Don't know, I'm not really a tech person nor do I necessarily use certain words like the industry pros do.  Was just thinking it would be difficult to spoof a spend from the btc computer to a 21 provided address.  I guess an attacker could try and change the receiving wallet, but then authorization to the service may fail (again, not really sure, just thinking out lout if you will). 

Yep.  Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but in further thinking about the biz model (see my last post in this thread), I don't see why this little computer isn't a authorization/subscription service management machine. If customer wants to use X service provided by Y (which might be 21, an affiliate, partner, etc), the customer will need to prove they have authorization to access the service.  Ordinarily, that would be through creation of an account on the company's server, which is hackable.  For 21, authorization to access service X might be a function of a 1 satoshi transaction to the 21 servers from the BTC computer.  So, mining profitability doesn't matter (and neither does storing user info); what matters is a constant supply of satoshis, which supply is generated just by plugging the machine in and mining on the 21 mining pool.  For example, maybe 21 is going to try and compete with Netflix.  If you want to use their streaming service (and Verizon predicted yesterday cable companies will be dead in 10 years, everything will be streaming), you have to use their box which can't be faked b/c it relies on btc transactions on the blockchain.  

EDIT - I remember a 21 presentation at Goldman Sachs a few months ago (I watched the video on the GS website, I don't work for GS).  At the time, they were thinking that their platform would make mining for profit obsolete because everyone would be mining and most transactions would be a fraction of a bitcoin.  BTC Computer seems consistent with what was discussed that day at GS.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're their own target market (through a subsidiary co, partner, investor company (possibly with overlapping ownership)).  More to the point, it's very possible this device will be part of another device, system, or service not yet made public (possibly through a subsidiary or related entity, partner, etc).   By analogy, think about how those Solar City pv panels fit nicely w/ those Tesla batteries for your auto and home, and how SC and T's innovations in PV and energy storage will give them opportunities to meet all kinds of SpaceX client needs in the future (energy generation, energy storage, battery operated autonomous vehicles, software for all this stuff, etc.).  Musk's multi-pronged operation demands its own factories (spare part demand alone may justify it).  Given the folks behind 21 as well as the published funding amounts, its probably not unreasonable to think that 21 is up to a lot more than what has been made public today. 

Who is "everyone"? 

You have an interesting account tagline RE: sullen ground. Reminds me of a Bit Gold proponent.   

Will be released just in time for the day after Thxgiving Xmas sales.  Woot.

Yep.  There are actually two BOA patent apps pending.  Quick gripe: I tweeted the link to twobitidiot earlier (see: https://twitter.com/MrFelt_/status/645978092515659776), and Coindesk, like they've done several times with my posts here and elsewhere RE: GAW, etc., writes up an article w/o any attribution whatsoever.  Come on, guys (and gals), at least give a citation if you're going to steal your news.

I thought this patent app was interesting (from Lenovo, they also have several), "BIOMETRIC ACCOUNT CARD":

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=46&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=bitcoin&OS=bitcoin&RS=bitcoin

It mentions bitcoin 9 times (only 8 in the following paragraphs):

[0030] In the example of FIG. 2, the information 208 may pertain to a SUA, a controlled-use account, controlled use accounts, digital currency or other type of information. As an example of digital currency, consider a cryptocurrency such as the Bitcoin currency. As an example, a cryptocurrency unit such as, for example, a bitcoin unit (BTC) may be a single-use account as, according to various standards, ownership may be transferred once (e.g., for a payor/payee transaction). As an example, while a BTC is mentioned, multiples of a BTC and fractions of a BTC may be considered a "unit" of digital currency (e.g., a bitcointon, a santoshi, etc.) the ownership of which may be transferred as a single-use account.

[0031] As an example, a digital currency transaction may occur as a payment sent or a payment received via circuitry. In such an example, a transaction may include transferring ownership of a digital currency unit from one address to another (e.g., consider Bitcoin addresses) and a transactions may be confirmed via network communications using a proof-of-work system (e.g., "mining"), in which blocks of transactions are appended to a shared public record (e.g., a block chain). For example, a transaction may include solving via circuitry a cryptographic problem before being able to append a block, which may be of an adjusted difficulty to meet a desired block creation rate.

[0032] The Bitcoin digital currency scheme can use an Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) implementation of public-key cryptography, in which pairs of cryptographic keys, one public and one private, are generated; where a collection of keys may be referred to as a wallet. A Bitcoin digital currency transaction may transfer ownership of a digital currency unit (or units) to a new address (e.g., to that of a payee), which may be an alphanumeric string derived from public keys by application of a hash function and encoding. In such a scheme, corresponding private keys can act as a safeguard as a valid payment message from an address is specified to include the associated public key and a digital signature proving possession of the associated private key. As an entity possessing a private key can spend all of the bitcoins sent to a corresponding address, the essence of Bitcoin security is protection of private keys.

"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point.  I would add that not changing is not the same and shouldn't be evaluated as a proxy for something else that isn't yet invented or otherwise ready-to-go as an alternative (ex: sidechains or LN).  From what I can understand, sidechains and LN will be groundbreaking/important regardless of blocksize. I get the feeling that a lot of folks see sidechains/ln as mutually exclusive w/ XT or any other blocksize increase BIP. 

Related question:  If you have time, what are the best two or three arguments against raising blocksize in your (or anybody else's) opinion, notwithstanding whether you agree with them? 

My background is not tech, and I'm positive I'm in the same boat w/ tons of folks, so some short bullet points would be helpful for us non-techies.  From what I can tell, the best arguments against increasing blocksize are things like: 1) security (decreased node count), 2) unreasonable economic barriers (objections based on specific BIPs (Blacklisting argument against XT) seem less concerning b/c they're fixable and negotiable).  Are there obvious solutions to the strongest arguments (whatever those are to you) that resolve the concern and still increase blocksize? 

Both points are correct in a way.  I'd feel much better about the process if all ideas were welcomed and taken seriously (assuming they're put out there with a level of seriousness and effort).  Unfortunately, the status quo is over-politicized were people resort to manipulation of discourse (trolling, sock-puppetry, marketing, deleting, banning, etc.) to prevent full debate and full consideration of alternatives.  Also, the development process feels closed and overly ideological. I get the sense that there are some core contributors that are not willing to seriously consider all serious proposals.  That seems like a breach of something, but I'm not sure what exactly (in law, contracts come with an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing - I feel like good faith negotiations are impossible to some extent; but I hope I'm wrong) - maybe this is a problem endemic of digital and distributed decision-making that a Ledger article could tackle. 

In short, consensus is ideal, but it only works when the decision makers are genuinely open to change.  When fingers are put in ears b/c of ideology, then true consensus is not possible in a growing ecosystem with diversity of ideas.  Instead, Bitcoin seems like its being held hostage.  Such an environment makes hard forks inevitable and necessary for those with different ideas.  I don't see how Gavin and Mike had any other choice with how they released XT given how hostile folks have been towards them and their proposal. I don't believe one person said - good effort, why don't you try tweaking X.  Or, here's what a blocksize increase BIP has to cover, this didn't cover it, make some edits and we'll look again.  From my perspective, the process lacks any real clarity, transparency, respect/professionalism, intellectual rigor, or regard for users.  This is what the XT brouhaha has been about, not blacklisting or blocksize or other nerd things that should be debated. 

To buttress your point w/ another analogy:

Quasi-Public Places.—The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and it does not require individuals to turn over their homes, businesses or other property to those wishing to communicate about a particular topic.1219 But it may be that in some instances private property is so functionally akin to public property that private owners may not forbid expression upon it. In Marsh v. Alabama,1220 the Court held that the private owner of a company town could not forbid distribution of religious materials by a Jehovah’s Witness on a street in the town’s business district. The town, wholly owned by a private corporation, had all the attributes of any American municipality, aside from its ownership, and was functionally like any other town. In those circumstances, the Court reasoned, “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”1221 This precedent lay unused for some twenty years until the Court first indicated a substantial expansion of it, and then withdrew to a narrow interpretation.

from http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/54-quasi-public-places.html

Ledger might be a good vehicle for debates a la Federalist Papers.  Reminds me of a quote from John Adams:

"Tis impossible to judge with much Prcision of the true Motives and Qualities of human Actions, or of the Propriety of Rules contrived to govern them, without considering with like Attention, all the Passions, Appetites, Affections in Nature from which they flow. An intimate Knowledge therefore of the intellectual and moral World is the sole foundation on which a stable structure of Knowledge can be erected."  – Ltr to J. Sewall, 1759

btw, what does IOW mean (serious question, I don't know a lot of the message board abbreviations and whatnot)?

You're funny . . . and wholly non-responsive.  Edit: The community can't respond to the XT proposal when ideas and information about it can't be talked about in the main online discussion groups.

That being said, I wrote all that to be sorta funny - thought I was making a slick inside joke to a fellow policy debater (a type of debate I was involved with for a long time a long time ago) by using certain words and making certain arguments that would have been responsive way back when I was in college. Backfired, I guess.  

"[people] find out bitcoin is not the limitless 'money of the future' they thought it was" <--- What do you mean?  Don't most people think the opposite?

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately.  

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately. 

Man, you almost gave me a heart attack - I def consider langerhans the main dev (but there are two other really good ones too - all three devs are professionals in their own right, one of whom has a PhD and works for Oracle), and that's who I thought you were talking about.  Jackson hasn't been in on the dev side of things in well over a year - even prior to him going on hiatus.

Which dev are you talking about? 

RK speaks (allegedly).  Clearly full of lies - many statements in his blog post have been contradicted here:

https://lumitastic.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/through-the-looking-glass/

Through the looking glass.
AUGUST 31, 2015 ~ LUMITASTIC
Since my life became vastly more complicated in October of last year, I’ve wondered if I should make a post detailing what actually happened, and my side of the story. I have seen article after article come out about me, wild speculations, hateful attacks and far more. Not once have I seen anything that even comes close to the truth, and I’ve decided it is time to put my story out there.

Where should I start? Well, my name is Ryan Kennedy – legally, lawfully and whatever else you can think of; and I am the founder and former CEO of Moopay LTD (moolah.io – I’ll call it both Moopay and Moolah in this article) – a consumer and business financial platform for digital currencies, that very rapidly became one of the biggest businesses in the digital currency space. I officially launched the company in January of 2014, and at the time we were based out of Switzerland. In the space of 9 short months, we had grown to a user base of several hundred thousand customers – with an employee base of roughly 20 people. As multinational startups go, we were fairly successful, and had shunned traditional funding in favour of a crowdfunded model. We got by on far less money than any other business in the industry, and we were doing very well.

Now, the whole time this was going on – on legal advice I decided to use a professional alias via a formal change, in order to protect myself and my employees from threats and more. With the amount of threats and harassment received by people working in this particular industry, it seemed prudent. As a result, Alex Green came to fruition. There was nothing special about the name, it was simply picked out of thin air – despite claims that I had stolen the identity of another person (I could have picked any name, somebody else would have that name).

In August of 2014, we were approached by a competitor that functioned as a trading exchange / platform for digital currencies with a view to acquiring them – following an attack on their platform that had led to roughly $2M USD worth of digital currency being stolen. Negotiations were swift, and at the conclusion – MintPal LTD had been acquired by Torihiki LTD, a company that was formed solely for the purpose of the acquisition (with a view to Moopay LTD then taking over past this).

Business was good, and was only getting better. Then, in October – it completely crashed. October 3rd, to be precise. Not long before we had released a completely rebuilt version of the MintPal platform, and it turned out that it had a few major exploits.

While away on a trip with two employees, an audit revealed that the platform was insolvent. There were numerous public reports that people were receiving double withdrawals, and for each person publicly admitting this – there were likely 10 more who weren’t. At this point, we shut the platform down and announced a closure of the business; with an immediate refund and withdrawal process put in place to people. Shortly after this, I and one of my employees (who I had ended up in a relationship with, and at the time – we were very happy) were accused of stealing roughly 3700 BTC (with a market value of roughly £825,100 at the time). This number was pulled out of thin air in relation to a one time transaction between the former owners of MintPal LTD, and Moopay LTD, as a part of the transition. What it fails to take in to account is the fact that the hot wallet (which is what withdrawals are processed from) was refilled on numerous occasions. We had multiple large wallets on Moopay LTD, and withdrawals were processed at random from them. I personally had several thousand Bitcoin stored on my own platform, as I put my money where my mouth was. After the repeated refills, that 3700 BTC figure had dwindled greatly. Beyond this, Moolah was a far bigger company than MintPal, and had extremely high activity by customers.

Now, what happened after October 3rd? As proven by verifiable public ledgers (previously submitted as supporting evidence to a high court)…

Between October 3rd and October 14th 4,084 BTC worth of coins were withdrawn – with a value at the time of £894,406. I do not have rate information available for the remaining coins, but this is estimated to be an additional 2,500 BTC worth of coins due to the size of the VRC and DOGE holdings we had. In these 11 days, this would come to roughly 6,500 BTC worth of processed withdrawals, with a value of £1.5M GBP – and yes, a chunk of this were withdrawals directly in Bitcoin. During this time, there was a considerable amount of trading activity on the platform itself. This was before we were aware of any bug on the platform, and once we were aware – we switched to a withdrawal request model. At this stage, a total of 2,684 BTC worth of coins was manually refunded to customers by myself – with a total value of £588,184. For the coins where I no longer have the rate information available due to heavy handed tactics by the police, roughly an additional 350 BTC was refunded. That would mean the following in terms of withdrawals and refunds processed since October 3rd.

Coin Value Returned
9,618 BTC

GBP Value Returned
£2,106,342

Roughly how many claims submitted have been verified and shown to be true?What is their total value? I am accused of having stolen essentially everything on MintPal LTD, but if that is the case, how exactly did I return over £2M GBP in close to 10,000 BTC worth of coins? With an average price of £223 during this entire incident, 3700 BTC would translate to £825,100 – yet during 2014 I converted double this (close to £1.6M) as I liquidated my own holdings, while still processing withdrawals and refunds that equated to greater than this in total. I personally held several thousand Bitcoin, and decided to stop hoarding and start spending – at the time, my company was doing extremely well, Bitcoin that I had mined in the early days was now valuable, and it was time to enjoy life. I have been involved in Bitcoin since day one, and mining and trading since then.

Despite being heavily involved in numerous fundraising initiatives for third parties, the vast majority of them charity based – people instantly decided that I was an evil parasite who had been out to hurt people since day one. Despite being a driving force for digital currency, I was immediately cast as a villain. A civil case was brought against me, which ended up being fought to a standstill due to a lack of evidence against myself. The amount of accusations, allegations and false news stories being brought up by two-bit web based blogs and amateur journalistic outlets became too much to keep track of.

A few days before my birthday (in December), it ended up getting even worse. I’m lying in bed with my then partner (Chelsea Hopkins) when we are rudely awoken by the police in our bedroom. It seemed like half the damn force had shown up – we were dragged to a police station, and all of our belongings, cars, etc seized. They had shown up with a warrant for paperwork and hard drives, and ended up taking everything down to Christmas decorations that we had yet to unpack. The police consistently showed an extreme bias against me, a ridiculously heavy handed approach, and a desire to cause us extreme distress when there was no evidence against us, only allegations. They did not allow us a phone call, they did not allow us to contact anybody. Eventually we were bailed until March, and when March came and they had nothing on us? They bailed us again. Eventually, Chelsea left me. She never spoke to me again, and I don’t know whether the stress of it all caused her to snap, whether the police twisted her viewpoint, or whether she simply decided I was a bad person.

I know that I haven’t done anything wrong and while I have no faith in the police, I have faith in the overall justice system – and thankfully have a supporting pile of evidence stacked a mile high. The police were relying on character assassination more than anything else, which is quite simply pathetic. I am not a criminal, I am not on the run – I am simply somebody who has lost pretty much everything, and is trying to move on. If people don’t want to trust me or give me a chance, that’s fine – but they don’t have to go out of their way to try and ruin my life further.

I have some great friends now, thankfully. People that have stuck with me through all of this, and I’ve made some awesome new friends. I have some great ideas for the future, and I’m focusing more on my creative side as opposed to anything else.

I’m always happy to talk about this, just drop me a message. I’ll be publishing more details in the near future about the technical specifics, and the financial ledgers.

—–

Update

I’m now releasing the first of many ledgers and summaries of withdrawals and refunds.

Ledger #1
http://chopapp.com/#yca9edak

Summary #1
http://pastie.org/10390457

Quote from a well-known paper: "My thanks to Jerome Barkow, Andrew Odlyzko, Bruce Smith, K. Eric Drexler, Markus Krummenacker, Mark Wiley, Norm Hardy, and others for their insightful comments."

Search those guys (plus the author & former companies); Search Sun Microsystems, look for a patent from 1995 that a Norm et al of these guys (+mark miller worked on); search Agorics Inc.; ta da - you got a crew that may (and easily could) have roguely created an open source money (in opposition to and to undercut patents in the pipeline).  

One thing that is curious is the presence of nanotech folks close to ns + his work at JPL + foresight institute.   These guys were preparing for humanity to get off the rock, as they say, and to ensure stores of value could travel w/ them.  

EDIT - From http://cap-lore.com/Agorics/Library/patent.html:

"Agorics employees authored the following patents. They are fundamental to the implementation of secure, electronic business applications and secure Web servers. Agorics, Inc., either owns or has license rights to each of these patents.

Patent: # US 4,584,639: Computer Security System
Status: Filed December 23, 1983; Granted: April 22, 1986.
Licensed to Agorics by Key Logic, Inc.

Patent: # US 5,640,569: Diverse Goods Arbitration System and Method for Allocating Resources In a Distributed Computer System
Status: Filed April 28, 1995; Granted: June 17, 1997.
Licensed to Agorics by Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Patent: # US 5,781,633: Capability Security for Transparent Distributed Object Systems
Status: Filed July 1, 1996; Granted: July 14, 1998.
Licensed to Agorics by Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Patent: # US 5,790,669: Lightweight Non-Repudiation System and Method
Status: Filed July 1, 1996; Granted: August 4, 1998.
Licensed to Agorics by Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Patent: # US 5,852,666: Capability Security for Distributed Object Systems
Status: Filed July 1, 1996; Granted: December 22, 1998.
Licensed to Agorics by Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Patent: # US 5,960,087: Distributed Garbage Collection System & Method
Status: Filed July 1, 1996; Granted: September 28, 1999.
Licensed to Agorics by Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Patent: # US 6,049,838: Persistent Distributed Capabilities
Status: Filed July 1, 1996; Granted: April 1l, 2000.
Licensed to Agorics by Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Patent: # US 6,161,121: Generic Transfer of Exclusive Rights
Status: Filed July 1, 1996; Granted: December 12, 2000.
Licensed to Agorics by Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Agorics' personnel are also among the authors of the following patents for the FSTC (Financial Services Technology Consortium):

Patent: # US 6,021,202: Method and System for Processing Electronic Documents
Status: Dec. 19, 1997; Granted: Feb. 1, 2000.

Patent: # US 6,209,095: Method and System for Processing Electronic Documents
Status: Filed: Aug. 31, 1999; Granted: Mar. 27, 2001."

Also: http://www.cap-lore.com/Agorics/Library/dsr.html ("To appear in Agoric Systems: Market Based Computation, edited by Wm. Tulloh, Mark S. Miller and Don Lavoie. This may be found by ftp at netcom.com:pub/joule/DSR1.ps.gz, DSR1.rtf.gz or DSR.txt") (recall a netcom.com email address).

sounds very homero

Who knows.  Months back I speculated here that Carlos = Josh, at least as far as GAW goes.  Might still be a possibility (but not sure how much I buy this beyond recognizing it as a possibility).  The Affidavit from the SEC attorney who tried to depose Carlos just says that she understands from the investigation (or something like that) that Carlos' brother owns GAW, but she didn't say that as a matter of fact - it was carefully worded since she was swearing to her representations under oath.  Why wouldn't GAW and Co. answer all of these subpoenas at one time to avoid one of their own  getting put in this position?  Are we to believe that all other GAW crew members went to their depositions (assuming the SEC also wanted to talk w/ them) w/o issue?  I guess the SEC might be trying squeeze Carlos under the radar (i.e., without JG's knowledge), but there are likely many others that would be better for that purpose and who don't have blood-ties that could compel lying or non-cooperation - at least for an initial investigation (you get official discovery after a case pleadings on both sides are filed, so its not like they need Carlos now).