Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

The Bitcoin SV blockchain technology (BSV) is internationally patented under number WO201714505048A1 by its scientific research director Craig Steven Wright and is managed by Nchain Holding

Your patent number must be wrong, it doesn't search on WIPO.

You got not link to that patent? - then it's fake.

To effective search for patents you need a patent attorney

Pretty sure if I need an intermediary, it's no longer Bitcoin.

 

[Zarathustra]

And I am pretty sure, that BSV won't be able to scale because it doesn't attract intelligent people able to design the tools necessary for a world currency.
(..)
He never wrote anything even remotely intelligent. His "scientific" work is crap. Everybody with a high school education who doesn't see this is mentally retarded.

I don't see anybody technically competent enough around BSV to build these tools.

Congrats to ZangelbertBingledack, Ryan X. Charles, Norway, Unwriter, ChristophBergmann, Cypherdoc, Shadders, Otaci, JimmyWin et al., you bunch of mentally retarded fools!

I don't have high school education, but my reading competence is not retarded enough that I would believe that cypherdoc suffers from "blind love for a fraud".

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

How do you expain these patents if CSW never wrote anything remotely intelligent?
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&locale=en_EP&submitted=true&DB=&query=Craig+Wright+or+nChain

Sorry, but you can't impress me with patents.

IIRC a guy got a wind turbine on top of a car patented in the US. (You are a physicist iirc so you should know how bad the state of the patent system is).

 

[theZerg]

How do you expain these patents if CSW never wrote anything remotely intelligent?
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&locale=en_EP&submitted=true&DB=&query=Craig+Wright+or+nChain

I have spot checked a few of his patents and have not found novel innovations. For example, I just clicked your link and downloaded the first patent. In it is the following:

[0139] The present disclosure relates to controlling performance of a contract by providing that the contract (e.g. license) remains in effect as long as there is a valid unspent transaction output (UTXO) on the blockchain representing the contract.

The earliest foreign filing (for priority) was Apr 29, 2016 (see the first page).

But the idea of controlling a rental or other contract (called "smart property") was a well known concept back in 2012. A quick google search yields an article from 2013:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6791756

"One can even design smart property – for example, a car’s electronic key so that when and only when a payment is made by the car buyer to the seller, the seller’s car key stops working and the buyer’s car key (or mobile phone) starts the car. Imagine your self-driving car negotiating traffic, paying fractional bitcoin to neighboring cars in exchange for priority."

The Bitcoin wiki entry claims the idea was invented in 1994: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property

Therefore, this patent seems to be a rehash of a well known concept.

 

[Manfred]

Sorry, but you can't impress me with patents.

IIRC a guy got a wind turbine on top of a car patented in the US. (You are a physicist iirc so you should know how bad the state of the patent system is).

A granted Wright patent: number 821,393, assigned on May 22, 1906 (filed 1903) changed the world.
https://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html

 

[KoKansei]

@theZerg IANAL, but I believe that the novelty of a patent cannot be determined based on a single claim therein but rather the totality of the claims, which is usually available in summarized form in the abstract and/or the first part of the specification.

A better test might be to look at the most specific claim(s) (usually those that include a bunch of "wherein" or "characterized in that" clauses) and see if they do or do not meet the criteria for novelty and inventiveness based on the cited prior art.

Pretty sure if I need an intermediary, it's no longer Bitcoin.

We are talking about the patent system here, not bitcoin. The reality of these legacy systems is that they are chocked full of intermediaries that you must deal with if you want to navigate them correctly. Inefficient as it is, that is the reality.

 

[dgenr8]

He has been and is one of the most respectful and intelligent people in this space.

I have to agree with that. @freetrader acts at all times like someone who wants bitcoin to succeed as global money.

Assuming he is also @btcfork on Twitter (which I'm pretty sure of) ... he is also the only person who bothered to ask for my side of the story when ABC started slandering me privately for asking obvious but uncomfortable questions like "who actually decided to merge the November 2018 fork spec?" or "Do any of you actually understand the SPV vulnerability you're hard-forking to fix?"

 

[freetrader]

Thanks for your words of support, @satoshis_sockpuppet and @dgenr8, they mean something to me.

I may have become more cynical in general* since Bitcoin Cash and especially after the recent community split. Perhaps that just a by-product of getting older, I sometimes wonder.
But yes, I still firmly want Bitcoin to succeed as global money.

And I have goals related to that which I'm working on, and which make it very hard to contribute more time to BU or ABC. Perhaps I should spend less time on this forum, as has been advised

*sometimes too much for my own good

 

[cypherdoc]

what's this supposed to mean? do you not consider the restoration towards v 0.1 open source development?

i'd actually like an answer to my question as it regards this post by @Manfred :

The Bitcoin SV blockchain technology (BSV) is internationally patented under number WO201714505048A1 by its scientific research director Craig Steven Wright and is managed by Nchain Holding

to clarify, THE working assumption behind me being willing to back the BSV fiery inferno (Aussie Man Bad) chain is that if and when BSV reaches it's more or less finality of development of unlimited blocks seamlessly propagating and validating across it's network with billions of users and a price in the $hundredsofthousands, the BSV community would/should still have the optionality of hard forking away from the Aussie Man Bad's chain if he tries some non-sensical move like increasing the 21M coin limit or stealing old Satoshi's coins (assuming CSW isn't Satoshi). so is it true that nChain or CSW has some sort of generalized patent on the entire BSV chain itself and it's "technology" that would allow them to sue any open source devs who author such a breakaway fork? for me, that would be bad, as i consider all the development taking place btwn now and then that restores Bitcoin's original vision to be open source. mind you, given that i think there's a ~75% chance he was part of the Satoshi group, i don't think he'd do this, but who knows. one always should assume the worst can happen and have appropriate checks in place.

for instance, clearly the unwinding of p2sh and other Core insertions into the BTC-->BCH-->BSV code is complicated according to @Zangelbert Bingledack's post the other day. if nChain writes the additional required code to accomplish this unwind, are they going to patent it, making any usage of the generalized BSV code from then on forward for all practical purposes also protected by that patent? let's say they accomplish that by end of 2019 and by 2025 when BSV is much bigger, a breakaway hard fork is open sourced due to a threatened non-sensical 21M coin increase. can/would they sue those authors? also, if they expect non-nChain devs to help out due to the complexity, i would think this would place this is the category of open source.

@shadders @Otaci

 

[Norway]

I have spot checked a few of his patents and have not found novel innovations. For example, I just clicked your link and downloaded the first patent. In it is the following:

[0139] The present disclosure relates to controlling performance of a contract by providing that the contract (e.g. license) remains in effect as long as there is a valid unspent transaction output (UTXO) on the blockchain representing the contract.

The earliest foreign filing (for priority) was Apr 29, 2016 (see the first page).

But the idea of controlling a rental or other contract (called "smart property") was a well known concept back in 2012. A quick google search yields an article from 2013:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6791756

"One can even design smart property – for example, a car’s electronic key so that when and only when a payment is made by the car buyer to the seller, the seller’s car key stops working and the buyer’s car key (or mobile phone) starts the car. Imagine your self-driving car negotiating traffic, paying fractional bitcoin to neighboring cars in exchange for priority."

The Bitcoin wiki entry claims the idea was invented in 1994: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property

Therefore, this patent seems to be a rehash of a well known concept.

I'm not sure what you try to achieve with this post, @theZerg.

I'd like to hear more about the progress in scaling of the BU node from you than these debates about CSW.

The last post in the gigablock_testnet slack channel was january 11th. I can't tell if the work on this funded project has stopped or just moved to another channel of communication.

What do you think will happen when the BU node is exposed to sustained 512MB blocks on STN? What do you think is the next bottleneck? How can it be solved? Have you looked at using GPU's for some of the processing?

These are the areas I'm really interested in. Because scaling must be solved for bitcoin to succeed.

 

[Manfred]

@cypherdoc
Been to so many places, trollboxes, video, articles.... to get as much info as possible before i commit to increase my 25% BSV holding.
It is fair to assume with the avalanche of patent application that he protected BSV of future forks. There is the good and the bad, swim or sink.
I am 100% certain BTC will increase the 21 million cap at some stage (grin is part of this long term plan)
75% convinced BCH will increase also, yet to find a valid reason for BSV to raise the cap. fees of the big blocks will keep miners going.
patents and such is long way away form v 0.1 bitcoin.....
difficult decisions ahead, way over may head as an ex gold addict.


edit:
If he does not file for patents others will
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/03/13/data-china-is-patenting-all-the-blockchain-tech-despite-banning-cryptocurrency/

 

[Norway]

The Bitcoin SV blockchain technology (BSV) is internationally patented under number WO201714505048A1 by its scientific research director Craig Steven Wright and is managed by Nchain Holding

I guess you misspelled that. You mean WO2017145048A1, not WO201714505048A1

 

[freetrader]

We are talking about the patent system here, not bitcoin.

I'm talking about @Manfred's claim that a specific patent covers the BSV blockchain / protocol itself.
Versus the narrative so far that all of nChain's patents were not related that, but to application of technology on top of it.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@cypherdoc I'm not sure why Manfred mentioned that patent in relation to BSV itself, but all nChain patents I'm aware of are on methods using the blockchain, not on any blockchain or any node client software. In fact none mention BSV, and only mention Bitcoin as an example as they apply to all blockchains.

The patent mentioned describes a system for using a blockchain to prove, for example, that a company has only one set of books. A response to Enron.

 

[cypherdoc]

well i sure hope that's the case.

i would once again petition BU to make a BU-BSV compatible client asap to ensure the disaster scenario cannot occur.
[doublepost=1554056642][/doublepost]wow, i hadn't heard it was escalating this much:

 

[lunar]

I guess you misspelled that. You mean WO2017145048A1

Sounds like he's referring to this one.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a0/59/46/11cc97e7f31c22/WO2017145048A1.pdf


"Abstract: The invention relates generally to cryptographic techniques for secure processing, transmission and exchange of data. It also relates to peer-to-peer distributed ledgers such as (but not limited to) the Bitcoin blockchain. In particular, it relates to control solutions for identifying, protecting, extracting, transmitting and updating data in a cryptographically controlled and secure manner. It also relates to system interoperability and the ability to communicate data between different and distinct computing systems. The invention provides a computer implemented method (and corresponding systems) comprising the steps of identifying a set of first structure public keys comprising at least one public root key associated with a first structure of interest of an entity and one or more associated public sub-keys; deriving a deterministic association between the at least one public root key and the one or more associated public sub-keys; and extracting data from a plurality of transactions (TXs) from a blockchain. The data comprises data indicative of a blockchain transaction (Tx) between the first structure and at least one further structure; and a first structure public key associated with the first structure. The first structure public key is part of a cryptographic public/private key. The method includes the step of generating an output for the first structure of interest by matching at least part of the set of first structure public keys to the extracted transaction data using the deterministic association. The one or more public sub-keys is generated or determined using Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) and a deterministic key (DK) that is based on a cryptographic hash of a message (M). The one or more public sub-keys is determined based on a scalar addition of an associated public parent key and the scalar multiplication of a deterministic key (DK) and a generator (G)."

 

[theZerg]

I'm not sure what you try to achieve with this post, @theZerg.

You seemed to hang your trust in CSW on a bunch of patents. I wanted to explain why many people are not impressed. I am not trying to "achieve" anything here in the sense of BCH/BSV advocacy. I am trying to move the discourse to the next level.

Now is when you point to a patent that is actually novel and then I'll analyze it.

I'd like to hear more about the progress in scaling of the BU node from you than these debates about CSW.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

 

[Norway]

@theZerg I'm seriously more interested in BU's ability to scale. It wasn't a red herring. It was an attempt to steer the debate over on something more interesting and relevant for me.

 

[theZerg]

I think sickpig is joining the bsv testnet, and we plan to do another round of isolated testing the summer.

But whether there is anything novel in any of nchain's patents is I think a pretty interesting subject so please point me to anything that you know about.

 

[Norway]

@theZerg

But whether there is anything novel in any of nchain's patents is I think a pretty interesting subject so please point me to anything that you know about.

I'm not a patent expert, and I have no intention of trying to "judge" the massive amount of patents from CSW and nChain. I know it's an application process and experts make the call if a patent is approved. I think it's just silly to claim that CSW have never written "anything even remotely intelligent".

I think sickpig is joining the bsv testnet, and we plan to do another round of isolated testing the summer.

It's great that @sickpig is doing this. I fear BU falls behind the curve in the scaling department and becomes obsolete and outdated in the next year if we don't step up the game. I hope I'm wrong.