Duality: Bitcoin Zero is Satoshi’s Vision
Math, Cryptography, & C++: From Smart Contracts to Privacy, BTC is King
In order for bitcoin to come into existence it required 3 fundamental areas of knowledge converging together. In the end, what it took was a combination of math, cryptography, and a good working knowledge of C++ to make it work.
Satoshi Nakamoto -Duality
If you have not read Duality, the 21-page excerpt from a potentially upcoming book by Bitcoin’s founder(s), Satoshi Nakamoto, I suggest you do not hesitate and get reading. It may make no sense to you if you have not read along here in the past few months and that’s okay. Bitcoin is so complex it just take a lot of time and dedication to really see what it’s purpose is. One must be willing to learn things from outside of their own wheelhouse. I have never coded in my life but I have been teaching myself Bitcoin code in trying to understand C++ and script codes. With months under my belt, I am still very raw. The thing about Bitcoin is that it is so complex there will never be one conclusive answer.
Is it currency?
Yes.
Can it be used for decentralized application building or peer-to-peer storage?
Yes and yes.
There is never just one answer, but Satoshi explains it beautifully with the quotation at the top of this journal entry. Bitcoin has three fundamental areas that needed to come together and make sense. In this blog, much has been researched and explained in those three areas. Bitcoin is math, cryptography, and C++ (and non-Turing complete scripts). Being a research analyst, I have challenged my theories constantly. Reading Satoshi’s Duality gave me both clarity and confirmation of many theories I have made. Bitcoin has a root, is experimental, and will evolve into a final merged product that possesses already built-in capabilities that nobody is talking about — except for me — and Satoshi.
I will break down Duality in this entry from start to finish. When you are done reading, you will either take the time to teach yourself what you do not yet understand or you will dismiss this as a scam. As someone who has dedicated his 2018 to understand the three fundamental areas in math, cryptography, and C++ code, I would have to say for a scam — this would be the most well thought out and elaborate scam in the history of the world. I tend to be realistic and believe the opposite. Bitcoin’s main network has yet to truly debut, and when it does it will knock you off your feet. (Think, epic FOMO).
Origins: Satoshi Admits He Had Predecessors
David Chaum preceded me by almost twenty years, but with his paper Untraceable Electronic Cash he explored the possibility of anonymous transactions using a number of cryptographic protocols. Its inherent flaw however, was that it was centralized. -Duality p. 1
The write-up for Untraceable Electronic Cash by David Chaum (© 1990) came almost two decades before the 2008 Satoshi whitepaper. Satoshi points out that Chaum’s system failed because of its centralized nature, as it involved banks.
The important takeaways I got from reading Chaum’s proposals was the incorporation of RSA (and not ECDSA) signatures as well as a zero-knowledge — the goal was a protocol for making an untraceable payment system that was also able to prevent double-spending:
The process aimed for the goal of protecting the spender’s anonymity as long as the spender didn’t attempt a double-spend (which was traceable by the bank). If playing by the rules, the buyer and seller would be protected equally.
The protocol was revolutionary in that, if people played by the rules, this would make the first unconditional protection of a buyer’s privacy as well as a secure way of accepting electronic cash as a seller — because the bank signature was involved before the transaction ever took place between “Alice and Bob”.
The process was not decentralized; however, and the whole point of Bitcoin is to be the backbone of a decentralized economic system. Two takeaways from this paragraph would be that Satoshi admits he had predecessors in electronic currency, as well as the fact that zero knowledge proofs were proposed long ago — and they are still a very popular protocol for privacy coins in the present day. I have covered Zerocoin (Which I believe to be I Am Zerocoin/I0C) and the Zerocoin Protocol extensively here, and this is proof part of that protocol was proposed as far back as 1986.
Satoshi notes the positives that came from Chaum’s proposed cash system stating:
…it paved the way in showing us (as in cypherpunks) at least that anonymous transactions were possible. -Duality p. 1
Cryptography: Bitcoin Uses Vulnerable Secp256k1 ECDSA
I would like to expand on the fact that Chaum proposed use of RSA signatures over EC-DSA signatures (used in Bitcoin). There are some differences between the two and it is important to mention those before we go deeper into ECDSA use in Bitcoin later on. The main reason to use RSA signatures is for speed of verification, while EC-DSA signatures and public keys are to save space. Security is similar for both RSA and EC-DSA.
In public key cryptography each person has a pair of keys: a public key and a private key. These are typically numbers that are chosen to have a specific mathematical relationship. In RSA, the public key is a large number that is a product of two primes, plus a smaller number. The private key is a related number.
In ECC (Elliptical Curve Cryptography), the public key is an equation for an elliptic curve and a point that lies on that curve.
Bitcoin’s use of EC-DSA (Elliptical Curve) with Secp256k1 has been criticized by the cryptography community since its adoption in Bitcoin. It fails to meet a payment card industry security standard enforced under PCI DSS v 3.2.1 which was implemented on June 30, 2018. Only Open SSL/TLS with patches proven to fix previous security issues would be allowed to be used backed by major credit card networks such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, and other compliant companies.
Bitcoin ditched Open SSL in favor of Secp256k1 and is no longer compliant by payment card industry standards, at least as a coin— therefore a Bitcoin debit card cannot exist, unless another, more secure version of Bitcoin is being used on PCI DSS v 3.2.1 compliant networks. It is possible a rootcoin that is the root source of Bitcoin and even other cryptocurrencies has fixed this vulnerability and is currently used on crypto-debit cards such as the Coinbase Shift Visa debit card. A rootcoin makes sense because it allows not only Bitcoin to be spent, but Ethereum, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, and whatever else is linked to the root and offered by a specific wallet.
Some very harsh words from non-Bitcoin cryptography experts came after Bitcoin moved over to Secp256k1. In 2014, cryptography expert and code breaker Dr. Nicolas T. Courtois blogged:
There just some vague very academic shortcut attacks and definite suspicion and a further more precise stronger security criterion with Field Discriminants which just happens to be incredibly low for the bitcoin secp256k1, and no other standard elliptic curve has ever done as bad.
Dr. Courtois noted:
We need therefore to stress that again NO SENSIBLE CRYPTOGRAPHER we have ever heard about would approve of bitcoin using this super-dodgy elliptic curve.
Here is what Dan Brown, the chair of SECG, the very same industrial standards body which have proposed, specified and standardized this elliptic curve in the first place, have written about this back on 18 September 2013:
I did not know that BitCoin is using secp256k1.
I am surprised to see anybody use secp256k1 instead of secp256r1.In other words, bitcoin should not use it and nobody else should.
Many in the Bitcoin and Ethereum community supported Secp256k1, as Courtois wrote:
Yet bitcoin developers seem to always find some excuses to continue using this k1 curve:
an anonymous founder who mandated it,
ridiculous claims that the NSA could not embed a backdoor in number 7, cf. for example here, while on the contrary, there is like 30 papers each year published in cryptographic literature in which cryptosystems fail exactly because many number theory problems (e.g. solving non-linear polynomial equations) with small integers are easier than with general (larger) numbers (and discrete logs on elliptic curves rely on exactly this: solving polynomial equations known as Semaev or summation polynomials),
incredible claims that r1 would be the insecure curve, and k1 is secure, as claimed by Vitalik Buterin,
a pretended cautious and conservative approach to change anything in the current source code,
unanimous allergic reactions when serious security questions are raised by uninvited academics
more recently setting a clear agenda in which 1) a preventive upgrade is out of the question according to Jeff Garzik, and 2) on the contrary, recent efforts to develop a new super-specialised dedicated library (which focuses on this specific elliptic curve) will make that it will be even harder for bitcoin developers to accept to switch in the future (because they spent so much effort on this curve).
The most interesting comment in relation to a reason for Bitcoin developers to be using a vulnerable version of ECC comes in Courtois’s proposed solutions:
The main solutions to this problem are:
It is easy to upgrade and use another elliptic curve starting today, see this post.
We should further lobby the developers of bitcoin apps to implement stricter policies on not revealing our public keys ever,
maybe up to simply destroying every bitcoin address as long as it is used once
Great hopes are raised by moving our bitcoins to a sidechain which should allow at least some bitcoins a better protection.
Four years later in 2018, Bitcoin remains using the same vulnerable Secp256k1 on top of EC-DSA. The case for sidechains remains strong in the present day. If you read my previous article you already know the Bitcoin developers decision to dump Open SSL for Secp256k1 was due to consensus. If Bitcoin didn’t have consensus to be worked around all security issues with Open SSL would have been solved by the Open SSL 1.0.1k patch . Strict DER encoding would’ve fixed security vulnerabilities. I0Coin uses this version of Open SSL and is able to be used as a root-crypto payment card option on PCI DSS v 3.2.1 compliant networks from Visa to Mastercard to American Express and more.
Prebitcoin (timechains) & Bitcoin 2009 (blockchains)
In April of 2009 is when Mike Hearn first emailed asking about the project. For all intents and purposes, Mike appeared to me as someone who knew what he was talking about but nonetheless was eager to learn new things. His curiosity piqued me as someone inquisitive, asking me whether bitcoin was based on one “global chain” or many, which now most would refer to as the “blockchain.” I pointed out how it was all part of one global chain, with all blocks forming part of that chain. -Duality p. 1–2
One global chain.
This excerpt was particularly interesting because it confesses two things:
- The “blockchain” is an evolution of a previously operating, global chain. Bitcoin is an evolution of something previous. Something with value.
- Something related to blockchain came before the 2009 genesis block and we have not officially found that out from any Bitcoin developer in the present day.
Going on:
I don’t think anyone knows this, but the word blockchain did not come into play until after the fact. Prebitcoin, it was referred to as, the timechain. That is because it wasn’t about the blocks in the beginning, but rather about time, specifically the precise intervals of time upon which the blocks were released. Before they became hardcoded to the rest of the chain. In the finalized version, version 2, this was changed to blockchain as it became more obvious to me that blocks were the underlying element linked in the chain, not only through time. That is how the public would perceive it at least. You see, Bitcoin, the one you see, the one you have bought or sold coins from, is actually, version 2.
Similarly, the word fork didn’t come into play until after the fact either, prebitcoin this was called the branch point. -Duality p. 2
Prebitcoin! Based off of time, a timechain. I wrote originally how timestamps play into Bitcoin and possibly give a reason for its existence. My first journal entry:
It could be quite possible that the blocks of Bitcoin v2’s “blockchain” are the past and future solutions for linking the old and new internet. I have theorized that in order to securely scale the internet, Bitcoin was created as incentive to crowdfund the effort. It seems more and more likely that a decentralized internet, a peer-to-peer internet, is being created without most of the public understanding how they have been funding the effort. It may just happen one day, the decentralized internet appearing — to the shock of the unaware public. To the shock of uninformed Bitcoin holders!
So this ancient, Prebitcoin, exists. Apparently it was never forked. It was “branched” off of, like a branch from the trunk of a tree. Or like the roots of a plant which spread down into the ground. It does not matter up or down. If we are seeing the effect of a time traveling Satoshi, connecting past, present, and future — or timechain with blockchain — it would take pretty advanced computer to do so.
Enter quantum computing and the qubit:
In quantum computing, a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit (sometimes qbit) is the basic unit of quantum information — the quantum version of the classical binary bit physically realized with a two-state device. A qubit is a two-state (or two-level) quantum-mechanical system, one of the simplest quantum systems displaying the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Examples include: the spin of the electron in which the two levels can be taken as spin up and spin down; or the polarization of a single photon in which the two states can be taken to be the vertical polarization and the horizontal polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other. However, quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a coherent superposition of both states/levels at the same time, a property that is fundamental to quantum mechanics and thus quantum computing.
What does a qubit look like?
The interesting part is that the qubit’s origin looks similar to the location of the Earth’s core. Bitcoin Core, Ixcoin Core, I0Coin Core. All names that didn’t come out of nowhere. The name core is also used in core processors. Processors provide the computational power behind the network. Computing power costs are the store of value in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is mined. If one was to search for gold, they would dig beneath the surface of the Earth.
Qubit: Horizontal and Vertical Scaling
Theoretically, time travel in computing is connecting old code with newer code that was likely incompatible (see Y2K38 or hex prefixes, octal, decimal, etc.). I have covered plenty of those subjects in relation to Bitcoin. I was reading an article about Google Cloud Platform and the whole premise of quantum computing was realized to me. The qubit began to make sense. Up is down and down is up type stuff.
Google Cloud Platform provides options for vertical and horizontal scaling with services like Compute Engine, App Engine, and Container Engine
First, note vertical scaling, which is better for smaller apps:
Tuning a single machine to achieve desired performance is known as Vertical Scaling — in that you “stack” increasingly more powerful hardware onto a single server instance.
So what happens when traffic exceeds the power of a single server? What would have happened if everyone rushed into Bitcoin at an earlier date — too soon? There would possibly have been a server crash and the whole network would not have survived. Bitcoin is purposely pumped to get people interested and then has gone through excessively long dumps after hitting all time highs in price to drive people away.
Remember, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has even admitted that during the times where interest is low, they are preparing and progressing:
After many years of this, I’ve come to enjoy the down cycles in crypto prices more. It gets rid of the people who are in it for the wrong reasons, and it gives us an opportunity to keep making progress while everyone else gets distracted. @brian_armstrong via Twitter
The permanent solution for Bitcoin is in the hands of the biggest players in Silicon Valley and lies in horizontal scaling:
If you are expecting massive user growth or sudden spikes in traffic, you should design your application architecture in a way to allow to allow for horizontal scaling.With horizontal scaling, you create multiple identical server instances and balance the load of traffic across a fleet of application servers.
The big players like Google and Facebook will often horizontally scale across entire data-centers, each with thousands of individual “nodes” to handle the massive system load generated by their users.
In case you forgot:
As for Facebook:
It would be foolish to think these two giants were not in the game all along. Bitcoin needs the private sector just as much as it needed government approval — just like it needed public crowdfunding.
Don’t you find it a bit odd that Applecoin or IBMtoken haven’t made a splash in a 250–450 billion dollar market? The Linux Foundation has been actively involved in Bitcoin development and in case you forgot — they are a foundation that gets private sector competitors to work together and even merge Bitcoin code.
Back to Google. Obviously they have the power and capabilities to horizontally and vertically scale. According to the article this is done through three different products. Each is detailed in the following quotes:
Google Compute Engine
Compute Engine is an IaaS (Infrastructure-As-A-Service) that allows you spin up Virtual Machines (VMs), which can be manually scaled to have a faster CPU, more RAM, a larger disk, and other configuration options. Compared to other offerings, Google Compute Engine will have more flexibility for a Vertical approach to scaling.
Compute Engine can also scale horizontally with Instance Groups, but the costs of setting up custom infrastructure and processes to support this are usually disadvantageous compared to Google’s Platform offers of App Engine and Container Engine. With Compute Engine, it is up to you to configure each machine to your needs, including installing Apache/NGiNX, creating a deployment strategy, maintaining a firewall, etc. Tools like ansible and fabric can help you script deployments if you choose to go with the bare-metal VM approach Compute Engine provides.
What is interesting is thinking about how Google’s co-founder admitted to mining Ethereum directly. The Google Compute Engine can run Virtual Machines (which Ethereum is known for in EVM). It appears Compute Engine is more suitable for vertical scaling than horizontal, even though it is capable of both forms of scaling.
Google App Engine
As a PaaS (Platform-As-A-Service), App Engine will handle your application’s servers as well as provide helpful built-in services and APIs. By using App Engine, you won’t have to worry about installing the latest security update to your server or configuring a load balancer to handle traffic spikes.
App Engine also provides conveniences like a development environment, integrated libraries (including asynchronous tasks), a deployment system, and many more helpful tools. App Engine can start small with just a single instance, but will scale up to meet tremendous traffic. Snapchat uses App Engine to power it’s over 100M monthly active users.
The conveniences of App Engine comes at a cost, being one of the costlier infrastructures Google offers. Even though its a bit pricey, App Engine is the platform I find myself reaching for most often when developing web or mobile applications. I’ve found it to be both the fastest platform to get up-and-running with and the least needy for on-going maintenance.
Interesting that App Engine can handle large influxes of sudden traffic. It sounds like a great mechanism to handle a sudden tremendous increase in Bitcoin interest from the public. Perhaps this will happen after the public is aware of the truth I try to spread here. Snapchat is using the App Engine. Who doesn’t have a Snapchat?
Google Container Engine
Container Engine is a relatively new addition to Google’s cloud offerings. To explain Container Engine, you must first explain containers:
Containers wrap a piece of software in a complete filesystem that contains everything needed to run: code, runtime, system tools, system libraries — anything that can be installed on a server. This guarantees that the software will always run the same, regardless of its environment. — Docker
Instead of providing your operations team with application source code and a 15 step build process in a README, you can simply hand them a container image. The concept of containers is fairly new but is rapidly rising in popularity. Containers offer a compelling alternative to the once-typical process of provisioning VMs with hundreds of lines of bash scripts.
Bitcoin has been using a docker in its mining process for years now. Dockers are used to run nodes as well — though I do not fully understand dockers — they seem to be an emerging way to participate in supporting the network by mining transactions.
The end of the article on Google’s Cloud Platform has some more subtle hinting:
If you are interested in developing applications on Google’s Cloud Platform and want to get started quickly — and provided you know Python, Java, Go, or PHP — checkout the App Engine Standard Environment documentation and tutorials.
If not — don’t worry! You can always use Compute Engine, Container Engine, or App Engine Flexible to run a custom runtime!
It appears App Engine uses some common code language used in Ethereum. Apps and smart contracts are also apparently ready to go in Bitcoin since its inception, if you believe Satoshi and projects like Rootstock. Rootstock, Sidechains, Blockstream, Zerocoin/Zerocash, and many other whitepapers can be found in one section of the Blockchain Academy website — which you can access by typing in BitcoinZero.org as I discussed in my last article. For a refresher, just look at the BitcoinZero logo — resembling a hexagon:
As for Google Cloud Platform’s logo, we see a hexagon as well:
Now here is my deep analysis and bold prediction. Bitcoin Zero has 6 white colored bars on its hexagon while Google Cloud Platform has 3 different colors with a circle in the center of the hexagon. Both have 6 sides. My suspicion is that the three colors represent the three areas of Google Cloud Platform’s product catalog — described above. However, the core is white with a hollow circle in the middle. When quantum computing is involved in a two-state environment up can be down and down can be up. Google Cloud Platform scales horizontally and vertically which makes me believe it has already deemed a merge between Bitcoin and Ethereum forthcoming. Say Ethereum was scaling up and Bitcoin was scaling downward. Quantum computing power could link both Bitcoin (down) and Ethereum (up) into one network that simply uses 3 different services — instead of 2 networks that use 3 different services for 6 different implementations. I know its confusing, but remember:
Satoshi is using quantum computing and A.I. on the blockchain. He is now releasing his accounting of the past and his explanation for how Bitcoin will adapt in the future (in Duality). Scaling is something Satoshi planned to be Bitcoin’s strongsuit:
Mike also brought up issues of scaling, and in reference to his concerns, I used the example of the Visa network, which at the time handled 15 million transactions a day (now handles roughly ten times that). Bitcoin was already able to scale much larger than this. Or so I thought.
In referring back to Moore’s Law, I really did believe that computers would be equipped with hardware that by the time I write this, would be a 100 times faster than it was ten years ago. I was wrong. -Duality p. 2-3
ASICS: Providing Power to Boost Bitcoin’s Store of Value
I was aware of it (ASICS) yes, still I didn’t really want to start an arms race for a network with few users, but I also didn’t care how someone decided to mine for them, whatever method they chose, I left it up to the individual to figure it out. Although I did want users to use their PCs and for it to stay that way for a while. Still, some had started to see that bitcoin was accruing value and the focus started to shift…accumulate or receive (such payments or benefits). -Duality p. 3
The hashing power (rate) is always said to be a positive indicator of a future price increase. It is ever increasing as more power floods into the Bitcoin network. Satoshi’s choice of words is telling. Bitcoin “accruing value” should be noted:
Accrue
accumulate or receive (such payments or benefits).
synonyms: accumulate, collect, build up, mount up, grow, increase
“interest is added to the account as it accrues”
ASICS introduced a lot of heavy power bills to Bitcoin miners/mining farms. That power expense remains in Bitcoin as long as the mining rewards remain unspent. To this day I do not think a single person realizes that Bitcoin is being mined externally as another, rootcoin (which Satoshi calls Prebitcoin). I have found such instance with I0Coin merge mining as the mainchain and Devcoin auxpow being sent to a BTC ledger public key address with a corresponding I0Coin Hash 160 public key (more on that later).
Satoshi highlights a reason why BTC block rewards remain unspent to this day, it takes over 100 confirmations to spend a block reward — whereas people believe 20 confirmations is the minimum needed to spend coins.
I also added GetBlocksToMaturity during this time. I set it at +20, intentionally. Although you can technically get to it before it reaches 120, until everyone in the network has at least 100 confirmed confirmations from the mined block, it cannot be spent. Other nodes recognize it as spendable, but the client will not. -Duality p. 7
Miners are a centralized group of developers in my opinion. They provide astronomical amounts of power which adds extreme value to the Bitcoin being mined. These coins have gone unspent, and while I believe these mining farms/centralized miners are getting their fair share of value out of Bitcoin in some sort of agreement for the work they’ve done — I also believe they have plans to decentralize Bitcoin when safe enough to do so — and much of their hashing value left in unspent coins will find its way back to the public. On that note, I highly suggest you look at I0Coin’s hash rate and buy some while you still can.
RSA Over EC-DSA In Bitcoin’s Future & Past?
Satoshi explains some of the great additional features Bitcoin could have in the future if it implements RSA. RSA is an older signature algorithm and is faster to verify than EC-DSA — with the downside that it also takes up more space than EC-DSA. Possible features if Bitcoin implemented RSA in the future include:
He did though show enthusiasm about what bitcoin could be used for, and although some of my halfbaked ideas never made it through (i.e. a marketplace, an escrow system) I did make a mention of it. In the first version (prebitcoin), I envisioned it could be used for a marketplace, with user reviews and comments. Think of a decentralized eBay that no one controlled. Bitcoin did have more potential than just as a form of currency. Something he suggested implementing was comments for indirect transfers. I pointed out that this was not possible. Unfortunately, the way bitcoin was designed did not allow for this. -Duality p. 4
EC-DSA is pretty limited in that it only verifies signatures:
The EC-DSA that bitcoin uses only allowed for one thing, to verify signatures, which unlike RSA can’t be used to encrypt messages. In planning for the future, I had to make the choice between doing what was practical, siding with EC-DSA which was fundamental in making the block chain compact enough to be practical for the future. I didn’t choose what would be good for the time, but rather I made the choice to implement what would be good for the long term. -Duality p. 4
What is interesting is Satoshi never says that he scrapped RSA in Prebitcoin. In fact, Prebitcoin is still out there with all of those capabilities. Take a look at the I0Coin ANN and the list of capabilities being touted:
If I0Coin is using RSA and not EC-DSA it would make sense it could offer smart contracts and at the same time be an older, “ancient” or pre-version of Bitcoin. RSA is more widely used across the internet than EC-DSA and has been in use for decades. If I0Coin is Prebitcoin, that would mean Satoshi kept a lot of functional capabilities in “version 1” that are left out of the Bitcoin (BTC), version 2, we see today. I wrote in my last entry about the possibilities for I0Coin as the first Bitcoin:
BitcoinZero.com is an already owned website. A really interesting find in that the date the website what purchased was all the way back on 8–20–2011 — a mere 5 days after I0Coin was officially announced on 8–16–2011. “I am Zerocoin” the Bitcoin root, the root of all crypto, that’s hidden only on Cryptopia using an outdated wallet with one node, os waiting to connect the loop and combine with IXCoin. It will have its day soon, it is Blockstream, it is IBM, it is Coinbase, Visa, Mastercard, Facebook Messenger payments, and everything we have previously discussed here.
There’s even further proof of relevant whitepapers on the BitcoinZero.org website. The featuring of “Rootstock” documents. Rootstock is a rootcoin that is 1-to-1 pegged with BTC value and has the ability to offer RSK Bitcoin Smart Contracts.
What about transaction reversibility?
Bitcoin was fundamentally designed for non-reversible transactions. Nevertheless, bitcoin could do much more than this, with the network infrastructure capable of a variety of features, not the least of which was an escrow system. -Duality p. 4
If escrow is built into the network, then once the network has merged as I have predicted — this escrow would release an immense value back to the root, Prebitcoin, that triggers the release of funds by signing the smart contract that holds the coins. Satoshi admits that he has built such, safe contracts into Bitcoin — but he has yet to execute them:
Something that people always commented on is that I seemed to have an answer for everything. The truth was, I had been thinking about these things for years, and so I knew nearly every question that someone could ask because I had likely already thought about it beforehand. But it doesn’t mean I was able to execute on everything. For example, one thing that I never got to work on but which was built into bitcoin was the use of safe contracts. -Duality p. 8
When a smart contract on Ethereum is executed, the funds are released. I see funds on Ethereum smart contracts just piling up due to BTC misreading operation code and hex-prefixes being misread between BTC and Ethereum (more later). Funds have been able to move forward from Prebitcoin to Bitcoin (BTC) to an Ethereum ERC20 smart contract, but not back — yet. In quantum computing, this is referred to as a mixed state. Bitcoin is connected to other chains, but there are errors. Some interactions are correct and some are incoherent:
Mixed state
A pure state is one fully specified by a single ket, a coherent superposition as described above. The important point is that coherence is essential for a qubit to be in a superposition state. With interactions and decoherence, it is possible to put the qubit in a mixed state, a statistical combination or incoherent mixture of different pure states.
Satoshi describes how to execute his Bitcoin, safe contract:
Safe contracts can be executed without using trust:
Tx 1 from User pays to a script that requires the signature of both the Company executing the contract and User to spend.
Tx 2 (the contract) spends Tx 1 and pays it to User. nLockTime is the time to release the money.
My thoughts for smart contracts employing an escrow system was as follows:
• Company gives user a pubkey to use in creating Tx 1.
• User privately creates Tx 1, does not broadcast it yet.
• User gives the hash of Tx 1 to Company.
• Company signs its part of Tx 2, with nLockTime set, and gives it to user.
• User broadcasts Tx 1.
• User signs his half of Tx 2 and broadcasts it. With these steps, the user already has the Company’s signed half of Tx 2 in hand before they broadcasts Tx 1, so they are assured of what bargain they are signing the money to. -Duality p. 9
At the moment, op_code readability, C++ language on BTC, misread hex-prefixes between BTC and Ethereum have lead to these safe contracts accruing serious value, but yet to be signed back to the user who put these funds in escrow.
BTC Smart Contracts Are Set Up Already Using Scripts, OP_Return, Op_Codes Through Oracles With Amazon Web Services
Trust minimization: Amazon AWS oracles
Finally, perhaps the most practical approach currently is to use Amazon Web Services. As of November 2013, the closest we have to a working oracle is this recipe for creating a trusted computing environment using AWS, built in support of this project for doing selective SSL logging and decryption. The idea is that an oracle, which can be proven trustworthy using the Amazon APIs with Amazon as the root of trust, records encrypted SSL sessions to an online banking interface in such a way that later if there is a dispute about a person-to-person exchange, the logs can be decrypted and the dispute settled.
If you mention Facebook and Google as tech giants capable of horizontal and vertical scaling, you cannot leave out Amazon. In fact, it is shocking to me I never put two and two together but it is hard to learn C++, let alone Bitcoin’s script codes. These codes need to be activated/reinstated on the BTC ledger, to get things moving. Every I0Coin is minted and sent using Open SSL 1.0.1k. The smart contracts are receiving Devcoins as a placeholder to the BTC public key address via merge mining. I0Coin will reclaim the value it has lost to these Bitcoin smart contracts by proving it has the corresponding hash 160 and by providing a signature via OP_Return codes — both of which we have seen in code and on the BTC ledger. Omni and Counterparty are also on the list of having used OP_Return coding over the years to implement functions similar to this. To refresh everyone’s memory — this is Satoshi’s master plan to protect minted Bitcoin’s by placing them in escrow on the BTC ledger in a safe contract. Truly incredible.
All I0Coin has to do is provide the Hash 160 via op_code and sign the contract with OP_Return. You can see that raw data below on the I0Coin blockchain.
When I made the graphic I had yet to truly understand that these were smart contracts, just like Ethereum has, where Bitcoin’s value is waiting in escrow to flow right back to the actual coins. The ledger is about to improve as well. I believe IXCoin will upgrade BTC and Ethereum ledgers for the mainnet and even combine with Bitcoin Cash to form even larger blocks with more op_codes enabled. IXCoin is getting ready to update to 16.1 as we speak — it is only a short amount of time until we see what people have been waiting for in Bitcoin for over a decade in all likelihood. All the BTC developers have to do is reinstate the script codes needed to make this reality. If you don’t believe me, take it from the words of an Oracles dev himself:
These type of smart contract op_codes exist from I0Coin to BTC’s ledger at more than just the example detailed above. Here is another example with a very intriguing revelation. I predicted this weeks ago. The process is unfolding at nearly every new I0Coin block and has been all along. That’s just the effect of Satoshi Nakamoto style foresight in action.
We start with I0Coin raw block data from July 15, 2018.
Then we end up at Bitcoin’s ledger, once again. The Hash 160 is the contract address.
But here is the kicker. Guess who relayed this I0Coin transaction to a Bitcoin smart contract?
None other than Huobi relayed this contract. Remember, they started the HB10 Index on July 1. How do you have an index without the root of all crypto? You simply do not.
Especially when your Huobi Token (HT) is funded by the I0Coin miner hash public key…
As far as index coins go, we are just at the tip of the iceberg there.
[Further information I loved reading about but will not cover can be read below for a great depiction of Bitcoin’s smart contract capabilities that are already built in.]
Gavin Andresen & Satoshi Discuss BTC Smart Contract Script in 2010
Satoshi again, with the foresight to see far ahead into the future and build something that will soon flood money into Bitcoin. Epic FOMO.
It’s amazing how patient developers have been over the years because the planning and coding has been endless. The news cycle has been endless. The ups and downs may be better on the inside or worse depending on how stressful the truth has been. Pseudonym or not, these are some patient and smart people to pull something like this off on the world stage. One has to be thankful for the outreach and clues that have been dropped along the way to join in. This is the opportunity of a lifetime and beyond.
Institutional money is in both Bitcoin and Ethereum smart contracts/escrow right now and probably many more places tucked away safely and waiting to be signed over to the root of one fully functioning network. If you do not believe that yet, I cannot help you. Code is code. Facts are facts at this point. I will continue to educate myself as well in my weaker areas but feel fortunate enough to just get it. Perhaps Watson A.I. and Coinmarketcap just have the same logo designer under contract. IBM probably is Coinmarketcap. A.I. infused pump and dumps 24/7/365.
Prebitcoin, Rootcoin, BTC + ETH Smart Contracts = MERGE, Not Split
I0Coin is the root. I0Coin is the Prebitcoin in Duality. I0Coin has code that goes to both Bitcoin and Ethereum smart contracts. Get on board before it’s too late.
For the above Ethereum mining address the amount of transactions totaled 963 at the time of this screenshot on July 15, 2018 with 576 internal transactions — many of which had an error in execution for running out of gas. The last transaction was 20 hours before the screenshot with the first transaction coming 1,073 days ago. All the way back to 2015. This address contains $3.16 M in Ether as well as $2.44 B in ERC 20 tokens.
For the Ethereum address below the amount of transactions totaled 8201 at the time of this screenshot on July 15, 2018 with only 2 internal transactions — only one with error in execution for running out of gas. The last transaction was 15 days before the screenshot with the first transaction coming 1,053 days ago, back to 2015. This address contains $957 USD in Ether as well as $22.86 B in ERC 20 tokens — most which come from “ERC” which is also called “ERC20” when clicking on the balance.
I0Coin has a hash 160 address of forty zeros without a hex prefix, 0x. Because this type of prefix is not recognized on Bitcoin’s ledger yet, there is likely a problem where the funds cannot be called from ERC20 token wallets through BTC back to I0Coin. Something that suggests, in my novice opinion, that Ethereum and Bitcoin compatibility problems occur due to integer overflow (all Ethereum miner addresses would be counted as 42 digits which should only be 40 digits on BTC and I0Coin’s ledger). The tokens are getting stuck in Ethereum with tx-fees getting sent back to BTC’s ledger due to integer overflow making any 0x address that ends in a single digit (0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000001) at least paying mining fees out correctly to a BTC hash 160 address 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 due to integer overflow again — possibly.
The BTC (and thus I0C contract) address has collected 66 bitcoins in fees and they all seem stuck. The reason the public key address on top is messed up is because of Bitcoin’s Base58 encoding of the all-zero hash 160. That tells me these fees came from Ethereum back to BTC, but it’s really just luck — or great planning and execution. A simple switching on of compatible script and coding will fix this right up because all funds are frozen, safe, and a code away from returning to the root.
I have two theories for how this works and I am a novice so just bear with me coders. Hex-prefixes are not read correctly on BTC’s ledger and it causes what seems to be an “octal-literal” C++ between Ethereum and BTC addresses. The lead 0 is read as “all 0's” and mistaken for an integer when the hash-160 should show up on BTC as a hex string. Transaction fees have accumulated on BTC over the years due to this error. Ethereum, meanwhile, is storing ERC20 tokens by the billions. The BTC ledger bumps the last digit from the Ethereum hex-prefixed pubkey address. The strings are read as 40 zeros, so the mined ERC20 token is never rewarded to I0Coin, rather it is just rewarding tx fees that get stuck on the BTC ledger.
I could be wrong about the “octal-literal” of communication errors from Ethereum to BTC. In that case another idea that comes to mind is integer-overflow and Ethereum being big-endian whereas BTC is read little-endian. Being read in opposite directions, anything coming from a Ethereum hex-prefix could be read as 42 digits and not 40 — causing a zero’d out Hash 160 which would create a shorter, messy public key hash because of Base 58. This may be why Rootstock promises the ability to be backwards compatible with Ethereum, to bring it back to the root, whereas BTC without Rootstock would not be able to solve the incompatibility between hashes. It’s a little confusing, but it is making some sense to me the more I commit to learning it. Either way, errors are causing billions to be stashed untouched.
On Ethereum the money piles up in ERC20 tokens with $24 billion in just 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Because BTC has Base58 checks, they get rid of all 0’s, O’s, I’s, l’s, +, /’s (the last two matter little) from a pubkey address, which is why the shortened “1111111111111111111114oLvT2” appears with the hash 160 (which is incorrect). 53,338 transactions is no mistake, this is a coding error but specifically planned to be this way until Bitcoin developers switched over to a better and secretive sidechain.
The wealth that lies in ERC20 tokens alone will bring I0Coin to astronomically high levels. The conversion to BitcoinZero will be instantaneous. By the power of code, cryptography, and some pretty amazing quantum computational power with the addition of A.I. + infinite scaling on a decentralized peer-to-peer network. I just lost my train of thought — can you blame me?
Rootstock: Bitcoin Smart Contracts, Horizontal & Vertical Scaling
Google and Facebook are said to be the top dogs when it comes to horizontal scaling. Because of Oracles, I cannot leave out Amazon in that trifecta. In that regard I would like to talk about Rootstock (RSK) — the documents for rich are listen on BitcoinZero.org along with Blockstream, Zerocash, 0x, and other projects and protocols that are interelated.
Rootstock provides smart contracts for Bitcoin. The only BTC related project that I associate with smart contracts is I0Coin — coincidentally I believe it to be the root of Bitcoin and Ethereum as well.
The only other project I have heard use the term “2-way peg to Bitcoin” is Blockstream. They use the term to describe sidechains. Again, both whitepapers for RSK and Blockstream sidechains are present on block.academy (where BitcoinZero.org redirects). RSK goes a step further, acknowledging that Rootstock involves merge-mining. I know but one rootcoin that is the main chain of merge mining. Scroll up to the raw block data for I0Coin and there you go. The scaling design for Rootstock takes a pretty large player when it comes to servers — because the design is horizontal (like Google or Facebook). From there the network shoots vertical from its nodes. Remember from the Google Cloud Platform article in the beginning of this entry:
The big players like Google and Facebook will often horizontally scale across entire data-centers, each with thousands of individual “nodes” to handle the massive system load generated by their users.
Imagine Google as Ethereum and Facebook as Bitcoin scaling horizontally getting ready to takeoff with fully capable and functioning networks that were concealed until a perfected sidechain (IXCoin) and rootcoin (I0Coin) had achieved unity from minting a combined 42 million coins with all Ethereum and Bitcoin’s capabilities and then some. Let that sink in. Now add in the face that Ethereum and Google have strong ties in recent news cycles while Facebook has been linked in the past month to Coinbase. If you’ve read my research you know the ties go much deeper than speculative news.
What is interesting is they claim merge-mining with Bitcoin allows them to possess smart contracts. I have not heard of any merge mined coins besides I0Coin even hint at smart contract capability. If IXCoin, which markets as the “original Bitcoin sidechain” were to be the 2-way peg drivechain when combined with smart contract capable I0Coin, could Rootstock be the final realization of Bitcoin scaling? I believe so. Rootstock is likely under the same tent as Blockstream, just like Google and Facebook are scaling the same network, just like IBM and Microsoft are providing A.I. and computational innovation, and so on. The Linux Foundation is on steroids. That’s just how it has to be for Bitcoin. It is not anyone’s property — it’s everyone’s property.
The reason BitcoinZero interests me is because combining IXCoin (the sidechain) and I0Coin (the minting root and mainchain of merge mining) gives a total of 42 million coins. This total would jive with the proposed max supply at BitcoinZeroX.net — which currently gives statistics and peripherals for Bitcoin Zero, without mentioning “BitcoinZeroX” anywhere except for in the websites url. Coincidence? Likely not. It would be pretty careless to screw up the name of your coin repeatedly like that. To see what I mean, here is a graphic from my previous article:
I believe BitcoinZero is a Hexxcoin “fork” as much as I believe Rootstock and Blockstream are not under the same company/developer umbrella. The fact of the matter is, I pay attention to code more than a coin’s name. A coin may be named anything temporarily without forking. Nullex has yet to “fork” so it is technically still GPU Coin. It just had a name change. This presents a problem only for those who do not scratch more than the surface in their investment research. I think Hexxcoin could definitely have a part in a merging of code with I0Coin and IXCoin, but I never believed in forks when it comes to merge mined coins. Why split off when the whole point is to stay stronger together and benefit off of each chain? Seriously, who has not asked that question once?
Rootstock is forward in the fact that Bitcoin’s lack of Turing-completeness are holding it back. It’s holding it back from tapping into it’s price potential and functional capabilities by rightfully recognizing I0Coin and Ethereum script codes. If RSK claims it does not mint coins, perhaps I0Coin has been a mint for the RSK sidechain, which could very well be the IXCoin part of the Index (0) coins. IXCoin has large blocks, low fees, and is about to receive a load of upgrades in v 0.16.1 including Segwit, Atomic Swaps, Lightning Network, Smart Contracts and more. I0Coin could simply be moving its coins completely over to IXCoin once Ethereum ERC20 contracts are called and merge mining rewards are properly given to the main chain and its sidechain.
It remains to be seen if RSK will use the IXCoin and I0Coin combination, but again, the facts are awfully convincing. The merge-mining leaves only a few choices and when you factor in I0Coin’s impressive hash rate — which may be the highest of any one coin minting its own coins — you have little doubt about the rootcoin. Furthermore, we see another hexagon:
For the record we now have 3 different hexagons that all describe very similar scaling efforts, protocols, and coin features:
I must reiterate — It is called “merge-mining” after all. If it was fork-mining I wouldn’t expect the coins to have ability to combine features in code. Satoshi said in Prebitcoin days, a fork was called a branch point. In quantum computing up and down are the same thing so everything should continue to scale through the rootcoin. Atomic swaps, everything through the root. E8 theory — the I0Coin infinite loop with the IXCoin 64 MB block wide bridge. You may even be able to add Bitcoin Cash to that list as I have heard a few times from Vlad2Vlad that IXCoin is a 96 MB block coin. Both Bitcoin Cash and IXCoin increased their block size within 2 days of each other in May 2018, 32 MB and 64 MB respectively. The highway may be a combined 96 MB.
Perhaps existing Ethereum and Bitcoin ledgers are upgraded in the merging. I see no reason to change the branding. However, both are better together. When quantum computing and A.I. come in to make down the same as up — the network will catapult itself over the 1 trillion dollar marketcap for good. I may be optimistic, but I could see 10 trillion in one day if all institutional funds are unleashed on the main network. A solution proposed at the beginning of this entry was to scrap Secp256k1 and move all of the coins in the BTC ledger to a sidechain that offers better security. IXCoin would make a lot of sense in that regard. Basically you are sending I0Coin’s over to IXCoin’s big blocks anyway with the BitcoinZero merge. What a fast and beautiful site that will be. IXCoin has really had a great year from the developer’s standpoint. The technology is amazing and the blockchain has so much to offer in terms of scaling and security. I am proud to be on the fringe of that project as those developers have taught me so very much. I guess you can throw the drivechain concept in there too — which also happens to be found when you go to BitcoinZero.org. Obsolete and vulnerable ledgers have no place in the decentralized economic system of the near future.
Because, of course, Bitmark put out this root themed release roadmap for 2017:
Do not forget about the directional changes and corrections Bitmark brings to the table.
IBM Can Make Bitcoin and Ethereum Into One Two-State Ledger
A qubit is a two-state (or two-level) quantum-mechanical system, one of the simplest quantum systems displaying the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
Examples include: the spin of the electron in which the two levels can be taken as spin up and spin down; or the polarization of a single photon in which the two states can be taken to be the vertical polarization and the horizontal polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other.
A computer must have the power to achieve a two-state quantum-mechanical system. IBM, heavily involved in blockchain, has taken it up a notch by combining quantum computing with artificial intelligence (A.I.):
Unlike classical computers, which store information in bits that are either 1 or 0, quantum computers use qubits, which can exist in multiple states of 1 and 0 at the same time — a phenomenon known as “superposition.” Qubits can also influence one another even when they’re not physically connected, via a process known as “entanglement.”
Thanks to these exotic qualities, adding extra qubits to a quantum machine increases its computing power exponentially (see our qubit counter here).
Google seems to be joining the quantum fun, but I would expect that given they seem heavily involved in Ethereum:
The point is, do not be distracted by petty competition from private sector companies when it comes to Bitcoin. The best interests are the combined efforts of each company in order to scale Bitcoin faster. Then the 40 trillion market cap days kick in. The store of wealth is in the smart/safe contracts already. Quantum computing and A.I. will give the network the ability to correctly execute the immense wealth stored in those contracts.
It is merely a matter of time. A short amount of time. State reorganization is happening as we speak for Ethereum and Bitcoin. You would never know unless you cared to look. This is not an easy game to figure out and involves the brightest and best minds on Earth.
Three Fundamentals of Bitcoin: Math, Cryptography, C++
In order for bitcoin to come into existence it required 3 fundamental areas of knowledge converging together. In the end, what it took was a combination of math, cryptography, and a good working knowledge of C++ to make it work.
Math has always been my strongest suit when it comes to Bitcoin. A quick review can be explained in Euler’s Formula and Identity for my theory on I0Coin and IXCoin and how they should be represented on a 2D plane.
It’s easy enough to see. I0C and IXC combine to cross anywhere on the origin out to the circle’s perimeter. This would satisfy how the coins horizontally scale. When represented in 3D, I have explained how the two would scale up and down as well and take the form of a qubit:
If I had to say I was stronger in one area between cryptography and C++, I would say I slightly understand cryptography a little more than I understand C++ and script codes. For example, I can read this ledger and even found raw block data (code) to prove how BTC was siphoning value out of I0Coin and how it would be returned eventually with the proper script codes enabled (at least for this particular instance). Upon further exploration of script code I was able to see that Bitcoin simply uses this setup for the future execution of safe and smart contracts.
You get the point — but read the article below with one thing in addition — Satoshi led my thoughts to see this as the setup for smart contracts in his Duality paper. I see things even clearer now. You should read all of the op_codes that will be available when Bitcoin smart contracts go mainstream.
From there I was able to grasp Turing complete and incompleteness. Turing completeness is stricter and older in age than newer, less specific non-Turing complete scripts (as seen on the BTC ledger). This causes chaos currently, but it is a quick fix to make things Turing-complete and reorganize the entire state of Bitcoin and Ethereum. I hate to say quick fix because of the technology and years it took to develop everything in cryptocurrency to the present day — but it seems like the technology is so good and almost ready that a quick fix, rapid adoption, is nearly here. Zerocoin protocol indicates the future implementation of script fixes were planned years ago:
New transaction types. Bitcoin transactions use a flexible scripting language to determine the validity of each transaction. Unfortunately, Bitcoin script is (by design) not Turing complete. Moreover, large segments of the already-limited script functionality have been disabled in the Bitcoin production network due to security concerns.
Hence, the existing script language cannot be used for sophisticated calculations such as verifying zero-knowledge proofs. Fortunately for our purposes, the Bitcoin designers chose to reserve several script operations for future expansion.
Satoshi seems to agree, that he planned for everything — its just not executed entirely, yet:
Something that people always commented on is that I seemed to have an answer for everything. The truth was, I had been thinking about these things for years, and so I knew nearly every question that someone could ask because I had likely already thought about it beforehand. But it doesn’t mean I was able to execute on everything. -Duality p. 8
Bitcoin Wiki has had a Contracts section for all to read for a long time. The only thing is — nobody believed it was possible because it wasn’t being shilled as a feature. Rather, in true Satoshi fashion, things were kept quiet — with confidence that time would reveal the best platform. You have to love that kind of planning and humility.
At the moment, P2PKH (pay to public key hash) is in effect to the BTC ledger and within it. These scripts are just waiting to be fully enabled and connect up with down, horizontal with vertical, quantum with traditional — Bitcoin is going to launch into the future — and what a ride it will be on the way up. Infinitely scaling on a fixed 42 million coin supply.
Potentially Erroneous Value of Prebitcoin (v 1) on BTC Ledger (v 2)
Satoshi’s Duality pdf is full of valuable information if you like digging for truth. One excerpt really caught my attention:
Everyone knows the block reward. It is represented today as 50 BTC, or 50 * 100000000 (which represents one COIN). This gets halved every four years. What people don’t know is that this wasn’t always the case. It was initially going to be just 10000 (represented as one COIN). That’s right. 1/10000 or 0.0001. Bitcoin would be very different today were it not for a thing called pre-alpha testing. -Duality p. 7
If Prebitcoin is I0Coin and IXCoin, then its value should be measured with four decimal places and not eight (like v2). Since these coins are going out to the v2 ledger, its no wonder the price doesn’t match the hash value — at least for I0Coin. The store of value in I0Coin should make it one of the top valued coins in all cryptocurrency.
My working theory is that if I0Coin was equal to 1000 satoshi, that should be reflected as .1 BTC. However, the value is likely greater. I0Coin and IXCoin could just be suffering from its inability to return value back from safe contracts as well as the design that Prebitcoin (I0Coin) would’ve had less decimals. The digits misrepresentation just makes another theory of I0Coin being worth far more than its current value — because code has not been correctly read and fixed to reflect that in the present day (as of July 15, 2018).
People should be excited to hear that fees are minimal on I0Coin and IXCoin transactions. Satoshi mentions how the likelihood of 1 satoshi equaling $1 USD is only possible on a feeless network. The amount of adoption would make transaction fees unnecessary as many people would have incentive to own Bitcoin because its valuable and wise to own Bitcoin. People are working on that possibility as I type:
In hindsight, maybe I should have kept this as transaction fees seem to have skyrocketed and become skewed, almost to the point that it has become redundant, but in retrospect, for that very same reason people now are working on making transactions feeless at scale (scale means x-illions, replace x with any prefix you want, bi, tri, etc.). -Duality p. 3
If bitcoin someday manages to switch over to a completely feeless system, then sending someone 100 ‘satoshi’ could be the equivalent of sending 100 USD. -Duality p. 7
If that happens, the early adopters of today will all be quite wealthy in due time. All in all, I think the whole four decimal misrepresentation is a reach, but I wanted to point it out in my coverage of Duality.
42 Million: Two-State, Dual 21 Million Coins
For starters, many may wonder what the reasoning behind the fixed supply is. Why 21 million? The truth is, it was an educated guess. The math worked out, or as close to it as I had wanted it to. Before settling on 21 million however, I had considered making 100 BTC as the reward, and 42 — the answer to life, the universe, and everything. But afraid that others would consider my reference to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy a quip and at the expense of not being taken seriously, I changed it to 21 million. -Duality p. 7
Satoshi doesn’t guess. The idea was 42 million, but in pre-quantum computing days 21 million was the setup. When two-states are successfully achieved via quantum mechanics — then we will see 42 million combined coins. The paper is titled Duality, it’s all one big giveaway. Hitchhikers Guide or not, the BitcoinZero supply is inexplicably 42 million coins. Perhaps that is because of all the hexagons related to quantum computing to scale both up and down, vertical and horizontal, 21 million one way and 21 million the other — equaling 42 million quantum Bitcoins. There’s one pair of coins I’ve talked about extensively that have almost combined for that exact total of 42 million:
Disregard CHIPS, this is quite remarkable that out of all coins IXCoin and I0Coin have managed to be that close to 21 million minted coins each, and collectively just under 400 coins away from hitting 42,000,000 combined coins. At market cap 252 and 254, the numbers are so strikingly similar that I am convinced the numbers of today are simply math driven. You can buy it up and down all you want, this was determined a long time ago. These prices are exactly where they are meant to be at the current supply. If IXCoin and I0Coin go quantum, there is no doubt the prices would increase astronomically. Playing around with your supply by mistaking this market as linear could hurt you so quick if you sell now. I have held on each pump this summer because I simply don’t know when quantum is coming, but it is very soon. 42 million was meant to be. Up is down, down is up. Give or take, you can’t go wrong with IXC or I0C. I prefer to buy I0Coin because it is usually cheaper, and it has one of the highest (if not the single highest) hash rate in cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin was a timechain in it’s pre-bitcoin days. I think that made sense when I first started this journal. Satoshi mentions the periodic filling in that blockchain does with different timestamps. In other words, the network is connecting at points in the past — and Satoshi really is time traveling — at least in code and computational functioning:
The thing that people should understand about bitcoin at its core, is that it along with all timestamp servers shared the basic functionality of periodically collecting things into blocks and hashing them into a chain. -Duality p. 16
The cool thing about timechains preceding Bitcoin is that the value put into the network is likely farther reaching than even the most up to speed theories of possible future additions and value. Things like colored coins being associated with company assets or art on the blockchain. There is just so much promise — it would be hard to believe the market cap will not be over 20 trillion once that news breaks. Again, epic FOMO.
There’s plenty of facts here for you to put aside your greed and wait for math to kick in. I take donations to spread generosity within the community myself. The first time I bought IXCoin I gave it to the development team. Greed is not why I provide the answers and analysis you read here. We need to do our part on behalf of the public to build a generous culture. How much money is enough?
I0Coin: jXnrLkdpY6t9WuQ94bUcQoecRHnBtwieyr
IXCoin: xYWFvHhN8kDCuAoKytyQupWSawXjnoEKxj
Inquiries:
Email — danbtczero@gmx.com
Co-Owner of btczero.com and btczero.org
Bitcoin Zero is the future of crypto. The root scaled. Try and find one Bitcoin Zero website left to buy, you will not. It is a big deal. The original BitcoinZero.com has been purchased and has been owned since 4 days after the re-naming of the rootcoin to I0Coin (8/16/2011). Coincidence? Unlikely.
Catch me with IXCoin developers in Las Vegas, NV on August 20–21 for Blockshow Americas — Representing the Biggest Blocks in Blockchain. I am the one who will be running coffee orders for the real geniuses.
Fundraising for our trip through lead IXC dev Vlad2Vlad:
BTC: 17ckvmvSt8SPEy2DnjtGVpY8p5KK5B9f3c
Join our community on bitcointalk.org at
I0C ANN: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624935.660
IXC ANN: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3015517.260
