trump’s Bitcoin statement, among others. Now let’s examine more of what took place during 2019 as we approach the start of the New Year in 2020. The SEC, Telegram, Facebook Libra, Kik and Blockchain’s Global Regulatory Environment Many of the world’s governments have been harsh towards blockchain technology in recent years. Particularly, the US Government and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been very reluctant to ease the regulatory framework for blockchain development in the country. This has become more evident in 2019, with the SEC combatting many blockchain projects this year including the $1.7 billion-dollar token offering of the Telegram Open Network and the Facebook Libra project. As well the SEC created controversy in a gruesome battle with Kik over its alleged illegal token offering that Kik has sworn to fight to their last breath. https://preview.redd.it/6yngxxfndia41.png?width=614&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc363d1a2225f461bad20786e8439e7cc3896d7d Many proponents of blockchain technology accuse the SEC of unfair policies to put a stranglehold on the development on blockchain in order to prevent the devaluation of the American monetary system. The reluctance for crypto exchanges to set up shop in the US is also becoming more prevalent because of the supposedly biased and unfavourable approach of the SEC. Nevertheless, there are also several major countries including China that have for the most part embraced the advancement of blockchain technology in 2019. China has also nearly finalized the development of the digital Chinese Yuan and announced that that country is going all in on blockchain development despite its sometimes anti-Bitcoin approach. The Bitcoin Halving Event and its Ongoing Effect on Market Conditions With the end of 2019 nearly upon us and the upcoming Bitcoin halving event set to take place during May of 2020 the market could be overdue for a bull market of mass proportions. Remember, the last bull market that took place was 2 years ago during December 2017 and was followed by an incredible dump from the all-time-high price of 20 thousand US Dollars to just 3300 USD in December 2018. For the most part, 2018 was a blood-bath for crypto markets and 2019 has not been all that much better. The price did briefly rally up to 14 thousand US Dollars during mid 2019 but has since been reduce by half with the Bitcoin price presently at just over 7000 US Dollars. Bitcoin was designed by its original creators with code written to mitigate the negative effects of inflation. In order to curb inflation, once every 4 years (or 210,000 blocks) the mining rewards that the network automatically generates are reduced in half. https://preview.redd.it/xuthhfiodia41.png?width=819&format=png&auto=webp&s=2cc8cbc7452d4aadb5076530915acfd5e755735a 3 Additional Stories to Watch in 2020 In June, the CEO of Tron, Justin Sun purchased tickets through eBay for a charity auction to have lunch with Warren Buffet. Sun paid a record $4.56 million US Dollars in the process becoming the highest bid in the 20-year history of the event. The purpose of the lunch from Sun’s standpoint is to change Mr. Buffet’s viewpoint towards crypto and blockchain tech by inviting several blockchain industry leaders to help sway the famous investor’s perspective. Sun subsequently missed the lunch he scheduled in September because of a sudden bout with kidney stones. At this time, the community will have to wait and see when Sun and Buffet will meet in 2020. Stay tuned. Back in December of 2015, Craig Wright claimed publicly to be the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Most believe Wright was lying to gain more fame and recognition in the industry. On November 18th, 2018 Bitcoin SV hard forked from the Bitcoin Cash Network to create it own chain. As noted above, the disgruntled CEO of Bitcoin SV, has for years maintained he led the initial development of Bitcoin. During February 2018, Wright was the subject of a 5.118-Billion-dollar lawsuit by Dave Kleiman claiming that Wright defrauded Kleiman of Bitcoin while working on the initial development of the Bitcoin Network between 2009 and 2013. In August 2019, Wright was ordered by a court of law to pay half the 5.11 Billion in Bitcoin back to Kleiman. Throughout 2019, Wright launched lawsuits against Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, Bitcoin Cash’s Roger Ver and others for calling him a fraud. It seems likely Wright will continue his ongoing Satoshi rhetoric in 2020. https://preview.redd.it/l977df8qdia41.png?width=547&format=png&auto=webp&s=f52d70a3c852b920ae665c8b5770a74cd8dadabe The CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey recently stated that he has hired 5 full-time employees to modify the Twitter platform and make it increasingly decentralized. This may seem like a small step initially, but this project could be expanded easily by someone of Dorsey’s reputation and wealth in the technology industry. Dorsey himself has been a long-term proponent of blockchain technology and an investor in Bitcoin. Binance CEO, Changpeng Zhao, recently offered to help Dorsey make this dream come to fruition. Additionally, Morgan Creek Capital founder Anthony Pompliano supported Dorsey’s statement noting that, “Jack Dorsey may understand the future better than any entrepreneur on the planet right now.” Conclusion This year we saw Kik, Telegram and Facebook Libra face fierce backlash from the most powerful regulatory body in the world, the SEC. We saw the Chinese government announce that they are all in on blockchain development and declare the upcoming launch of their own centralized digital Chinese Yuan. Justin Sun postponed his 4.56-million-dollar lunch with billionaire investor Warren Buffet because of health issues, while Jack Dorsey the CEO of Twitter proclaimed a more decentralized and open version of Twitter to prevent some of the abuse on the platform. In 2019, the 4-year long Craig Wright and Satoshi Nakamoto saga continued, and we finally are moving closer to the much-anticipated Bitcoin halving event of May 2020 that could change the trajectory of the Bitcoin price for much of 2020 and 2021. It is clear 2019 has been an incredible year for the blockchain industry. With no shortage of uncertainty and scepticism in the short-term, it is likely that 2019 will pale in comparison to the developments of 2020. As we approach 2020, the industry will continue to expand towards mass adoption and the mainstream evolution of blockchain technology. Nevertheless, with the global regulatory blockchain environment evolving in many areas across the world, the uncertainty in the United States remains stronger than ever. There is no telling what will happen in this regard and what will happen with Bitcoin and this amazing revolution in 2020 and beyond. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from the Aelf Blockchain team and a Happy 2020 to all our community members!! Thank You
Regulation on Fake Credentials and the Growing Role of the Blockchain
[The original article appeared on https://block.co/blog/] Fake credential production can be traced back to the Middle Ages in France and Italy, while nowadays it is punishable by misrepresentation and anti-fraudulent laws pretty much everywhere globally, with prison sentences of up to ten years. Although the type of crime and punishment differs from country to country, our research found that often there isn’t a specific regulation related to the submission of fake credentials and in that instance, authorities rely on existing rules linked to fraud, forgery, and misrepresentation. In the case of institutions faking academic qualifications, a concept is known as “diploma mill” or “degree mill”, a fraudulent organization that appears as an educational institution and grants worthless degrees for a fee. One of the most shocking examples of a reputable academic institution being involved in such illicit activity is the University of Wales, a 120-year old institution and the second largest in the country. Due to a series of fraudulent credential episodes linked to overseas partner colleges, that irreversibly ruined the reputation of the university, it had to cease to exist in 2011. Surely, credential fraud is becoming more common and sophisticated, especially after the rise of the internet. But so are laws and regulations that are trying to crack down on such offenses. One striking example in the bitcoin and blockchain sphere is the case of Craig Stephen Wright, who has repeatedly presented forged documents and credentials in order to appear as Satoshi Nakamoto to the world. His case is still ongoing and it’s still unclear if, and to what extent, he will be convicted but it gives us an idea of the impact credential frauds can have on any given field. https://preview.redd.it/hhqab1jokg451.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=702249c316c53167a541396b9b85453f6be11df3 In the USA a series of separate investigations conducted by the FBI and other United States agencies in the ’80s led to the infamous Operation Dipscam (Operation Diploma Scam) which resulted in more than 20 convictions and the closing of 39 diploma mills. Fraudulent activity in the US dropped massively in the aftermath of the investigation. However, lack of further action by the government, dissimilar state laws, and the rise of the internet have unfortunately invalidated some of the outcomes obtained during the operations. As laws on submission of fake credentials differ from state to state in the US, let’s look at some examples. InNorth Dakota, since 2003 it is illegal to issue or produce fraudulent academic credentials and punishable with up to five years in prison and/or a fine up to $25,000. Also, submitting fake credentials to obtain a job or admission to the education system could result in a one-year term of imprisonment and/or a $2,000 fine. In Virginia since 2008 anyone who issues, manufactures, or knowingly uses fraudulent academic credentials can be found guilty of a crime and punishable by a maximum one-year jail sentence and fines up to $2,500. In New Jersey, the use of a fraudulent degree is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each offense. In other countries, the state of affairs is quite diversified too, from lack of specific regulation to tough laws or jurisdictions that focus on prevention activities. Most recently, in South Africa, President Cyril Ramaphosa has passed a law to toughen up the submission of fake credentials. Anyone presenting fraudulent academic qualifications or misleading curriculum might face up to 5 years in jail and/or unspecified fines according to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Amendment Act 2019. Similarly, the regulation applies to educational institutions that award fraudulent qualifications. In the rest of the African continent, laws and regulations on the matter are more uncertain and at times nonexistent. Higher education and corruption are strictly linked to a lack of access to universities. According to UNESCO, although enrollment in higher education has grown faster in Sub-Saharan Africa than in any other region of the world, still only around 7% of the population was enrolled in 2010. Subsequently, in order to gain admission to a degree program of choice, the bribing practice has increased in most universities in the region. In Saudi Arabia, presenting fake credentials may result in a fine of up to €170,000 and imprisonment from one to seven years, and in the case of non-nationals deportation and a life ban from entering the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may apply. In the UAE the convicted shall be sentenced to up to ten years of imprisonment. Also in Qatar authorities have started to take the issue very seriously. Dr. Khalid Al Jaber, former Editor-in-Chief of the national newspaper Peninsula, suggested that “fraudulent engineers, doctors, and accountants be publicly named and shamed.” One of the first tough sentences in the country, saw an Indian ex-pat facing up to three years in jail for faking a degree to get a promotion at work. Alongside new regulations, everywhere there is an increasing debate on how to prevent forgery in education and other fields. In China, for instance, the CDGDC (China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center) has provided a free China degree verification service since July 2018. The service, other than free, is also extremely simple to use with a report that can be downloaded, printed, and cross-checked online and the electronic degree verification report issued in Chinese. Soon there will be no need for a third-party verification; wide adoption of the blockchain will result in accurate, unforgeable, immutable, and time-stamped documents that will save time and money to governments and institutions alike. https://preview.redd.it/dn5iqveykg451.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3db785f7b312071ac0b719ea05b8ebadcc273a8c The University of Nicosia and Block.co can help provide the necessary technical expertise to follow the whole process from creation to publication on the blockchain where the document will be safely stored for life and where it can be independently verified by any third party. They were the first ones to do it globally as early as 2014. For more info, contact [Block.co](mailto:Block.co) directly or email at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]). Tel +357 70007828 Get the latest from Block.co, like and follow us on social media: ✔️Facebook ✔️LinkedIn ✔️Twitter ✔️YouTube ✔️Medium ✔️Instagram ✔️Telegram ✔️Reddit ✔️GitHub
Greg Maxwell emailing Craig Wright is enough proof that Wright should never be listened to again
Greg Maxwell has been a blight on bitcoin ever since he weaselled his way into the project. How anyone ever gave this wikipedia troll any semblence of power is utterly astonishing. Now he comes out and offers support to Craig fucking Wright? Its as if these events are written by a shitty hollywood screenwriter. Its like a tragic comedy. Fucking craig wrights twitter handle is @proffaustus. Faust is the german tale of the man who makes a deal with the devil. The term faustian describes a situation where an ambitious person surrenders moral integrity in order to achieve power and success. When people look back on the history of bitcoin and the drama and people involved.... i mean.... jesus it leaves me speechless.
My Thoughts on the UnitedCorp (likely Calvin Ayre & Associates) Lawsuit Alleging Hijacking of the Bitcoin Cash Network by Bitmain Group, Bitcoin.com, Kraken and Bitcoin ABC Developers (TLDR: why it's complete horsesh*t)
So as I posted yesterday I'm now learning about a big lawsuit targeting allies of the Bitcoin Cash community, namely Bitmain Group (CEO Jihan Wu), Bitcoin.com (CEO Roger Ver), Kraken (CEO Jesse Powell) and individual BitcoinABC developers. According to the linked news release: "the suit alleges that the Defendants collectively engaged in unfair methods of competition, and through a series of deceptive and unfair practices, manipulated the Bitcoin Cash network for their benefit and to the detriment of UnitedCorp and other Bitcoin Cash stakeholders. Their alleged actions resulted in the network losing more than US $4 billion in value as a direct result of the alleged hijacking of the network [...] UnitedCorp alleges that these activities are evidence of not only a violation of the accepted standards and protocols associated with Bitcoin since its inception, but a violation of US antitrust laws..." Several points... Let's start with a simplification. I think it's highly likely the people behind this suit are Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright, given their stated desires and behavior surrounding the November 2018 hard-fork, and given they did not end up with an unofficial, yet recognized (software) leadership role for the BCH community, which is what they wanted. Apparently there is a video of a Kraken developer alleging secret cooperation between the suit's defendants. First, even if there was cooperation it's permissible in both the expectations of cryptocurrency communities and weighed against U.S. antitrust law, and I'll explain why. Before doing so, however, I'd suggest if anyone finds disagreement with this view it may also, in the spirit of fairness, be useful to bring a lawsuit against CoinGeek (owner Calvin Ayer) and nChain (chief scientist Craig Wright) for possible similar collusion. I recall reading about resources from nChain and/or Craig Wright possibly setting up miners for CoinGeek Mining with potentially other strategic services which might include advice and/or even finance in an effort to influence the same events named in the UnitedCorp suit. It may likewise be good for these market actors to testify under oath about the extent of any strategic planning or possible collusion. Part 1 - Cooperative behavior as alleged isn't improper for crytpocurrency communities Now, let me illustrate why it wouldn't have been improper for any of the aforementioned to have communicated, planned or used strategy surrounding the November 2018 hard-fork. First, as regards cryptocurrency communities, the very act of strategic cooperation is encouraged daily in the form of "pools". These consist of individuals and companies around the world working together, specifically combining collective resources in the form of hash power, to attempt to "win" more blockchain blocks than competitors. The winning of these blocks comes with limited temporary control of some aspects of the network. It is not possible for anyone to have permanent control of the entire network unless they control all software-synced devices connected to the network. The reason such cooperative activity is not improper is because any individual or entity can join with any other cooperating group! There is no advantage gained by attempting to keep secrets about who may be cooperating with whom, because in the case of some group becoming dominant (winning many blocks) anyone can join that dominant group if there is any public facing pool. More importantly total resources from the point of view of any outside competitor doesn't change, they are only merged, which doesn't lessen the share of blocks still available. Further, even a dominant group can never have total control over all aspects of the network, because several things of varying type make up a complete network, including software and computers and exchanges and other types of business as well as individual users. Part 2 - Cooperative behavior as alleged doesn't run afoul of U.S. antitrust laws According to Wikipedia U.S. antitrust law is: law that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The key word there is consumers. The reason such laws exist is so consumers are not made to suffer. However, to be a consumer of something there must exist a product. Antitrust laws are meant to, for example, prevent consumers of canned tuna from paying higher prices in the market than they would normally pay if businesses acted as if they were completely cut off from each other. I use this example because this in fact recently happened with tuna in the United States. Cryptocurrency is different. It's not a product made by businesses to be consumed. Cryptocurrency is the money itself. It's true the cost of the "money" can fluctuate. However, it would not be expected to fluctuate in direct correlation to varying entities working together in the manner indicated by the UnitedCorp suit. This is because the only result of such activities, whether brought about by conspiring or not, is the distribution share of blocks among "nodes" (entities running one version of software or another). However, any proper software will permit economic/transactional activity to continue. Further, the schedule of blocks is not impacted, and it's the schedule of blocks - how often new currency is introduced - that most influences market prices. Other factors influencing price can include speculative perception, such as whether or not a large business, for example Microsoft, makes a notable action with regard to the cryptocurrency; or whether or not entities controlling large amounts of currency on exchanges coordinate buying or selling. These represent the only applicable areas of concern about protection from collusion or useful advantage of secret information. Again, planning simply to attempt to have one group of software participants win a larger share of blocks than others does not generally have any impact on price whatsoever, again, because it doesn't alter the schedule of blocks. The last point is everything about cryptocurrency is voluntary, including what software anyone desires to run, and whether or not they desire to participate anywhere in the economic system at any time. This means nobody can be forced to do anything, which directly contradicts a key allegation of the lawsuit. This article is hereby placed into the public domain. Anyone is free to use any part or all of it for any purpose.
The Australian government may have inadvertently backed CSW's company, Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia, to the tune of up to $54 million. Business incubator AusIndustry provides research and development support through its R&D Tax Incentive Scheme. Under the scheme, a company which turns over less than $20 million is eligible to apply for a cash rebate of 45 cents for every dollar spent on research and development activity.
Opponents claim that the supercomputer never existed, with the only evidence being a ZDNet article where SGI stated to them that "SGI has no record of the CO1N supercomputer ever being purchased or serviced from SGI, therefore SGI suspects it may have been purchased on the grey market," Conceicao said. "SGI does not operate, maintain, or provide any services for this supercomputer.
It has since come to light that SGI may have actually sold the hardware direct, contrary to local distribution agreements under an NDA. This is quite common (although dodgy) practice in direct to manufacturer deals. Basically the distributor is losing their commission, hence the need for an NDA. There is no hard evidence that this is the case, but it is totally plausible. Anybody in manufacturing and distribution knows that these kind of grey market deals happen every day.
There is some evidence of the C01N supercomputer existing.
There are transcripts of interviews with the ATO dated 18th Feb 2014 (long before the whole media circus, and unrelated to the Supercomputer fiasco) with discussions about mining Bitcoin in 2009. If you read the discussion, it is about Business Activity Statements and specifically arguing whether Bitcoin is a currency or a commodity. Is the community really persecuting somebody for going up against the tax man as a proponent of Bitcoin?
So it's quite possible that there was a stretch of the truth here, if he indeed did state that he'd completed that second PhD when he was still researching (first is in Theology believe it or not). I would hardly call this damning evidence, with which to publicly hang him. It's not like he just made up some fake degree and ran around telling everybody he's a Doctor. If there are other places besides LinkedIn where he said he actually had the completed degree, I'd be interested to see that. Either way - he now has it.
The whole CSW is Satoshi thing.
Wow, I don't know where to start with this one, as I don't even know where I stand on it without hard evidence either way. What I will say is that if CSW claiming to be Satoshi is a complete scam, it's an incredibly detailed and elaborate one, involving a lot of people, that was meticulously planned - until the exit plan. If this is true, how did he screw up the end so badly? What was his plan to finish the scam on a win? I'm not going to weigh too much of my opinion on this because I am still open to new facts and arguments, except to say that at this point I believe CSW was probably involved in Bitcoin from the very early stages, and that it is at least plausible that he and Dave Kleiman had an involvement in the beginnings of Bitcoin. It also seems plausible that whoever Satoshi is, he (or they) does not want to be known. There could be many legal and Tax implications for the real Satoshi. Whatever the real story, it is not black and white. I'm just going to leave some of my research trail here and you can make up your own minds: To get a solid overall picture, this article by Andrew O'Hagan is a good start and worth the long read. An article relating to the Trust with Dave Kleiman in Seychelles holding 1,100,111 BTC. If this is actually for real, it would explain why CSW does not have access to Satoshi keys or coins. Again, the ATO interview from 2014 discussing bitcoin related issues from 2009 Gizmodo Article about CSW and Dave K The Wired article claiming CSW to be a hoax, based on the supercomputer, the LinkedIn profile and the missing keys. And no other evidence. Forbes spreading the accusations further, causing them to be more widely accepted as fact. More opinions More reports that the ATO were after "the creator of Bitcoin" News that CSW's Australian Business is wound up. Again, no mention of any charges or fraud. Something interesting that maybe somebody else can get more out of than me. TLDR I see a lot of people slinging mud, but not a lot of actual facts being tossed around. Before you just join the chorus of regurgitation, do what I did and try to discover some real facts for yourself. If all of the accusations are fabricated, then you must ask yourself who is fabricating it and why? What are their motives? Is there a deeper story? And if you do find anything supporting either side of the arguments, I'm open ears and open mind. Just expect me to question your sources and to ignore statements of fact that can't be backed up.
Craig S Wright's email to Dave Kleiman is provably false
In the infamous "leak" published by gizmodo and supposedly outing Craig Wright as Satoshi, there is an email that - if true - would be a real bomb. it is dated march 12th 2008 and it reads:
I need your help editing a paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin... You are always there for me Dave. I want you to be part of it all. I cannot release it as me. GMX, Vistomail and Tor. I need your help and I need a version of me to make this work that is better than me. Craig
( https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/knlyk7dpjqucpmiojhs8.png ) This mail wants to show that the early idea of bitcoin came from Wright to Kleiman, and not the other way around. Needless to say, it is extremely suspect. One thing I have found is that not only it is suspect, but it is provably false. The domain information-defense.com from which this email supposedly originates (the sender is [email protected] ) was only registered by Wright on jan 23rd 2009, when he registered the Australian company "Information Defense PTY". BTW, this was just a couple weeks after the blockchain started, and this company is somehow the predecessor of the similarly named American company "W & K Info Defence Ltd" controlled by Kleiman and later passed back to Wright. The fact is, I believe "Information Defense PTY" is indeed related to bitcoin mining, but I think it's pretty likely that Wright forged that email in order to establish a priority over Kleiman. That domain wasn't his in march 2008. Gizmodo explains the problem saying:
pointing to the likelihood that its registration lapsed and was later renewed, which would explain the discrepancy
Someone is saying "Wright MAYBE ad access to that address even if the domain wasn't in his name" Please note that subject of that email: "Defamation and the diffculties of law on the Internet." This subject comes from a thread that was taking place in those days on the "Security basics" mailing list, where Wright and Kleiman were interacting A message from Wright: http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Ma144 Kleiman's reply to him: http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Ma147 (it's an interesting read, it tells a lot about the relationship between the two) As you'll notice, in that very thread Wright was using his usual address @bdo.com.au How likely is it he'd use a different address for an email with the same subject in the very same day?
Fact: Craig lived in Australia during the Satoshi period. The time zone means that, to be Satoshi, Craig would have almost never posted between 3pm and midnight, local time. His peak posting times would have been between 2am and 9:30am. This is practically the opposite of what one would expect.
Fact: Craig’s own mother admits that he has a habit of fabricating stories.
 - This link may be relevant.  - Why would Satoshi do this?  - Sounds like Satoshi, huh?  - I urge you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s whitepaper Now, before the deluge of comments about how ”it doesn’t matter WHO he is, only that WHAT he says aligns with Satoshi’s vision”, I’d like to say: Is it of absolutely no relevance at all if someone is a huge fraud and liar? If it’s not, then I hope you’ve never accused anyone of lying or being a member of ‘The Dragon’s Den’ or a troll or of spreading FUD. I hope you’ve never pre-judged someone’s comments because of their name or reputation. I hope you’ve only ever considered technical arguments. That said, I am not even directly arguing against anything he’s currently saying (other than random clear lies). I’ve never said anything about Blockstream, positive or negative. I’ve never expressed an opinion about what the ideal block size should be right now. My account is over 6 years old and I post in many different subs. Compare that with these (very popular!) users who frequently call me a troll or member of the ‘dragon’s den’ (with zero facts or evidence):
The Bitcoin SV network and the infamous Craig Wright have been publicly scrutinized by two well known individuals. Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales criticized BSV technology and said he doesn’t think ... By Craig Wright 11 May 2020 Bitcoin & Blockchain Tech. In the Bitcoin and “cryptocurrency” space, and I use the term cryptocurrency loosely as practically none of the other systems has any use as a currency let alone cash system, Google has finally stepped up. I say “finally” because it has taken many years for them to act on what is a legal requirement, and even now, they are only ... Wikipedia Founder is Not a Fan of Bitcoin SV; Calls Out Craig Wright It’s no secret that Craig Wright as a singular entity has created a significant amount of division within the crypto industry, with his notorious Bitcoin Cash hardfork – called Bitcoin SV (BSV) – and incessant claims that he is Satoshi Nakamoto leading him to be the target of a significant amount of hate from crypto ... Craig Wright is a fraudster who claims to be the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. There has been no concrete evidence presented in favour of Wright's claim. There is overwhelming evidence against his claim, yet Wright was able to get lots of media coverage by sympathetic journalists with a limited understanding of technology after Wright tricked or bribed a couple of Bitcoin figureheads ... Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Über uns. Stellenangebote. Impressum & Kontakt. Mitwirken. Mitglied werden. Jetzt spenden. Mittelverwendung. Vereinskanäle. Unser Blog
Hallo zusammen, in der heutigen Folge erkläre ich euch wie Bitcoin technisch funktioniert und welche Unterschiede es bei den Nodes und Wallets gibt. Viel Spaß! Bitwala - JETZT 35€ sichern! Nur ... Hallo und Herzlich Willkommen zu einer neuen Ausgabe von Finanzielle Freiheit Dank Kryptowährungen! HIER GEHT ES ZU DEN FFDK STEEL-PLATES: https://ffdk.acade... Dr. Craig Wright and Michael Hudson Discuss the Hidden Maths of Bitcoin ... I’m not against Bitcoin, but it’s not useful to Wikipedia right now - Duration: 36:16. CoinGeek 2,334 views. 36:16 ... In this talk, nChain Chief Scientist Dr. Craig Wright debunks myths being perpetuated by Blockstream. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for the latest crypto... The duel between Dr. Craig Wright, inventor of Bitcoin, and Mike Beaver, macro economist and global growth investor, paid off with many explosive moments and testy exchanges. A heckler even ...