You have two different entries for "Non-Fungible Token" and two different entries for "NFT".

Oveall, I like the accuracy of the definitions. They don't show the lack of understanding that is typical of these dictionary projects.

Cloud mining is an old scam. Only the newbies fall for it now.

It is clearly stated that b is chosen by the attacker. Your questions indicate to me that it might help to learn more about cryptography before tackling the details of this subject.

In general, I found your paper to be confusing. I don't know who your intended readers are but perhaps it will make more sense to them. I started out making a list of criticisms but it became too long and unwieldy. Instead, I will have to summarize.

In general, some of the conclusions seem arbitrary, some distinctions don't seem important or relevant to me, and some of the arguments do not seem well-founded or they are just unconvincing. The paper lacks coherence, a clear topic, and a clear conclusion.

• The paper makes a strong distinction between money, credit, and cash without explaining the importance or relevance of the distinction.
• The paper tends to abuse the term "natural". It makes a big point about how money is naturally unique when a better description is "distinct".
• The paper takes the term "proof of work" too literally and fails to acknowledge its economic basis.
• The paper conflates a chain of blocks with a chain of transactions.
• The diagrams are unnecessary.

In short, the attacker influences the selection of the nonce in such a way that a portion of a secret can be derived from each signature.

The secret to be leaked can be anything, but it is just a random value in the example code:


The nonce, k, is computed by multiplying a small portion, s_i, of the secret, S, by a value, b, known only to the attacker. Since b is known by the attacker and s_i is a small value, k and s_i can be recovered. k = s_i * b obfuscates the fact that k is not random.

The result of a shorter time between blocks is an increase in stale blocks and reorgs. However, ten minutes is a long time and reducing the block time to five minutes would probably have no significant effect. The first confirmation would occur sooner, but but the waiting time in order to guard against a double-spend would remain the same because you would need to double the number of confirmations for the same security.

As for "reducing ... size/reward by 2x", I assume you mean by ¹/₂ in order to offset the more frequent blocks, and the only effect that I can think of is a reduction in the maximum size of a transaction.

One reason is that traditional and simplified are not just different fonts. The character encodings have differences so the same phrase may result in different seeds.

Another reason is that the words in the lists differ because of how the words were chosen.

Read about it here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/114

It seems very specific to mining, but I am not a miner, so it is not really that interesting to me unless they expose some serious flaw.

The blanket statement that men are stronger than women is not accurate. There are some women that are stronger than some men.

So, assuming that women are not as competent at construction work as men is wrong. It depends completely on the person and not their gender.

Male or female, it doesn't matter. If your employer does not pay you what you believe your work is worth, then you can find a new employer who will.

If no employer will pay you what you believe your work is worth, then either nobody recognizes its worth or it is not worth as much as you believe.

Just repeating what Cricktor wrote.

If the same nonce is used in two different signatures using the same private key, then its value can be found. The math is explained at https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/cryptography/elliptic-curve/ecdsa/#sign in the "Private Key Recovery" section.

The original forum was on sourceforge.net. It was replaced by a forum on bitcoin.org that I believe was initially set up by satoshi and eventually administered by sirius. That forum with all of its contents was later moved to bitcointalk.org and administration was taken over by theymos. Note that satoshi left before the creation of the bitcointalk forum and so never actually posted here.

I think that summary is mostly accurate. Some early history of the forums are documented in emails between satoshi and sirius here: https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/

The current cost of a full node is less than $200, plus the cost of internet access and electricity. That may make it out of reach for many individuals, but it doesn't mean that only corporations can operate a full node or that corporations will dominate.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up merged mining, but in general, improvements to computer processing power and efficiency do not affect overall profitably. They only increase the difficulty.

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto or the author of the Bitcoin whitepaper, U.K. Judge James Mellor said after closing arguments in the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) trial on Thursday.

The evidence presented during the month-long trial was "overwhelming," the judge said, adding that he plans to write a ruling detailing his conclusions – including that Wright did not create the Bitcoin system.

"I will make certain declarations, which I am satisfied are useful and are necessary to do justice between the parties. First, that Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper. Second, Dr. Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto in the period 2008 to 2011. Third, Dr. Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin System. And, fourth, he is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin software. Any further relief will be dealt with in my written judgment," Judge Mellor said.


https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/03/14/justice-james-mellors-ruling-on-craig-wright-copa-trial/

This ruling will make it impossible for CSW to continue has campaign of lawsuits against developers and others in U.K. courts.

Some have the opinion that his actions in the trial could result in charges of perjury and forgery.

Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi, Didn't Author Bitcoin Whitepaper, Judge Rules
By Camomile Shumba

COPA took Wright to court to try and prevent him from suing developers and other members of the crypto community, claiming intellectual property rights over Bitcoin's technology.


Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto or the author of the Bitcoin whitepaper, U.K. Judge James Mellor said after closing arguments in the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) trial on Thursday.

The evidence presented during the month-long trial was "overwhelming," the judge said, adding that he plans to write a ruling detailing his conclusions – including that Wright did not create the Bitcoin system.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/03/14/craig-wright-not-satoshi-didnt-author-bitcoin-whitepaper-judge-rules/

There are many ways to represent an Ordinals satoshi. It is up to the implementation. At its core, an ordinal is a number from 0 to 2099999997689999. As long as  the specification is followed, everything else is just a conversion between numbering systems.

110000 is the number of the block that the satoshi was created in. Using the numbering system in the post, the 5,000,000,000 satoshis created in that block are numbered 110000.1 through 110000.5000000000.

The Ordinals system specifically describes the association between the satoshis in the inputs and the satoshis in the outputs, so there is a real association when you use the Ordinals system. I think the jury is still out on whether there are any practical uses.

Some brief answers:


There are specific validation rules. Each node determines for itself if a transaction or block is valid. Nodes only send valid transactions and blocks to other nodes. Nodes and miners who don't follow the rules are effectively exiled from the network by the individual nodes that they connect to.


All transactions are distributed to all nodes. Miners are free to choose which transactions are includes in their blocks. Validating a transaction is very fast. The vast majority of a miner's effort is the proof of work.


There are no bitcoins, tangible or intangible. They are really just numbers in a ledger. If you have X bitcoins in your wallet, it means that there are one or more UTXOs in the block chain that are associated with addresses controlled by your wallet, and these UTXOs have value fields that add up to X.