Most I see here is fake evidence and PoSM. Nothing what should be called evidence, only trolly mass threads for a thing that triggers only loudest trolls, cause of fear. Nothing has to do with a stable scalable Bitcoin protocol as well, but why are u all triggered again? Still? Nothing has really changed  |
|
|
|
I never in a single day think about this shit you all call Craig who claimed to be satoshi , we all know he is lying and that he will never be the man behide the bitcoin and now he got himself shot from his lies , to pay a whole lots of bitcoin that he never had even if he sold his shit coin "BSV " he will still definitely be in debt and that is what happen to people like him and the follower should open their eyes now and dump the shit coin for real btc.
With the little help of Plato, we know, that we know nearly nothing |
|
|
|
Nobody really knows, except a very few. But I like how this guy tries to go down the rabbit hole https://youtu.be/uyMXjSA3RdsAnd true, how decide on 'partnership'? And how so much 'forgery' next to computer forensics in the house? Was there some other 'experts' close by with open bills to pay back?
We could agree on: Some used to do the forgery. No evidence for who actually was it. In a mass documents producing process for court all the shit might happen as well. |
|
|
|
Quite a good deep thinker here, https://youtu.be/uyMXjSA3RdsBut think further: not only Dave was a computer forensics expert... Why than all that 'forgery' at all could happen and for what reason? One thing is clear, the judges never ll get it. But why conclude on 'partnership' ? |
|
|
|
^ very funny, what these idiots try to troll around here, but it never worked... hmmm |
|
|
|
OP, some coders would say that Satoshi's coding style was unorthodox, and that when he's finished with a piece of code, most of it would be removed because they were "spaghetti code".
How would a growing disability from ALS affect someone's coding skills? Not saying Hal Finney was Satoshi, but as a whole, how?
He wasn't the brightest coder, he wasn't doing what anonymos wanted ( wanted P2P by IP adress) , he had a poker game in it, he left when silkroad happend ... Check who he referenced in the White Paper (and why!) and Back was just in it because of PoW - but who really was the thinker behind PoW ?  |
|
|
|
you have jost no proof at all for any of such statements - you run a 'beleive' thread here - lol - very cultish - but who cares finally ... |
|
|
|
What about legal implications with this?
there are none. LoL - no clue ? only the BSV crowd is crazy enough to believe that FOSS and decentralized blockchains can be controlled by copyrights and tort lawsuits. FYI there's already a fork that steals the satoshi coins. what are you gonna do, sue the developers? for what?  Central governance is not BitCoin, how long will such crap stay viable? Devs (or any individuals) are really responsible for whatever they do in public. If someone does shit and robbery, suit cases are incoming mostly for sure. You would just stay silent i bet ... |
|
|
|
|
Maybe this is an R-puzzle
|
|
|
|
I think if hashgraph is better than blockchain, it will give something new and different than blockchain. But in a short of reading in the https://coincodex.com/article/2715/blockchain-versus-hashgraph/, I see that hashgraph is more like a decentralized system which different than blockchain. I learned at : One key perceivable perk for Blockchain is that the technology is fully open source. hashgraph, however, is not. This means that Dr. Leemon Baird, the inventor of the hashgraph distributed consensus algorithm and the co-founder and CTO of Swirlds, decides who can use the distributed ledger and who cannot. But maybe I am wrong for this because I don't read for the whole article. I think hashgraph itself still need more development to compete with the blockchain and let the time will answer who will better. An immutable open ledger of accounts needs incentives to STAY there and immutable... PoW does that, nothing else |
|
|
|
Why BitCoin must be as neutral and clean as possible https://youtu.be/g7VIeykAxsE?t=2033Yes, it is a great solution to make your critical data and the internet a safer place, so let's scale BitCoin |
|
|
|
I understand that my judgement is not relevant for the matter, however, you question the only US Federal Judge's findings on this matter - the creator of Bitcoin.
It appears as if you are under the mistaken impression that the judge's statement about their partnership supports CSW's claim to be Satoshi: "One, Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into a
50 percent 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual
property and to mine Bitcoin."^^^ This does not assert that said partnership created Bitcoin, only that they were supposedly developing Bitcoin-related IP at some point. Which bit of the judge's statement explicitly clarifying that they were not ruling on the matter of Satoshi Nakamoto's identity confuses you?  What did they make the basis of the case that he actually owned bitcoins at that point? Just his word? I see you still have trouble in reading the whole hearing from 08-26-2019, I will try to help. Ms McGovern, Dr.Wright's lawyer:In response to the Court's order, Dr. Wright has
provided the first 70 of those public addresses. There are
over 16,000. In addition, Dr. Wright has disclosed his full
holdings of Bitcoin as of December 31st, 2013, and has stated
under oath exactly how much Bitcoin he holds as of that date,
and has confirmed under oath that that Bitcoin has not moved.
So basically all he's done is claim he has x amount and provided the public address of such which anyone could do, but no actual proof of him ever actually owning or having access to them and them being in a trust is the excuse as to why he can't? Is there a list of addresses he's publicly claimed to have owned? That's it. The adresses stuff is anyways a big BULLSHIT. The Judge NEVER asked for the adresses and he repeated it several times in his decision to hold Wright in Civil contempt of Court. Justice Reinhart ordered Wright to display his holdings in bitcoins until the death of Dave Kleiman, Wright used as many excuses as possible not to do it and therefore the judge sanctionned him. ... only under his assumption that he and Dave worked as legal 'partners' - how could he prove that ? |
|
|
|
...snip... Remember when Craig announced that he was working on true fungibility and mixing for BCH? I do!  Jep - but that's not against tracability IF YOU NEED IT to prove against regulatory instances where your ownings came from. Otherwise you ll get rekt or blacklisted anyway Mixing (on or off chain) is probably the worst way to do privacy, anonymity, or to prevent traceability etc., This only provides plausible deniability, at best. What people don't currently realize is "Oblivious Transfers", won't even add 'true' fungibility. - SWIM  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FungibilityDefinition of oblivious;
1 : lacking remembrance, memory, or mindful attention
2 : lacking active conscious knowledge or awareness —usually used with of or to
Synonyms;
clueless, ignorant, incognizant, innocent, insensible, nescient, unacquainted, unaware, unconscious, uninformed, unknowing, unmindful, unwitting This is a very interesting topic. If a solution was found, a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible.
Originally, a coin can be just a chain of signatures. With a timestamp service, the old ones could be dropped eventually before there's too much backtrace fan-out, or coins could be kept individually or in denominations. It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions.
The challenge is, how do you prove that no other spends exist? It seems a node must know about all transactions to be able to verify that. If it only knows the hash of the in/outpoints, it can't check the signatures to see if an outpoint has been spent before. Do you have any ideas on this?
It's hard to think of how to apply zero-knowledge-proofs in this case.
We're trying to prove the absence of something, which seems to require knowing about all and checking that the something isn't included.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge_proof I see you cited satoshi and wiki, however, you failed to understand what satoshi meant, i will try to help, I cited the (5) reference, about the 2 colored balls ( https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demonstrate-how-zero-knowledge-proofs-work-without-using-chalkias) This example requires two identical objects with different colours such as two coloured balls.
Imagine your friend is red-green colour-blind (while you are not) and you have two balls: one red and one green, but otherwise identical. To your friend they seem completely identical and he is skeptical that they are actually distinguishable. You want to prove to him they are in fact differently-coloured, but nothing else; in particular, you do not want to reveal which one is the red and which is the green ball.
Here is the proof system. You give the two balls to your friend and he puts them behind his back. Next, he takes one of the balls and brings it out from behind his back and displays it. He then places it behind his back again and then chooses to reveal just one of the two balls, picking one of the two at random with equal probability. He will ask you, "Did I switch the ball?" This whole procedure is then repeated as often as necessary.
By looking at their colours, you can of course say with certainty whether or not he switched them. On the other hand, if they were the same colour and hence indistinguishable, there is no way you could guess correctly with probability higher than 50%.
Since the probability that you would have randomly succeeded at identifying each switch/non-switch is 50%, the probability of having randomly succeeded at all switch/non-switches approaches zero ("soundness"). If you and your friend repeat this "proof" multiple times (e.g. 100 times), your friend should become convinced ("completeness") that the balls are indeed differently coloured.
The above proof is zero-knowledge because your friend never learns which ball is green and which is red; indeed, he gains no knowledge about how to distinguish the balls.
This example cannot be applied to bitcoin since it is interactive. You convince just the colorblind friend and nobody else. And, by the way, even in this case, there is no way you show him are there any unspent coins inside those colored balls. This is what you failed to understand. You will say that you provided the link for Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof and Pairing-based cryptography and it's further implementation to ZCash protocol. I will say that this is not needed. 0-conf is not needed in Bitcoin. From Bitcoin whitepaper:   And another quote from satoshi on this forum:  Bitcoin TX's may be fast, bitcoin can even scale(BSV), however, they are not instant and were not designed to be so. Failed delivery, rerouting, damage in delivery (malicious maltreating included) or simply delayed all arise with Bitcoin transactions.  Cool tournament, by the way. Sounds reasonable - thx for that compilation |
|
|
|
In a central banking/fiat economy, lower interest rates mean lots of money printing. Negative rates mean ludicrous money printing. Remember, that money is essentially taken from your savings via inflation to those that have access to those loans, i.e. the rich and powerful. https://twitter.com/jimmysong/status/1169085693991239681?s=20Yep - but it is only good and useful money if the globe can send it around with no fee, legally mined by miners |
|
|
|
What about legal implications with this?
there are none. if it's implemented as a soft fork, miners are completely in accordance with the protocol. no rules are being broken. they would only be engaging in behavior the network deems valid. if it's done as a hard fork, it's just an unrelated spinoff of free open source software. there are many such forgotten spinoffs of bitcoin. no damages there either. this is all moot since it's pretty clear how the community feels about it......it's very unlikely to be attempted. therefore, get your popcorn ready for when QC breaks bitcoin signatures. then the satoshi coins will start moving again! LoL - no clue ? |
|
|
|
The scaling by block capacity was always a no brainer. Then why ever limit the block size? Hmm? The limit only has sense in case of 0 Bitcoin value, at the beginnings. This is only spam protection where it costs 0 to send. Now it will be removed to enable true open competition between all the network participants. Any limit / rule you introduce has a dictatorship / comunism like origin / effect and is strong sign of central power (like a dev team + PoSM has). The less rules, the more open and true competition allowing a system is and its not governed by a central entity. Watch BSV, the roadmap is here and no need of Satoshi is included any longer, cause he initially set the rules in stone. That is actually the reason why so many start crying against, since they want that power, and want to alter rules. So open competition is not what core teams like ... Hal Finney seemed to understand it back in 2010. Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
People who think 'Electronic Cash' simply means an asset designed for small daily payments (and need to have no fees and instant confirmations) need to read the Cypherpunk Manifesto: https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.htmlPrivacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world. Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy. We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do. Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Great post, this cannot be reiterated enough. To many of the people in this scene now know nothing of this and those chasing the Midas touch selectively forget. Great post to see when mixin privacy with annonymity - sigh And writing code - and using it in regulated env - like finance is - sigh again There is nothing wrong with the wish to remain anonymous (which is one of the components of privacy). If you think that the wish to remain anonymous is so terrible feel free to post a picture of your passport. Craig is currently playing the whole 'BSV is fully legally compliant and we love to obey the law!' card because of the Kleiman vs Wright case, trying to gain credibility. Remember when Craig announced that he was working on true fungibility and mixing for BCH? I do! Jep - but that's not against tracability IF YOU NEED IT to prove against regulatory instances where your ownings came from. Otherwise you ll get rekt or blacklisted anyway |
|
|
|
The scaling by block capacity was always a no brainer. Then why ever limit the block size? Hmm? The limit only has sense in case of 0 Bitcoin value, at the beginnings. This is only spam protection where it costs 0 to send. Now it will be removed to enable true open competition between all the network participants. Any limit / rule you introduce has a dictatorship / comunism like origin / effect and is strong sign of central power (like a dev team + PoSM has). The less rules, the more open and true competition allowing a system is and its not governed by a central entity. Watch BSV, the roadmap is here and no need of Satoshi is included any longer, cause he initially set the rules in stone. That is actually the reason why so many start crying against, since they want that power, and want to alter rules. So open competition is not what core teams like ... Hal Finney seemed to understand it back in 2010. Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
People who think 'Electronic Cash' simply means an asset designed for small daily payments (and need to have no fees and instant confirmations) need to read the Cypherpunk Manifesto: https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.htmlPrivacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world. Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy. We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do. Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Great post, this cannot be reiterated enough. To many of the people in this scene now know nothing of this and those chasing the Midas touch selectively forget. Great post to see when mixin privacy with annonymity - sigh And writing code - and using it in regulated env - like finance is - sigh again |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
