Yes, that's precisely what I had already posted in the other thread in which we are discussing this, except, in the most technical sense,
a re-direct from echeque to jim.com does not perfectly prove James A. Donald owned either or both. He probably set the redirect though,
sure. I certainly believe he did/does own both, as I've already said in the other thread. But I don't have an allwhois screenshot, as it is all
masked.
Also, as I mentioned before, jim.com was registered in February of 1995. Early. James A. Donald goes by both Jim and James, as does
Bowery. This is of course no big deal re men with this name-- just another clue.
As it can and has been easily proven Bowery is a massively skilled C++ programmer with a long, intense interest going back to roughly the
mid-1990s in peer-to-peer file sharing, e-currencies, cryptography, gold (I believe he was a regular poster or reader on the goldismoney
board but haven't researched that .. he did in fact post a lot on Majority Rights).
Seeing as how these are his known interests and skills, why
do you think he appears nowhere on Cypherpunks-- under his real name, Jim Bowery or James Bowery-- which I have found? He was missing
in action? A mere passive "interested reader"? Too dull? Too much a scientific nobody? (Bowery has testified to Congress about the need for
scientific education).
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/319662/james-boweryToo disinterested? Too reticent? Or maybe just too present but with anonymous patina? Which stands to reason?
James Bowery in Iowa just under 3 years ago speaking for Rand Paul:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39dpwSYsbwhttps://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=james+boweryJim Bowery blog:
http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/?view=flipcardScroll 4:32 -- Nick Szabo (whose Bitgold work is strangely uncredited in Nakamoto's white paper) asks if "anyone wants to help me code one up?".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iSZIf4xVq0&feature=youtu.be On December 27th, 2008 Szabo wrote, “Bit Gold would greatly benefit from a demonstration, an experimental market (with e.g. a trusted third party substituted for the complex security that would be needed for a real system). Anybody want to help me code one up?”
One week later on January 3rd, 2009, Satoshi released the code for Bitcoin, with Bit Gold as the inspiration.(Clearly, Satoshi didn't code it up in a week. So Szabo's request is stagy in the extreme. The two would have been in concert for some months.)
https://coincentral.com/who-is-nick-szabo/Bowery and Szabo follow each other on twitter. Go see and get screenshots.
Could Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto of CA, a two-block away neighbor of Hal Finney (an easy address search on the net in 2008/9) have been used as a patsy by JB, or a cabal of JB, Szabo and maybe even-- but not necessarily, Hal Finney himself? Of the three, Bowery is by far the most skilled C++ coder. ===========================
"The Book Of Satoshi" bundles old mailing-lists discussions with Satoshi Nakamoto. Upon reading through the pages, I noticed this sentence:
"The design [of Bitcoin] supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types I DESIGNED YEARS AGO: escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/288a6n/another_pointer_to_nick_szabo/Unrelated but interesting Hal Finney archive:
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09975.html(The Satoshi Nakamoto phrase "I designed years ago: escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc" ... if you google it, it is all over, even in a Washington Post piece. It's a genuine Satoshi quote.
Now read Crypto Kong below. -doublespend timestamp)
============================
https://cryptome.org/jya/crypto-kong.htm15 January 1998 (EDIT NOTE: "Years ago" Satoshi quote. Additionally, here is the Crypto Kong software. Experienced C++ coders
can compare it to Satoshi's coding style. But it's the current antifa year;
few will even read long posts like this on V-Bulletin.
http://echeque.com/Kong/-doublespend timestamp)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:49:52 -0800 (PST)To: Filtered Cypherpunks List <
cypherpunks@toad.com>
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
Subject: Crypto Kong penetration.
(EDIT NOTE: Remember, James A. Donald was the first to reply to Satoshi Nakamoto's Jan. 3, 2009. -doublespend timestamp) -- 2
Since release there have been a very large number of hits on
the Kong documents, and mere 102 downloads of the program,
and 74 downloads of the source code.
The large number of source code downloads indicates that I am
only reaching the crypto techie audience, that for the most
part is already able to use PGP, not the non tech audience
that Crypto Kong was designed for.
On my web page I have documentation as to
how business users
can and should use this product. (See the section "contracts
and certificates" <http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong>
I and Mather Cromer have prepared a release document targeted
at business users (See below)
Does anyone have any suggestion of how to get the message in
front of the target audience?
(press release oriented towards businessmen follows:
--
Announcing Crypto Kong.
Free digital signatures and encryption. <http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/Kong.htm>.
Many businessmen use a faxed signature for a contract, or for
authority to act, or worse still, a shared password, as
stockbrokers often do. This is almost worthless.
The signature on a fax can be, and often is, a mere bitmap,
not genuinely scanned in from a signature written in ink on a
paper document, but merely applied digitally to an image in
computer memory. If that bitmap was also applied to some
other document sent to the same company, which it usually
was, then the fax proves nothing.
On the other hand,
often one cannot wait for FedEx to deliver
signed documents. The answer is digital signatures and
encryption. With digitally-signed electronic documents, you
can send unforgeable signed documents instantaneously across
the globe.
Crypto Kong is easy to use and it uses the same identity
model that as businesses today use for ordinary handwritten
signatures, unlike other products which impose their own
different way of handling identity.
Crypto Kong takes away the hassles of certificate management,
public key authentication, and complicated operating
instructions. Anyone can immediately use it to sign
documents, to compare signatures or to encrypt sensitive
messages. Kong compares the signatures on documents, rather
than comparing a signature against certificates.
Crypto Kong software makes it easy to send or receive
digitally signed documents or use top grade encryption to
keep messages private.
Crypto Kong provides support for contracts and the
documentation that accompanies transactions. The Crypto Kong application and detailed documentation
information is available as a free download from the Kong
home page:
Kong is compatible only with Windows 95 and Windows NT.
Complete source code is also available for download from the
home page.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
SgQ8pgY/MeQpI9CfGR5kSsRdW61mSVYtqHkEMoMU
47jSLQPPmYxhaKH9MyohUU9Q9i3bzVWjwey/s3Od4
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
gME+6HSq3N3G1iw88pJyVqcNc8dlMZhS2f+zUijA
4IpLFuTI1zY7tEU4+gDAFM6uhgcWP9IyA/3guXt7j
4WRob8mo+81LCLSyU4RiPNOilXHZTlyvZzsFMr+9d
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of
the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right,
not from the arbitrary power of the state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/===============================================
JAN 9 (2009)Quine's Simplification of Structural Realism
After reviewing Stanford's web page on Ontic Structural Realism, it is becoming more urgent that I try persuade scholars in this area to take more seriously Quine's monumental feat of clearing away semantic underbrush with his description of relata as syntactic sugars for relations.
Quine had the beginnings of a revolution in philosophy by relying on identity-as-substitutivity which, as it turns out, is adequate to describe all of mathematics using nothing but the predicate calculus:
“Chief among the omitted frills is the name. This again is a mere convenience and is strictly redundant, for the following reasons. Think of ‘a’ as a name, and think of ‘F(a)’ as any sentence containing it. But clearly ‘F(a)’ is equivalent to ‘(∃x)( a = x & F(x))’. We see from this that ‘a’ need never occur except in the context ‘a =’. But we can as well render ‘a =’ always as a simple predicate ‘A’, thus abandoning the name ‘a’. ‘F(a)’ gives way thus to ‘(∃x)(A(x) & F(x))’, where the predicate ‘A’ is true solely of the object ‘a’.
“It may be objected that this paraphrase deprives us of an assurance of uniqueness that the name has afforded. It is understood that the name applies to only one object, whereas the predicate ‘A’ supposes no such condition. However, we lose nothing by this, since we can always stipulate by further sentences, when we wish, that ‘A’ is true of one and only one thing:
(∃x)A(x) & ~ (∃x,y)(A(x) & A(y) & ~(x=y) )”
“(This identity sign “=” here would either count as one of the simple predicates of the language or be paraphrased in terms of them.)”
I really think a lot more progress in science, mathematics and philosophy would occur if scholars of "structure" would state their arguments in Quine's syntax.
Posted 9th January 2009 by Jim Boweryhttp://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2009/01/quines-simplification-of-structural.html?view=flipcard
