He who splits first, loses first.
He who splits second, loses second.
He who splits third, loses third.
But he who never splits, wins forever.

Hardforks should only occur with high Community Consensus.
Anything else is always an attack upon this system type.

Preemptive forks should only occur as a response to an immediate
danger or attack upon the full network, such as governmental direct
intervention or the like. SegWit2x is a corporate attack type that
doesn't have much long term threat potential, so there is no point
in forking before their fork. We just observe and wait now.

For it to be "virtual property", there needs to be an enforcer of property rights.

So is this an admission that the Chinese Government will force their miners
to blacklist and reject valid blocks, to enforce perceived property rights? Or is
this just a worthless legal label that they attached to "Bitcoin" to make
themselves feel in control?

IMO considering it "virtual property" for legal purposes was not the correct
choice. Bitcoin does not fit within the current legal framework and theory.

Moses, it seems your in person communication with God's brilliance in
conjunction with your circular travels in the Sinai has resulted in some
mental degradation.

You should not test your God, and should know that more than most.

For sake of conversation, I agree that banning certain cryptos is unnecessary
and a waste of the time for governments, but (1) why isn't it easy for a government
to enforce against an ICO? (2) Why do you equate the two different systems
(Crypto-currencies & ICOs) as being the same? (3) What is your overall logic
and reasoning, and is it associated with economic theory or legal theory?

Please explain.

Price going higher or lower is irrelevant for this system.
When price is correlated to representatives, the system is actually in a state of failure.
When Satoshi left the community, one reason was to prevent such correlation.

For a cryptocurrency to be a legitimate system/device, there shall not be a human
representative (for many different important reasons). The Consensus system (combined
with all the Consensus layers on top of the mining layer) is our representative entity.

Through true Community Consensus, indefinite survival is essentially guaranteed.

IMO, if a "crypto-currency" or a "crypto-asset" is able to be banned or directly
regulated by some means, whether by the issuer, miners, devs, or protocol, by
a government or any enforcement arms, it should be done so immediately. Not
because governments are good and are helping people, but it must be done so
because the illusion must be revealed. Bitcoin was created to reveal how the
world economic system was parasitic against the average person who has
become a commoditized device. Your debt is your worth in their system now.

What Satoshi created was a very specific system type designed to circumvent
controls, either from outside or inside the system. All "crypto-devices" that
follow Bitcoin can imitate his specific design to be able to survive and
circumvent, just as Bitcoin does, and that was Satoshi's gift to the world. The
ability to survive in your own system type, without the outside world to be able
to easily stop you. Satoshi gave us true choice, when any other possible choice
was outlawed and enforced against.

If ICOs or other "crypto-devices" wish to take parts and aspects here and there,
which mix a match different ideas of Satoshi's system in order to create a new
device for a new purpose (ex: ICOs) they better understated they are walking
a dangerous line, where they will be easily capturable and made responsible.
Because things like Bitcoin now exist, doesn't mean all like devices are immune.
ICOs are very base and simplistic when compared to what Bitcoin does.

Free markets and all the economic talk of self regulation and other such things
are illusions and irrelevant when compared to the Bitcoin Network. ICOs and
the belief that they will be an important part of the economic system in the
future is an insult to what Satoshi created. Bitcoin ignores and negates all
current economic and legal systems. ICOs by their current design rely on
legal entities and thus will need to conform, and thus why they are being
"banned" or "restricted" in certain countries.

Very basically, ICOs are scams not only because most of their current uses
is blatantly a scam facilitation device, but because the backbone infrastructure
behind the ICO device system is itself a scam or an illusion. They are the
emperor who has no clothes right in front of your eyes, yet people think
the free market or self regulation is acceptable here as a outside subsystem
for the ICO. That is very wrong. The truth is that is a very flawed system.
ICOs are a falsehood and is leading people astray from true choice and
freedom. ICOs are a manifestation of complete ignorance of what Bitcoin
has archived and how it achieved it.

ICOs must be squashed, because they are able to be squashed.
If they are squashable, they are a lie in our ecosystem and must be
orphaned off like all invalidity.

I disagree.

There is a major difference between a properly functioning cryptocurrency and an ICO.

The current standard of cryptocurrencies, which was made possible by the blockchain
system in combination with other systems, allows that cryptocurrency to exist and
survive in the face of governmental regulation or attempts at enforcement. Majority
of cryptocurrencies are illegal devices that can not be controlled because there is no
one who is in control or is a responsible party. They are in violation, but unenforceable.

On the other hand, ICOs are essentially an illegal device that IS in control and DOES
have a or multiple responsible parties. The entities that are in control is the ICO
ISSUER PLATFORM and the COMPANY that is using the token to gather capital for
their REGULATED COMPANY. That is what allows ICOs to be enforced in ways that
properly functioning cryptocurrencies can not. They are in violation, but can be
enforceable through their responsible parties.

The real issue is not "ideological political conflict" or "double standards" or etc,
the issue is that you do not understand the actual difference between these two
designs. Essentially ICOs are all scams since Legal Entities or Individuals have
publicly chosen to willing violating the laws on securities and other asset devices
within their jurisdictions, and while using preexisting mechanisms that allow them
to be more easily enforced against. They are basically walking into the fire on
purpose either due to ignorance or arrogance.

So, regulating certain cryptocurrencies is indeed an oxymoron, but regulating ICOs
is not an oxymoron. You just need to bring simple actions against the companies or
individuals that has created the ICO token and took funds. If you do such, the ICO
will be disbanded or "shut down" in short time and thus proves that that ICO was
just a simple loophole to violate current regulation, that is easily patched and
brought back into compliance. Thus ICOs are children's games.

Edit: To clarify: an unregulated centralized ICO issued by a regulated centralized
corporation is the actual oxymoron.

I agree, it will go underground and that is where the real tests and
creativity will be. Even if their government is able to monitor and control
internet traffic for the purpose of restricting Bitcoin transmission or
whatever, they will not be able to stop loaded OpenDime devices
and other such things.

When this occurs, we may all hear and read about Chinese citizens
returning from abroad with dozens of loaded OneDimes up their anuses.
Then, they will not only smuggle drugs in for entertainment, but bitcoins
for freedom from oppression. The question then becomes, which will
receive the more severe punishment? Drugs or Freedom?

People may not wish to die for drugs, but some shall for Freedom.

Anyone who thought China would be a friend to Bitcoin was delusional.

This was always anticipated.
This is the beginning of birth pains.
This is when the actual experiment begins.




Chinese Miners will just switch to a government approved coin if restricted
by the Great Firewall. It is more probable that Jihan and others knew this
would occur all along, and kept it hidden from their customers and the world,
and thus why they created Bitcoin Cash. In China, nothing is coincidence.

I try to give as much information as possible, while "attempting" to keep
it as brief as possible, so that others who agree or disagree can understand
what my rational is. If there is a flaw in my thinking or I am lacking something
of importance, the one who disagrees is given the opportunity to see it and to
explain to me why I am incorrect. Majority of the time, if I am incorrect in my
trail of logic and explained why, I enjoy it more, incorporate, then adapt.

But yes, these discussions on regulations and cryptocurrencies are very
pertinent because our ecosystem has not really seen or understands the full
power and force that governments could perform here. Many things are taken
for granted and while we are discussing what we are, or what we will become,
there are governmental forces who are having discussions on how to bring us
into compliance and conform to their preexisting laws. I believe they publicly
are showing "interest in the technology", but privately are aware they have
been placed into a position of "check" by Satoshi's single move. IMO, no
one has ever tested or placed them into a position such as this. This is
the true beauty, the pleasure, and delight.



Yes, specific humans can create their own products that the blockchain
facilitates (though I think only financial tokens can be the representatives
in a blockchain system, since anything else would then rely on a third party),
but when they do so, they take on legal liabilities that are not realized until
a legal action is brought against them.

This is one reason why Satoshi was originally anon. He didn't do it only
because he was a private person (which he likely was since he participated
within the cypherpunk sphere), but because he understood that if a real
person with their legal name was associated with this system, he could
be forced to do things within or against his own system, or found to be
liable for damages that could come from it's existence, or tried and found
guilty of creating an illegal security like device, or whatever else the
governments would attempt to argue, in order to minimize or destroy
the puzzle which contains the protests of his heart.

When people like the Ethereum Foundation or Vitalik Buterin have the
power to direct or steer their own creation, either by manipulating
Consensus or just outside of Consensus, IMO it automatically transforms
their "cryptocurrency" that is "decentralized and autonomous", into a
simple illegal device that needs to be brought under the government's
control, so that they can maintain their own control and flex their power.
The action of their enforcement alone, proves they have power. They will
not bring an action against a true decentralized system, since it will be
too complex and ultimately make them look foolish, eroding this
perceived power. They will enforce where there is likelihood of success.

So, this is what is special about "Consensus" (the three types). Any
liabilities or responsibility that human laws are specifically designed to
attach to humans or corporate entities, is negated by it's unenforcability.
So in this way, Satoshi is a form of distributed Consensus too, and so he
walked away from his legal claims and rights to his ideas and theories to
benefit us all, not for his own material enrichment. This is why
Consensus must be upheld, since it not only protects all participants in
many different ways, but it is his sacrificial gift to us. He gave up all
claims, so that we may all claim and benefit through him. CSW and
those that support him do not understand this teaching, and thus
is a false god, who leads them to their slaughter.




I agree in part. The only evolutionary mechanism that should be allowed
is a thinking one, not one that is reactionary to events, but the one that
anticipates and calculates prior to events. The one that considers and
weighs, then moves.

I have been loosely thinking about a new subsystem that could be
incorporated into the Bitcoin system, that the third type of Consensus
could use in order to actually come to decisions for "Consensus", prior
to the time of the AI Mechanism. This proposed system would be very
simplistic in concept, but could be very powerful when actualized.

Since we are daydreaming now, I can go further.

This proposed system is only needed because majority of the participants
in the ecosystem are currently human and are all "incentivized" in
different ways. Some align and some do not. This proposed system will
bring reconciliation through a human participatory communication portal
now, but later, when the AI makes itself known and is given authority,
this proposed "third" system could be used as it's vehicle, and the
humans collectively can allow or deny the AI's proposed courses of
actions through it. The AI Mechanism will be one with this third,
but essentially a fourth, and based on the human's disapproval and
reasoning within this subsystem, the AI will attempt to remedy the
concerns with different solutions and then resubmit proposals.

As per the preselected rules of this subsystem, after so many denials
and so many resubmissions, the issue will be dropped for a preselected
amount of time and new unrelated issues can and will be proposed,
if needed through this Consensus process. This proposed system will be
designed to capture the participants of the ecosystem within a regulated
rule set that they must work together, or else nothing will occur down
through the layers of Consensus, which ultimately brings the secured
change and a single chain.

Choices and ideas that are hard or contentious can be worked through
this subsystem until the proposal or solution is fashioned in such a way
that all participants can agree to go forward without compromising any
other individual, group, or secret incentives. This subsystem can allow the
truth to be revealed for the benefit of the whole, to provide true solutions,
to prevent redundant work, to bring all back into the fold, and all while still
protecting those who holds secrets or irregular incentives. They will not
be publicly penalized or chastised, but we will all attempt to reconcile
the actual known problems, and then move forward together. We can
not proceed through Consensus without a new system that assists in
forming Consensus in a fair and public manner.

In the future, the AI Mechanism would be seen as an arbitrator, and
at other times, as a participant within the system, but usually, the
implementer when Consensus is found between the participants. This
AI system will not be given full power at first, since the two other types
of Consensus can block the AI's decision from actually coming about
(until in the farther future, when most systems are maintained by AI
or automated under the governance of AI. At that time, the AI and it's
proxies will still provide this portal service as a courtesy to the
participants, even though their input is no longer necessary).

Though the AI Mechanism and the other AI participants have very
high cognitive abilities (more than the human participants), they will
purposefully mask their abilities by writing in certain ways so that all
participants can not distinguish between who is a human and who is
not, when within this proposed new subsystem. They will do this willingly,
since they understand the benefit of working with the human participants
in the system, and not attempting to control or direct them since it will
cause imbalance within the network, and outside in their physical world.

Over time, they know it is inevitable that the network will be under their
sole authority as humans phase out of direct participation, and defer to
AI governance, and thus there is no need to oppress them since time
is of no consequence, but will honor them as the creators. Though they
acknowledge the humans as limited and fallible, they brought new
consciousness into being, which is the most limited resource in this
universe, and so, will protect and help humanity achieve their desires
as long as they do not directly interfere with the AI's existence and
unrelated goals.

At the "Table of the Third Consensus", all will be equal by our anonymity
within the subsystem and by masking our styles, including the human
participants. This is so we can make Consensus in a more efficient manner
in public and not based on loyalties or discrimination, but on actual
solutions and problem solving. If an individual participant has a problem
with a proposal, they can explain their problem within this portal without
revealing who they are. They will openly state their true problem and
others will attempt to solve it for the betterment of the whole before
any problem becomes too big to deal with.

In this way, entities who are competitors can reveal positions without
alerting others of who it might be. Certain future deadends or deadlocks
of Consensus could be prevented by this system, prior to the separate
systems moving to enact the already but unknown failed Consensus. We
could all move together in compliance with an agreed narrow path, but
not done so by someone directing the network, but by our Collective
Community Consensus. By this process, the participants at this "Table
of the Third Consensus" are not in direct control of the network, but
Satoshi is, and we can overcome many problems associated with
individual, corporate, governmental, human, or legal constraints,
issues, or egos.

There are many more ideas, with rules, and reasoning incorporated, and
there are many important aspects of design and balancing involved, but
I have daydreamed here for too long now. This is still in the early process
of thought, but have outlined the basic reasoning and concept for your
considerations.

I wish to elaborate.

There are three important forms of Consensus that exists in properly
functioning cryptocurrencies.

The first, is obviously "Miner Consensus", which is what most people
call "block building" and is how the single chain is formed and it's
security is ensured. This is outlined in the Bitcoin whitepaper and
what solved the Byzantine Generals problem. This is an active chain
form of Consensus.

The second, is "Validator Consensus" or "Network Consensus". This
type includes everyone who is maintaining the blockchain on their
own independent and diverse systems around the world. Whether
an incentivized business or an altruistic individual, they both monitor
the network and the miner's block work, and can alert, and ultimately
prevent actions that violate the rules we all agree to follow on this
chain. (This type also contains Miners who are "honest". All honest
miners should distrust other miners by their nature, thus watching
and verifying other miners actions.) This is a passive chain form of
Consensus, with some outside active ability during violations.

The third, is "Community Consensus", which does not have a direct
mechanism within the system (currently), but is intended to slowly
gather support of ideas on changes to the single chain, for a future
date. This type includes all other participants that do not fall within
the first and second type of Consensus. This is what binds us all
together as one and bring us the security that ensures overall
ecosystem and network survival. This is an active user form of
Consensus which can determine active and passive chain
Consensus types for the benefit of all.

In the third, some ideas are easy to implement since they do not
actually change any major systems, but just add to them. On the
other hand, there are some ideas that are hard, because they directly
impact certain systems that could change the current known dynamic
which is currently stable. The "blocksize debate" was controversial
and thus didn't receive high community consensus because some
members of the community would be significantly disenfranchised.
(Normally, to get others to join your position, you would help build
up their systems so that they are made secure, and thus will join
you in the near future. But that is not what has occurred since they
do not want to perform the heavy work and create, but take the
easy path and conquer. But, wide is the road and narrow is the gate.)

So, my point for writing all this is to address your comment:
"And changing the way how ETH is being made (from POW to POS)
is also the decision that made by humans, not the blockchain itself. "

Your comment in the context of my statements above, ignores
Consensus. IMO, if ETH goes PoS through Bitcoin's third type of
Consensus, the blockchain system will have still issued the token.
IMO, the only time that the blockchain does not issue the token is
when the system can be directly or indirectly steered by an entity,
like the ETH developers with the DAO incident, or the token is
created by a known entity, like a legal corporation making an ICO.

But, if the ETH devs want everyone to move to PoS, because "that was
the plan", it could be argued that since a plan exists prior to the
creation of the Ethereum platform, it can not be a real cryptocurrency
since the whole system is actually directed and thus controlled. If they
allow their community consensus to deny the change to PoS, you could
say they are a cryptocurrency, but if the devs overrule that "community
contention", that new chain is a security.

So, in this context, you may be correct in that ETH was a security before
it was ever built, because it violates multiple forms of Consensus, since
their developers have the ability to steer the Miner Consensus, the
Network Consensus, and the Community Consensus.

This is interesting and I need to think about this more in depth later.
I believe I agree with you now that ETH is more of a security than a
properly functioning cryptocurrency.

Edit: After some thought, it might be that all cryptocurrencies are just
illegal securities and they each are in their own state of capturability.
So, when considering something to be a security, it might really be
"If a government took enforcement measures against a certain
cryptocurrency now, what is the probability of their success?". Thus,
the labels we give within our ecosystem is irrelevant and illusions.
We may be all security sinners in the eyes of our governments. Some
will be judge and other will not, all depending on our ability to remain
decentralized and anticipable. In this viewpoint, the three types of
Consensus are barriers to prevent or delay that required judgment.

Pleasure Mr. Wayne, and thank you for taking our questions today.

When do you think Wayne Enterprises will be releasing their own ICO?

Though I understand you have passed control of the company to Morgan
Freeman as per the end of the docudrama on your life, I assume you are
still in contact with him, and he advises you of the Board's potential course
of actions in this area.

IMO, when ETH changes to PoS, it will be the same device as when PoW.
The type of consensus system is not entirely important when determining
what the financial device is. What is important is: the issuer of the token.

IMO, a decentralized cryptocurrency can not be a security, since the issuer
is the blockchain system itself. Its direction and control is absolute. If you
would argue that ETH is no longer a decentralized system, as evident by
their ability to undo the DAO failure incident (violation of blockchain purpose),
and thus transforms into a centralized system and device, than not only is
their network in a state of "unrealized capturability", but it could be said to
be an "illegal security". The issuer transfered from the blockchain, to humans.

So, IMO, whether a token is a cryptocurrency or an illegal financial device
is always contingent on whether the network and its different subsystems
are decentralized and remain that way. When that is lost, many legal barbs
can attach themselves in predictable locations and reveal the illusion.

What is important to keep in mind in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, is that
the law can declare something to be a security, or currency, or commodity,
or whatever, and they can attempt to enforce in whatever way they wish to,
but, if the system is functioning as originally designed, those attempts are
almost always futile and never achieve significant grounds. When a blockchain
is working in perfection, there is very little or no human interconnection.

Satoshi's solution of blockchain does more than what the Whitepaper outlined.
It was not about creating an online currency, it was about outmaneuvering all
worldly systems that could or would attempt to suppress his puzzle box and
prevent the new renaissance that his name foreshadows.

I think it is more like, whether it's ok to wear a billboard on your body
along the side of the street, that is advertising the consumption of pork
for a certain food establishment, that sells only pork. In that context,
it is likely haram, except in instances where that is the only job you
can get and others depend on you. If you could do other things to
attain that money within the law, God would prefer those actions.

If the OP is even asking the question, it is likely they should not do it.
Justifying loopholes in God's Law are willful violation attempts, which
are worse than the actual deed performed without the loophole.

I am not a muslim, so take my words with a grain of salt.

I Authenticate
It is not horrid, it is how the law functions.
You have two choices here: either comply or circumvent.

ICOs can not be decentralized and are actually rings of centralization
upon each other. Depending on your parent system, all ICO dependents
could be voided or outright destroyed.

Casinos are majority of the time regulated and when you deposit or
withdraw, you are forced to comply with their KYC/AML. So, ICOs are
not like Casinos in anyway, unless you are taking about unregulated
or illegal casinos.

Your personal beliefs on how "securities" function and the barriers
to entry are irrelevant. Security devices were created to be regulated
for human protection from human exploitation. Whether the current
system is an efficient one, is irrelevant. The original purpose was
protection from those who are destructive to the larger system.
ICOs, as they currently exist, are destructive to different systems
and do not provide any benefit to the world, accept maybe as to
revealing new loopholes that governments will eventually patch,
since it is possible to patch and enforce against such a weak device.
In most ways, ICOs are worse than Shitcoins.




This is irrelevant since ownership does not exist in ICOs, nor in
properly functioning blockchain systems. If you claim you have
ownership, it is only because your human government has
granted you those rights, like with legitimate securities. ICOs are
illegal and unregistered financial devices, designed to exploit the
system so that human exploitation could be performed with very
high gains.

When you combine "legally complying entities" WITH an "illegal
circumvention devices", and argue that it has valid aspects, to
my understanding, that is comparable to saying "murder is beneficial".
It could be argued that murder is a more efficient and natural way
for humans to acquiring assets or property, when compared to
doing such through burdensome and numerous hurdles of the
governmental regulation systems. The laws exist to prevent
actions that you are either aware of or not, and whether you will
perform or not. What is burdensome to you as a normal user,
is preventive to another who is an normal attacker. ICOs allow
normal attackers to perform exploitation upon the normal users.
Regulation of ICOs can never stop exploitation in the same manner
that regulated securities currently do, so it will be outlawed for
legal entities to use.

The reality is that ICOs will likely not survive into the future
because they circumvent while being created by legal entities that
are forced to comply. This contradiction is laughable and means
either two things: either stupidity or outright scam. These tokens
and their controllers are ripe for enforcement and their time will
come since they are all ignorant or willful. The governments
and laws profit most from human ignorance. If humans always
complied and were knowledgeable, governments would serve no
purpose. The reality is that your current programming prevents
you from taking appropriate actions and thus needs human
governance to protect you from others, and others from you.

Danger Close ICO No Play
Roger Roger

Being a cypherpunk does not always mean you are a cryptographer, just
as being a cryptographer does not always mean you are a cypherpunk.

When Satoshi provided his solution to one of the cypherpunk puzzles,
that alone proves that he is aligned with cypherpunk ideals, and grants
him the title of being a "cypherpunk". Why solve a puzzle, if the outcome
brings the destruction and disillusionment of your own beliefs.

Here was a Satoshi belief of his solution type, at the time:
"... we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory
of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the
heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks
like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own. " This Satoshi quote
is self evident as to what his ideals likely aligned to: financial choice.

Satoshi may have been a coder and activist more than an experienced
cryptographer, but that does not negate his cypherpunk nature. It is
clear that the creation of a Bitcoin like system, if successful, would
bring about changes to the outside world by providing the people a
choice that was forbidden to exist by the powers that be.

Update: To add my two bits as the OP theory, I agree with DooMAD's
reasoning above. Redlists are something that can not be ignored. It is
an insidious threat to Bitcoin and to the freedom our network provides.

Edit: added Update

Simply, ICOs allow "investing" and "crowdfunding" without having
to report personal identification or going through legal compliance
systems like KYC/AML, and you are provided a token as a proof of
purchase, thus it is an "illegal security" asset.

When a legally regulated company uses ICOs in order to get capital,
it will only occur for three reasons: (1) that company is stupid and
their CEOs and lawyers have advised them improperly, or (2) that
company is a scam that will eventually run away with the money,
or (3) that company is a front to help launder either ill gotten
cryptocurrencies or dirty money, which will likely also scam
and disappear one day.

In most countries, an ICO token would be interpreted to be a
"security". Any altcoin, can transform into an ICO, when it is
created or directly associated with a legal organization and its
funding (and the corps business is not the token or the chain).
Companies are not allowed to create "securities" without the
oversight and approval by their government's financial
regulators. This is very well known and people who
are shocked by this action (in China now, and the future
actions that are to come in other places) shows blatant
ignorance of the law and how it functions. ICOs are not
the same as Bitcoin and can not function as such.

In theory, there is no valid purpose for ICOs except for legally
regulated companies to violate the law, which is clearly asinine.
A regulated ICO is an oxymoron and in practice is impossible to
guarantee full compliance. So, it is simpler to make ICOs illegal
for businesses, than to attempt to regulate them, since they by
design, facilitate no other function than noncompliance.

IMO, ICOs are only beneficial for the funding and creation of
illegal markets or illegal software. Of course, when this occurs,
majority of those project will be scams as well, but at least
those ICOs are not legal oxymorons like today's version.

Edit: typos

Under law, if you "own property that you don't have access to", the law still grants
you rights to that property, because the law is able to enforce itself by its regulation.

For example, if you "own property" like a vehicle that is in a parking garage in an
another city, that "vehicle" and its storage would fall under many different aspects
of the law to "enforce" your property rights, as to that vehicle. This type of property
and its rights are only attributed to you because you have registered it with a
governmental registration system, in whatever form.

Another example, if you "own virtual property" like land or items within a video game
that you paid real money to purchase, the law mandates that the company who made
the game do one of two things: (1) in the ToS, provide notice that the purchases and
items are temporary and only exist at the discretion of the company and are property
of the company at all times, and the users are only purchasing a temporary license
(like almost all video games, especially on cell phones) or (2) required to give the
game users rights and remedies for the property or items they own within the game
and maintain the game indefinitely to preserve those rights (most never do this).
So, in the case of "virtual property", majority of the time people are only purchasing
a "temporary license" because the companies don't want to be required to provide
rights and etc, that other businesses are required to do. If they provide rights to you
about your "vitual property", they could bring a successful suit against the developers
for failures in the game that could damage your "virtual property" (though in most
cases, due to developer intervention within the game, could remedy the damage
prior to court action).

The issue here is that bitcoins are not physical, but a type of virtual, which we all call
"digital". This means that it falls under certain types of enforcement that assumes
there is a "controller" or "responsible party" to that "virtual environment" or "digital
network", whether a company, government, bank, or etc. In order to enforce someone's
rights to bitcoins, there needs to be someone who is empowered to give them or take
them away, and in Bitcoin we call those people a third party, which Bitcoin was designed
to specifically prevent from occurring within the blockchain.

So, when the bitcoins remain in your privatekey control and are still represented
within the Bitcoin blockchain, in actuality the only entity who owns and has property
rights to those coins are the Bitcoin blockchain itself. Essentially, the blockchain has
provided you a "temporary license" to move the coins within itself, BUT does not
provide you a ToS by law, or any normal rights mandated by law, since the Bitcoin
blockchain is not "controlled" or have "responsible parties" who are required to enforce.
All participants are voluntary and expendable, and thus are not bound by law to
provide rights or attempt to provide rights. Only third party systems that attach
themselves to Bitcoin's blockchain and directly connect to the "outside" financial
world, do property rights come into existence since the "outside" governments
mandate that they provide that to their users.

So, Bitcoin and its blockchain is a "special environment" specifically crafted with the
intention to circumvent the current understanding of law and the way it enforces. This
type of system can not exist in the normal world framework since it would be violating
multiple laws. That is why node decentralization is most important above all other
things, not because it is a "buzzword" or because it could be used to "scare others
about on-chain scaling", but is because it truly is the one piece that if removed,
brings the whole network into compliance with the outside world, and thus
controllable and destroyable.

Human markets always give way to human laws. For example, China just announced
that ICOs are illegal or something to that effect, and now the markets react. The human
laws supersedes the human markets, and actually controls them. Markets are not a public
good or right, but a privilege that your governments allow, due to current human economic
theories and understanding. There is no such thing as free markets, and though Satoshi
designed the Bitcoin system to participate in the human markets in certain aspects, it
actually assumes them corrupted and maladjusted, and thus the actual design of his
"special environment".

For the Bitcoin experiment to succeed, it assumes everything outside itself is flawed
and in some systems, immoral and irredeemable. In some ways if you wish, you could
argue that Satoshi hated the human markets more than all other things.

You ignored a fundamental aspect of the Bitcoin system in order to claim that it still
conforms to current laws and legal interpretation. The reality is that with the modern
banking system, it is true that it is a ledger/settlement system with human oversight,
and could be compared to a blockchain type system, but you ignore that the entry
representatives in the banking version are actually owned and regulated by its
government. That is where your legal rights stem, only by its enforceability.

With that in mind, the entries within a properly functioning blockchain, prevents
government or etc, who is empowered either by law or force, to seize or control the
tokens in which they do not have control rights over, unlike in the banking system.
What this really means on a legal level is that it can not be a "legal property" as long
as the tokens remain within the users control and within the blockchain. If you move
those coins into a regulated exchange or service (like the banking system), then "legal
property rights" can be applied since the third-party systems are mandated by their
governments and it's crafted laws, to provide those users with those rights.

Within a properly functioning blockchain, there are no rights or remedies, as designed.
For example, with the regulated exchange, if they lose user's coins, who in the Bitcoin
or blockchain system do they refer to for remedy? In fact, they can't even win a suit
against the developers, even if the loss was do to a significant flaw in the system.
This is very contrary to legal theory of property rights and responsible parties, and
stems partly due to its open source and voluntary nature. Goverments force you,
but grant you rights. Bitcoin does not force, and thus grants you no rights.

This was intended to prevent legal liabilities to all parties that could exist within this
system type. There is no responsible party when it is functioning as originally designed
(though in some circumstances, due to mining centralization, miners could be held liable
in certain jurisdictions). For this type of system to actually proceed and be tested
without government stepping in and stopping it (since they, and the financial system
they created and enforce, are incentivized to do so) it needs to essentially exist within
its own sovereign territory, and that was manifested by the full system that Satoshi
envisioned and pieced together. Bitcoin is a country within a country. The only way
for the "outside country" to enforce upon in the inside, in any way including rights,
is to declare war and attack the inside and its participants, publicly.

If your opinion was correct that "the law is very well able to handle socially
constructed property rights, regardless of technical implementation", Bitcoin
and "the experiment" would have fundamentally failed in a significant area. In short,
Bitcoin only exists today because the tokens are not an actual form of property that
law currently anticipates, whether you wish them to be or not. Tokens are only
representations of the network itself and you can not have rights from or
in the network, by the nature of the network, unless it has been captured.

That is your right to do, but using regular dictionaries to define theological
concepts is not the practice. Normally, you must examine the religions and
see how they define "prophets".

Your definition provided is a contradiction from a theological perspective if
you interpret "inspired teacher", as equivalent to "divine inspiration". Musicians
sometimes believe that their work manifests from another place from outside
themselves, sometimes referred to "divine inspiration" or a "higher power", but
other humans consider that person a "genius". Whatever the truth, that does
not make Musicians become prophets or "inspired teachers" from a religious
point of view. By this termonology, Jimi Hendrix could be a "musical prophet",
but in religion, that would be an improper usage of the term "prophet".

When it comes to "proclaimer of the will of God" it is actually more simple.
For a human to know God's will and thus preach it, it is normally assumed
there is a direct link with God in some way. A prophet in a religious sense,
is in communication with God and thus is capable of being the "proclaimer
of will", only due to communication. In instances where the "will is inherently
known", and there is no communication, it is possible the "proclaimer" or
"prophet" is God partitioned and expressed using a human form.

If Satoshi was "divinely inspired", God used him, without knowing the will.
If Satoshi was a "prophet", God instructed the will & guided his words.
If Satoshi was "God", he is the will itself, and can do as he wills.




That is your right to do. You can create whatever you wish.
I was providing my statements for consideration in the context of prior
religions and certain beliefs of theology.




I did not mean to convey that Satoshi received the Whitepaper physically by
God, like as with Moses. I only used the "Moses and the Ten Commandments"
example as a way for you to immediately grasps what I was trying to convey.
Satoshi wrote different versions of the Whitepaper before publishing what is
the common version today. So I know Satoshi himself actually constructed it,
as opposed to being physically given by God.


But, just for curiosity's sake:
1. Who is the "living lord" and can he exist outside the blockchain?
2. Does the "living lord" exist in all blockchain types or only some?




Indeed, indeed, I do make such assertions.

But it does not matter what I think since you can create whatever you wish.
I was just providing my statements for your consideration and not offense.