Earth 3.0: The Space Between
Bitcoin: About Evolution, Cooperation, Trust and World Peace
This is a continuation from Part 1 because I realized I was not finished…
As an American citizen and about as American it gets when it comes to sports, I never really watched the FIFA World Cup, until 2014. That year, I was still playing independent league professional baseball and had recently moved from a team in Sioux Falls, SD to Burlington, Ontario, Canada. It took me being in another country for the summer to watch the World Cup for the first time. It was funny it took me being in Canada, a hockey nation, to take an interest in the World Cup. Everyone up there loves hockey, I love hockey, but that was over for the summer. The Blue Jays were pretty bad. Baseball isn’t really a thing there, at least like it is here, anyway. However, Canada has plenty of immigrants. Unlike Chicago, they seem to be more recently Canadian generations — in that, the people I know had grandparents from the old country. So traditional sports from the old country being very popular made a lot of sense to me.
I call it soccer. I probably inspire hate with that word. I apologize for offending you if that is the case. Worldwide, you may only call soccer — football. I was engrossed by football for the first time in my life. Not because of the football, but because of the international enthusiasm I had seen around it. I was accepting a foreign sport in a foreign nation and enjoying the enthusiasm and passion around it.
I remember we played day games on the weekend and the team sponsor’s restaurant would be packed after our games with World Cup fanatics watching the matches. I met people from many different parts of the world at those post ballgame meetings. I observed fans from countries across the world experiencing happiness as well as sadness. I also witnessed acceptance of defeat and conversation of hope for future contests. I think that is what truly made me happy. It has been that way my whole life. I am happy when the people around me are as well.
Bitcoin is “Sharing and Caring”
I didn’t make up the ‘sharing and caring’ slogan. It is actually the creedo of Bitcoin itself. I have no idea who started it. However, my research tends to believe someone from behind the project invented it, rather than the community. They saw what I see right now. Sharing and caring between international governments, private sector companies, and now — the public.
Notice the logo for IBM Watson has a striking resemblance to this logo from Coinmarketcap:
Now, if I just thought it was a coincidence I wouldn’t write of it. However, you know I pointed out a few times IBM has both an “iX” project and has recently merged code with Blockstream through organization by the Linux Foundation. The Linux Foundation is important to study when it comes to Bitcoin. Here is a quick description:
It began in 2000 under the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and became the organization it is today when OSDL merged with the Free Standards Group (FSG). The Linux Foundation sponsors the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds and lead maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman and is supported by members such as AT&T, Cisco, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Huawei, IBM, Intel, Microsoft,[2] NEC, Oracle, Qualcomm, Samsung,[3] and VMware, as well as developers from around the world.
That’s quite a few companies responsible for merging Bitcoin code from Blockstream with IBM — who has an iX project as well as a coinmarketcap-resembling logo for their Watson product.
Then, in the upper left corner of the IBM Watson homepage, we see another logo “IFTTT” which lit another bulb in my ever working brain. I previously wrote about Project Bitmark in my Namecoin article. Well, Bitmark has a page where you can “Bitmark” (or claim ownership) of your social media pages, pictured below:
Project Bitmark described IFTTT under their “Partners” sub-section as:
A simple digital estate planning tool.
Through IFTTT Applets, anyone can bitmark their data to begin organizing their digital assets, start building an estate, and protect their legacy. The IFTTT service gives individuals the ability to easily extract their data from the places where we create and share things: social media, fitness and health apps, productivity and financial software, and much more. Bitmark Applets allow users to simply apply a mark of accepted ownership to a new creation (photos on Instagram, articles on Wordpress, code on Github, and more) and embed it into Bitmark’s standardized, universal crypto property system.
Which is striking, because wasn’t Github just acquired by Microsoft? Didn’t that tick a lot of Bitcoin developers off? I saw a lot of this:
If you read my last article, you know that I don’t believe this for a minute. If Microsoft is in the Linux Foundation — Microsoft is in a multi-private sector company of collaboration in projects for the good of the world, worldwide.
Also, If IFTTT is a functioning arm of IBM, and IBM merged Bitcoin code with Blockstream — who employs Bitcoin devs, then why would those devs who merged Bitcoin code from Blockstream with IBM through the Linux Foundation be mad at Microsoft, for acquiring their open sourced codebase? In other words, Bitcoin devs just merged code with IBM through the Linux Foundation, but now they don’t want their open sourced code hub acquired by another member? That’s bull.
Furthermore, if IFTTT is a functioning arm of IBM and IBM is linked to the Linux Foundation — which describes itself as a place for Open Sourced Development, then Microsoft will likely keep Github a place where open sourced code is available to be displayed. It’s all intertwined. Microsoft may own Github, but who is to say they didn’t under another name beforehand? Or partially own it under the Linux Foundation? Perhaps, just now, they are the sole owners. More about why that split is taking place ahead.
Lastly, I had alerted you to a “Bitmark Global Rename” file in the Github under Project Bitmark’s codebase which was created in 2014. Bitmark Global Rename replaces the word “Bitcoin developers” with Bitmark developers:
This little code change is huge realization. It proves not only a link between Bitcoin and Bitmark developers, but also a link between Bitcoin and IFTTT.
We know Project Bitmark uses IFTTT for “marking” digital assets and we know that IBM Watson is involved in IFTTT. We know the Linux Foundation links IBM and Microsoft in a collaborative open sourced development super project and that is significant now in Microsoft’s acquisition of Github, Bitcoin’s open sourced code base. This chain of events links Bitcoin and Bitmark developers with IBM and Microsoft under the Linux Foundation. It also links everything I just mentioned to Blockstream, since Blockstream merged its Bitcoin scaling effort code with IBM under the Linux Foundation and thus any effort Microsoft contributed as well.
So why would any Bitcoin developer take issue with Microsoft’s Github acquisition?
I will answer that with another question. Why do you believe a headline about such dramatics from CryptoSlate like the one above?
Furthermore, where did all these Bitcoin news websites come from? Coindesk, Bitcoinist, CryptoSlate, etc. The problem in most people’s way is that they believe news from anyone who is able to display news on Google first.
I bet Google would be able to make just about any news source it wanted to appear first when you type in “Bitcoin” and at the same time be reported by another form of news, such as television, as being under investigation by the government.
However, in my last article I thoroughly explained my beliefs of a theory that the government is using Bitcoin as a crowdfunded effort as well as a worldwide collaborative coding solution to the Y2K and Y2K38 problems that the internet faces in scaling.
So why would the US Government be looking into anything about Google? Why would they be looking into Bitcoin — which is partially their own creation and solution to the internet apocalypse? They wouldn’t.
So why do they think they need to lie to the public? Why do private sector and government institutions and leaders lie about Bitcoin together? Why are they both up and down, informing and misinforming us at the same exact time about Bitcoin? Simple answer. It protects the blockchain from bad actors until the mainnet is ready to launch safely.
Enter President Putin today:
Now lets connect government and private sector, shall we?
From the Government to Adam Back and Back
The government is very confident in Bitcoin’s security and I will tell you why. It all goes back to my last article. The government began the Bitcoin project in collaboration with private sector company leadership back in the Y2K era. The first cryptocurrency we all know about (if we did our homework) is HashCash, created by Blockstream founder, Adam Back — in 1997:
Hashcash is a proof-of-work system used to limit email spam and denial-of-service attacks, and more recently has become known for its use in bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) as part of the mining algorithm. Hashcash was proposed in 1997 by Adam Back.[1]
We also know that Y2K efforts were a government and private sector co-operation. I also proposed the British government was responsible for I0C/IXC and thus, original Bitcoin code. The worldwide government proposal for Y2K solutions began back in 1997 with the British government, the same year as Hashcash was proposed by Adam Back:
In 1997 the British Standards Institute (BSI) developed standard DISC PD2000–1[1] defining “Year 2000 Conformity requirements” as four rules: (1) No valid date will cause any interruption in operations; (2) Calculation of durations between, or the sequence of, pairs of dates will be correct whether any dates are in different centuries; (3) In all interfaces and in all storage, the century must be unambiguous, either specified, or calculable by algorithm; (4) Year 2000 must be recognized as a leap year.
Note BSI standard rule (3) “or calculable by algorithm” and (4) “Year 2000 must be recognized as a leap year” which I noted in my first article on Medium. Start with the easy explanation and rule (4):
Year 2000 being a leap year indicates that we never solved the Y2K scaling issues with timestamp errors that would’ve caused worldwide dysfunction in pretty much everything technology linked. A simple solution at the time where we didn’t have smart phones to process data or cloud storage to help reduce in ground database cluster was just to turn the clock back in 2001 to “01” which meant 1901. The parameters were updated to correctly display 2001, but overall the effort to scale and create more space was not finished.
Cue, rule (3) from the British Standards Institute for Y2K solution requirements. They needed to use unambiguous (straightforward) specifications for the century we were currently in — the 2000's and not 1900’s. This had to be calculable by algorithm. Adam Back’s Hashcash uses hashing algorithm in its proof-of-work. Why would Adam Back propose Hashcash in the same year as the British Standard’s Institutes Y2K standards?
Hashcash is a proof-of-work system used to limit email spam and denial-of-service attacks, and more recently has become known for its use in bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) as part of the mining algorithm.
- Hashcash is initially proposed as a way to limit email spam and denial-of-service (now DDoS) attacks. However, since 2008, Hashcash has become known for its use in Bitcoin as a part of the mining algorithm.
- The 1997 British Standards Institute for Y2K stated in rule (3) that a calculable algorithm is required to display the correct timestamp for the century we are currently in.
- Adam Back’s Hashcash uses an algorithm in its proof-of-work. Bitcoin uses proof-of-work in mining that is part of the Hashcash mining algorithm. Proof-of-work is supposed to have the correct timestamp. Proof-of-work can be manipulated by using many time manipulating tactics I covered in previous entries. (Nonce can be used to correct this, through pre-programmed code in Bitcoin and Ethereum)
- Adam Back was born a British citizen. He is the co-founder and head at Blockstream. He invented a cryptocurrency that uses its timestamp algorithm (hashing algorithm) in Bitcoin to this day. The British Standards Institute was the first government organization to propose a Y2K solution in the same year Hashcash was proposed — 1997.
- Adam Back is also a private sector worker who is still developing “Bitcoin scaling” solutions for Blockstream in San Francisco, California. Bitcoin sidechains and the lightning network are two solutions that Back has worked on at Blockstream.
- Blockstream just merged its coding solution through the Linux Foundation with IBM.
Lightbulb — anyone? I wrote in my first entry that Bitcoin was created as a way to scale the internet to solve the root of Y2K problems that were never solved in relation to dysfunctional timestamps, their coding, and the space required for storage of these codes.
Bitcoin Scaling is Internet Scaling
I truly believe Bitcoin uses proof-of-work algorithm to create a safely developed and distributed, scaling internet of the future. This internet has been able to create more storage and faster processing using mobile devices as well as cloud based storage technology.
By using a widespread peer-to-peer mobile network Bitcoin’s lightning network scaling solution also uses far less energy to produce a hashed tx algorithm that displays the correct timestamp. This solution has to produce a tx id in the same way a miner has to produce a correct timestamp for proof-of-work, which is a solved hash algorithmic calculation. If Bitcoin is more and more difficult to mine, requiring large amounts of energy to produce a block with newly generated coins — the network has not successfully scaled. That is because the mobile peer-to-peer network would not reduce enough energy use to off-set the ASIC mining energy costs to mint new coins.
Recall my theory that I0C and IXC are indeed, Bitcoin. I0C uses a pruned blockchain of just 550 MB so it could be easily transmitted to mobile device processors to correctly confirm transactions with an accurate timestamp using peer-to-peer networks. This network would accurately and quickly relay Bitcoin transactions with the correctly hashed tx id to the traditional full-sized blockchain database. That database will work in communicating between PC’s that connect wallets to its database as well as mobile lightning network wallets. All of these wallets can be thought of as miners that process transactions with nodes and are incentivized to keep doing so by having Bitcoins and receiving transaction fees if they are the one operating the node. Bitcoin is not done minting and it is projected it will mint new coins until 2033 at the current rate. That would continue the problem of mining Bitcoin and the large amount of energy it will cost the world.
But forget that, because in my theory, I0C and IXC are Bitcoin and 42 million are almost completely minted. Only a few thousand may be left to mine in order to generate new coins. The energy costs of which will radically reduce the current energy consumption rate of Bitcoin mining to something sustainable, because 99.98% of the mining is for transaction processing done by a mobile peer-to-peer network.
Focus on the relay between mobile peer-to-peer networks via smart phone wallets and the original Bitcoin blockchain database. Those blocks would need to be large to process a worldwide adoption of Bitcoin as a currency on the Ethernet connected PC network. That network would have to be faster, using fast block times as well as correct timestamps in producing txid’s and relaying them in the network so a correct sequence of blocks continued. By Y2K rule (3) — the algorithm has to be calculated correctly to produce a timestamp in the current century. If Year 2000 was a leap year, the code had to be updated for the same reason Bitcoin faced scaling issues. The code had to be shortened, even with cloud storage space solutions that followed Y2K. The code also had to be read correctly between different platforms — as I also covered in my first article — to relay a correct timestamp so the order of blocks would not be manipulated. That creates security. Finally, you never heard about IXC and I0C as Bitcoin because that truth has been protected until a date that the network could be interconnected between mobile and computer devices in a way that relayed a correct hash algorithmic timestamp between mobile code (via the Motorola convention) and traditional pc-code (C-convention). The relay of this information can be thought of outside of Bitcoin, for internet apps on your phone to the traditional in-ground Ethernet. It can be thought of as sending a mobile fiat banking transaction securely to the centralized in-ground banking network and servers. Problems of communication between mobile encrypted data (hashed data) and in-ground PC networks can cause anything from Bitcoin loss and theft to problems with Airplane operation. The code had to be shortened and improved. It had to be able to correctly communicate between all timestamp formats. It had to be funded by the public as well, without the public knowing for sure until the project can be securely launched. However, open sourced code left the open door for the public to find out, if they dug deep enough, so as they felt it was a fair opportunity going forward with Bitcoin being the public reward money for government involvement in the project.
Bitcoin is the public incentive to participate.
Bitcoin Has a Real Origin Before 2009
I0C and IXC are the origin points of Bitcoin and will be cheap until the government confirmation comes of what I just proposed to you in these articles. However, once the network has connected, that opportunity goes out the window because these coins in combination have been the most energy consuming efforts of all cryptocurrency — and THAT is why it is a store of value going forward. It is NOT subject to the inflation you associate with the beta-test period Bitcoin of 2017 and early 2018 because it is actually almost 100% minted and it uses far less energy on these improved I0C and IXC networks.
As for I0C and IXC? These are still same hashed algorithms being created and relayed from Adam Back’s Hashcash, but they have improved the relay by creating a middle passage that communicates a shortened hash from the mobile network and translates correctly to whichever network it meets. Enter cross-chain transactions. Also it can do this without centralized exchanges because of I0C and IXC’s capabilities. The big blocks of IXC allows for more recording of the correct transaction information. The fast relay and coding translation between I0C Interexchange carrier network (mobile) allows for more security from manipulation. The peer-to-peer network has to be accurate in its processing of Bitcoin transactions to produce the correct timestamp, without corruptibility, so the transaction is correctly produced in the correct sequence of time. I0C and IXC are Bitcoin 2.0. They produce the necessary “sidechain” and “lightning” operations to scale Bitcoin in the future because they are Bitcoin.
There are 3 Bitcoin’s out there. One with 1MB blocks that would never scale and was used as a distraction, but also an educational reference for why Bitcoin was needed when the truth comes out. The other two? They were improved and secured for so long, they go back to the days of Hashcash and Y2K. They were collaborated on as solutions to internet scaling that incentivized the public in a safe manner by government leaders, organizations, and their counterparts in the private sector across the globe.
Ixcoin has no genesis timestamp, and neither Ixcoin nor I0coin have a Block “0" (genesis block). Anything previously recorded about those existing was for a testnet. Those are allowed to be wiped out. That goes back to January 3, 2009. That was the beginning of the Bitcoin, XBT — testnet. It can easily be re-written by rejecting the null — as I have calculated as something I call “Reverse Entropy” in my last article. Let’s dive into that again, as I have corrected and evolved in my theoretical process. The process that Bitcoin can go back and reorganized its blocks and even rewrite history of its genesis and the correct chain by rejecting the null (I=0) and connecting the Internet Exchange Point (PC — IXC) and Interexchange Carrier (mobile — I0C), which are 42 million fully minted, true Bitcoins. Bitcoin thus becoming the first worldwide currency. Exchanging everything from the centralized internet to the decentralized, privacy protocol protected internet.
To understand Bitcoin’s true chronological order, and the meaning of a possible state reorganization by invoking a I=0, null process, you must first understand who planned the development of the project as well as what Y2K-type issue it is trying to resolve. Remember, from my last entry?
I believe the problem we are now solving is the Y2K38 problem, also know as the Year 2038 problem. This is another problem with code and the timestamp hash being incorrectly read between devices and programming. Here is a short overview to refresh your memory of the Y2K38 timestamp problem:
The Year 2038 problem relates to representing time in many digital systems as number of seconds passed since 1 January 1970 and storing it as a signed 32-bit integer. Such implementations cannot encode times after 03:14:07 UTC on 19 January 2038. Just like the Y2K problem, the Year 2038 problem is caused by insufficient capacity of the chosen storage unit.
So understand, the timestamp error caused here is between 1/1/1970 and 1/19/2038. The number of years passed in seconds have been stored as a 32-bit integer. Sounds somewhat like a public key, right? 32 integers/letters. You don’t even have to understand what I mean by that to understand the chronological order of Bitcoin/cryptocurrency. Let’s say that the solution for this problem wasn’t at the implementation of this computational code in 1970. I used this quote by Alan Greenspan on Y2K in my first Medium journal entry:
“I’m one of the culprits who created this problem. I used to write those programs back in the 1960s and 1970s, and was proud of the fact that I was able to squeeze a few elements of space out of my program by not having to put a 19 before the year. Back then, it was very important. We used to spend a lot of time running through various mathematical exercises before we started to write our programs so that they could be very clearly delimited with respect to space and the use of capacity. It never entered our minds that those programs would have lasted for more than a few years. As a consequence, they are very poorly documented. If I were to go back and look at some of the programs I wrote 30 years ago, I would have one terribly difficult time working my way through step-by-step.”
— Alan Greenspan, 1998
In short, the coders never thought we would still be using some of the original code that triggered the Y2K/38K issues, but we did and we are still for a short period of time. So this proves that the Y2K problem was never truly solved when you factor in news about the USA dissolving their Y2K effort officially in 2017. That also may indicate we are simply waiting for an official, working, mainnet solution for the Y2K38 problem. Perhaps the problem has been solved earlier than planned, so adjustments were made to prolong the truth coming out about this project in relation to Bitcoin. Or, as I believe, the final phase before launching the Internet-scaled was planned to come at a certain time after public interest had both risen and faded in “bubble” like fashion to further secure the network. It is also the equivalent of a bull trap on a large scale to draw people back when they find out they bought too late for the first wave and sold too early before the infinitely scaling peak… not just Bitcoin, but all cryptocurrencies tied back to the origin of Bitcoin. That’s just my running theory.
Bitcoin went forward from a certain date and is now returning to the origin date. Or, perhaps Bitcoin began in 2009, but value put into the process was scaled back to the date in the middle of the Y2K38 problem. How a project can operate in reverse may be imaginary in real life, yet possible in coding.
Recall:
The total cost of the work done in preparation for Y2K is estimated at over US$300 billion ($426 billion today, once inflation is taken into account).[57][58] IDC calculated that the US spent an estimated $134 billion ($190 billion) preparing for Y2K, and another $13 billion ($18 billion) fixing problems in 2000 and 2001. Worldwide, $308 billion ($438 billion) was estimated to have been spent on Y2K remediation.
Without going in too deep on this, just know if Bitcoin scaled back to its true origin of the project, and that was the Hashcash project of which Bitcoin proof of work comes from, perhaps this money was spent into the development of Hashcash — or simply put in a bank account until a publicly available digital asset like Bitcoin was available for purchase and trade. If the first acceptable application of British Standards Institute rules for cryptographically hashed algorithmic Y2K solutions was Hashcash (proposed in 1997), then lets go back to when Hashcash actually launched its mainnet to the public:
You can see here that Hashcash went mainnet with its whitepaper on August 1, 2002. Well, if we were going backward from January 3, 2009 we would have only had to go back 6 years and about 5 months from the date of Bitcoin’s current Block 0 to get to the beginning of Hashcash on August 1, 2002. That means we would have only had to go forward the same amount of time to get to the forward date in the first week of May in 2015. That is too short in my own opinion, to have been the correct date for what I am proposing here — that Bitcoin has not launched officially quite yet and that other earlier versions exist before the 1/3/2009 genesis block. The original Bitcoin whitepaper was published on October 31, 2008. So we can use that date as a date when Bitcoin was proposed and go back to the date when Hashcash was proposed in 1997. The 1997 date in question is referenced in Hashcash’s 2002 whitepaper as:
[1] Adam Back. Hashcash, May 1997. Published at http://www.cypherspace.org/hashcash/
So if we go back in time from Bitcoin’s proposal before its own genesis and trace backward to Hashcash’s proposal before its official launch in 2002 we get a total of 11 years and 5 months. If the first proposed standard for government based solutions was also in 1997, then we may not be working on just Y2K resolutions anymore. That is because the date forward from October 31, 2008 in an equivalent 11 years and 5 months forward puts us at a date in 2020… That would simply be too long between public mania that we saw in 2017 as well as neglect the fact that the sooner the internet scales, the sooner the problem is fixed! Why would anyone delay the amount of time for a solution that already exists? The truth is, they wouldn’t. This could have been the solutions planned time frame — but this is all hypothetical. So lets introduce some facts. Bitcoin and Ethereum contain something in its block data called a nonce, defined as:
The “nonce” in a bitcoin block is a 32-bit (4-byte) field whose value is set so that the hash of the block will contain a run of leading zeros. The rest of the fields may not be changed, as they have a defined meaning.
A 32-bit (4-byte) field? Also, it is a set value so that the block hash will have a run of leading zeros? I indicated that my belief is that Ethereum and Bitcoin are one in the same in origin, or at least designed that way. My previous article states:
The tonal notation is not supported by fonts bundled with popular operating systems, and so usually requires extra fonts to use. Within the programming community there is a widely accepted convention for hexadecimal notation: use A-F for the higher order digits. Thus, one counts 0,1,2,3, … , 9,A,B,C,D,E,F,10,11 …. There are even two conventions, (which are lacking in tonal notation) for distinguishing a base-16 number from a decimal. The C convention prefixes 0x and the Motorola convention suffixes h. So, the number san, 256 (decimal) would be written 0x100 or 100h. In tonal notation, it would only be written 100, and thus potentially confused with decimal 100 which is 0x64, though this confusion is less of a problem for Bitcoin since the context is always explicit (SI/BTC vs Tonal/TBC units).
I believe I may have misidentified the meaning of Tonal Bitcoin. Tonal Bitcoin is still listed on Bitcoin’s wiki, and what it describes is a Bitcoin coded using a “Base 16 system” which predated computers and their use of hexadecimal code:
The Tonal system is a base 16 system of notation (predating the widespread use of hexadecimal in computing), arithmetic, and metrologyproposed in 1859 by John W. Nystrom.[1]
A hexadecimal came after tonal, which is also a Base 16 system:
In mathematics and computing, hexadecimal (also base 16, or hex) is a positional numeral system with a radix, or base, of 16. It uses sixteen distinct symbols, most often the symbols 0–9 to represent values zero to nine, and A–F (or alternatively a–f) to represent values ten to fifteen.
Hexadecimal numerals are widely used by computer system designers and programmers, as they provide a more human-friendly representation of binary-coded values. Each hexadecimal digit represents four binary digits, also known as a nibble, which is half a byte. For example, a single byte can have values ranging from 0000 0000 to 1111 1111 in binary form, which can be more conveniently represented as 00 to FF in hexadecimal.
Bitcoin’s nonce is described as 32-bits (4 byte)/field. If Bitcoin is trying to go tonal, yet represented in hexadecimals — it would be in base 16 format for both tonal and hex. Perhaps the difference in prefix and suffix is where the miscommunication lies between the earlier mobile (motorola convention) and pc-based (C convention) coding.
Often used in computing as a compacter representation of binary (1 hex digit per 4 bits). The sixteen digits are “0–9” followed by “A–F” or “a–f”.
In relation to Bitcoin we can find the meaning of nonce from:
The “nonce” in a bitcoin block is a 32-bit (4-byte) field whose value is set so that the hash of the block will contain a run of leading zeros. The rest of the fields may not be changed, as they have a defined meaning.
So we know Bitcoin is using a tonal formatted nonce to indicate the block preceding it, that also fits in the current block’s string of leading 0’s. Because that block is 32-bit, the nonce could be up to 232 different values, with the nonce being represented in seconds since the origin block to fit a predetermined sequence.
A 32-bit register can store 232 different values. The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits depends on the integer representation used. With the two most common representations, the range is 0 through 4,294,967,295 (232 − 1) for representation as an (unsigned) binary number, and −2,147,483,648 (−231) through 2,147,483,647 (231 − 1) for representation as two’s complement.
Bitcoin uses a hashing algorithm that hashes once for proof of work, just like Hashcash. Hashcash uses SHA-1 for hashing. SHA-1 creates the Hash160 of each block which is 40 characters. Think of Sha256-d, or double hashing as a way of securing Bitcoin, but also a way of making a blockhash that accounts for both forward and backwards movement. The double hashing is the SHA-1 proof-of-work for the block reward and then the SHA-1 proof of work hashed again for a 64 character long string for the block’s hash. The 000’s that precede the blockhash indicate how long the nonce is to describe the order both forwards and backwards in time.
For Bitcoin that nonce can be thought of as a signed representation of two 32 bit numbers. You will notice a Bitcoin nonce is expressed at largest in the 2,000,000,000 (231–1) range. This shortened tonal representation of a hexadecimal can also be thought of as the average between the amount of seconds that pass between genesis and the time of the block reward and the time the transaction is “signed” correctly on the way back. That correct signature could reorder a litany of UTXO’s or unsigned transaction outputs — causing a state reorganization that reflects the true order of the blockchain. I believe that we must find the original of Bitcoin by factoring in the problem it is trying to solve as well as the predicted order or nonce that reflects the predetermined order of the blockchain(s) including Ethereum. Then we can combine C-convention coding with Tonal coding, which can translate to Motorola convention coding suffixes as well. Therefore Bitcoin would be the gateway that unifies scaling efforts and storage between mobile devices and tradition pc-type devices — infinitely.
A 32-bit register can store 232 different values. The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits depends on the integer representation used. With the two most common representations, the range is 0 through 4,294,967,295 (232 − 1) for representation as an (unsigned) binary number, and −2,147,483,648 (−231) through 2,147,483,647 (231 − 1) for representation as two’s complement.
It does this because Bitcoin predicted it would run both forwards and backwards in time, in order to connect in the middle of a timestamp coding compatibility start and finish. For Y2K38 the start is on January 1, 1970 at 00:00 UTC. The ending is on January 19, 2038 as we discussed previously. We also need to find the true start of Bitcoin from that project to figure out the date which Bitcoin is scaling back to in order to connect two types of code that needed to be compatible as well as shortened to save space on the new internet going forward. The old internet would survive this translation by a tonal mechanism and future internet would be coded tonally and linked to the old internet via this method. Bitcoin is creating a new decentralized internet by being the translation between the old internet and the future mobile device, peer-to-peer scaled internet. Amazing.
If Bitcoin is already hashed using a tonal nonce that connects the C-convention prefixes to tonal to Motorola-convention suffixes to properly translate a hashed hexadecimal code, that is shortened using two incompatible methods, it needs to go “forward” to the Motorola convention shorthand implementation for handheld (mobile) devices. Next, it has to go “back” to the future C-convention and translate hex-suffixed shorthand code to hex-prefixed shorthand code. This is very confusing.
Read again:
There are even two conventions, (which are lacking in tonal notation) for distinguishing a base-16 number from a decimal. The C convention prefixes 0x and the Motorola convention suffixes h. So, the number san, 256 (decimal) would be written 0x100 or 100h. In tonal notation, it would only be written 100
The 0x-prefix is at the head of the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic parentHash, miner ID string, and nonce. If the nonce is read as decimal for a 256-bit string (blockhash in Bitcoin and parenthash in Eth, ETC) it can create a 000000'd out number like the “Block 0” for ETC which apparently took place at 1/1/1970 but is read incorrectly as 6 hours before the problem because the code doesn’t recognize the -0600 notation that means 00:00 on 1/1/1970 and 6 hours earlier from 18:00 on New Years Eve 1969. That creates 0'd out strings for nonce, miner ID, and the blockhash. This “parenthash” is simply the block hash that preceded it because Ethereum is mean to run forward. Does this mean Ethereum Classic (the original Ethereum chain) and thus Ethereum began in 1969 or 1970? Absolutely not. At least not the cryptocurrency. But the Bitcoin project may have been created to run equally forward and backward from the date in between 1/1/1970 (the reset date for the Y2K38 problem) as well as the ending date on 1/19/2038.
So why is Ethereum Classic set to a past date? The Bitcoin project and Ethereum project likely have the same origin, but also have been separated from communicating until Bitcoin could correctly translate a base 16 0x- prefix to a mobile, base 16- “suffix” . If Bitcoin is a system to shorthand decimal with the shorthand “100” for a 256-bit Ethereum string, and that equals any Ethereum 256-bit string that writes it “0x100”, then we can assume Bitcoin is already connected to the Ethereum blockchains. Where Bitcoin may still be trying to implement tonal is in the reverse direction so that any suffix that uses 0x100 in reverse is compatible with an tonal code that is the reverse of 100 in tonal and not read as the decimal 100 in reverse, or “001”. Or, we can introduce the idea that there are at least two Bitcoins, one that is using tonal forward and one that is using tonal in reverse, just like there are 2 Ethereums — one going forward from July 30, 2015 genesis and one going in “reverse” from the beginning of both Bitcoins as well as itself. I would then propose we look at halfway between the starting and ending date of the Y2K38 problem, based on what the wrongly coded ETC hashes tell us. Clearly this block was not connected to the translation Bitcoin will eventually provide when Ethereum and Bitcoin connect to form one super expensive Bitcoin of the future.
1/1/1970 00:00 UTC (start) to 1/19/2038 03:14:07 UTC (end)
=sum of time elapsed in between/2
A estimate of that halfway point would be sometime in the ranger of early to mid January 2004. I cannot possibly guess what that exact date would come out to. There’s another conflict that has to be resolved before 2036, as it relates to Network Time Protocol that would reset every clock to 1901. I won’t get into that but I’d like to note that this problem could also be fixed by Bitcoin scaling solutions. What is Network Time Protocol’s Y2K38 type problem?
The Network Time Protocol has a related overflow issue, which manifests itself in 2036, rather than 2038. The 64-bit timestamps used by NTP consist of a 32-bit part for seconds and a 32-bit part for fractional second, giving NTP a time scale that rolls over every 232 seconds (136 years) and a theoretical resolution of 2−32 seconds (233 picoseconds). NTP uses an epoch of 1 January 1900. The first rollover occurs in 2036, prior to the UNIX year 2038 problem.
Implementations should disambiguate NTP time using a knowledge of the approximate time from other sources. Since NTP only works with the differences between timestamps and never their absolute values, the wraparound is invisible in the calculations as long as the timestamps are within 68 years of each other. However, after a wraparound the clients can still face 2 problems: 1) They receive the date 01–01–1900 00:00:00UTC, not 07 feb 2036 06:28:15 (plus minus some leap seconds) as the new time; and 2) when a client tries to adopt this time and store it in UNIX time format, as many embedded systems do, it will fail because UNIX time starts at 13 December 1901 (signed 32 bit integer) or 01 January 1970 (unsigned 32 bit integer)
Just know that both UNIX and NTP based code has a compatibility problem because one is a signed integer (double hashed, using a 16 digit nonce) as well as one being unsigned (single hashed, using an 8 digit nonce). One is like Bitcoin and Ethereum and can run back and forth, and the other only moves forward in time, like hash cash. Perhaps there in lies our true answer of chronological order of Bitcoin/Ethereum.
For Ethereum, this is easier to identify by taking a look at its hexadecimal prefix “0x” to shorten the length of its base-16/256 bit decimal string. This is a prefix defined by the C-convention.
Nonce can mean two things in Ethereum:
Proof of work nonce: A meaningless value in a block that can be adjusted in order to try to satisfy the proof of work condition. This is the essence of mining. This value makes satisfying “proof of work” hard computational work that depends on luck.
Account nonce: A transaction counter in each account that prevents replay attacks. For example, a transaction sending 20 coins from A to B can be repeated over and over by B to continually drain A’s balance.
So if Bitcoin’s nonce is already expressed in tonal, but read as a decimal this could cause major issues if Ethereum is connected to Bitcoin without an implementation to act as an intermediary. Perhaps one part of Ethereum connects to Bitcoin moving in a direction in which it mistakes the nonce because at the time Bitcoin has only run backward to connect to Ethereum but not forward and backward to connect to Ethereum. What the heck does that mean?
There are even two conventions, (which are lacking in tonal notation) for distinguishing a base-16 number from a decimal. The C convention prefixes 0x and the Motorola convention suffixes h. So, the number san, 256 (decimal) would be written 0x100 or 100h. In tonal notation, it would only be written 100, and thus potentially confused with decimal 100 which is 0x64.
We need to figure out what a 256 bit transaction hash would look like with the PREFIX 100h-shortened hex code. I suppose we could find just about any string looking like that. What I will look for is something, if ran backwards ends with a “1” for its transaction ID string.
000000003bd07007793dfc435377b7b01d5072233e186fc214b78cd4d1960901
That is the forward string of I0coin at Block 1 dated on 8/16/2011. However, there is no true Block 0 listed for I0C as well as I0C — which I have covered already in my sixth article. The string only has to run reverse beginning with a 1 to fit the 100h hex shorthand created in the Motorola convention to be read by a tonal intermediary, such as Bitcoin.
If reversed that would fit the requirement. the 4th number in the string is not “h” but rather the correct hexidecimal code. There is no “h” in the prefixes Motorola “suffix” because the Hex string begins there. I0coin actually runs in a circle, so that explains why Block 1 has to run forwards and backwards as well as reroute somehow to the origin of an imaginary axis (replaces y-value) and meets at 0 in the crossing of the i and x axis aka “IX”. I almost drew this graphic representation the other night:
However, my point I made was that I0coin is both a tonal intermediary for mobile networks as well as Bitcoin. If I0coin and Ixcoin combine somehow they can form a connection to the midway and act as a tonal coded bridge between Base 16 hex shorthand via both the C-convention and the Motorola convention. But I0coin and IXC would also have to go forwards and backwards to each other. That middle point would be equally distant both forward and backward in time between New Years Day 1970 as well as January 19, 2038. Wow. That’s quite a challenge. One thing at a time, right?
(furthermore, I must add that Bitcore is probably picking up where I0C had separated its connecting operation in a direction as it is very similar in the way it operated and the addresses begin with a 1___ which is needed to communicated to Motorola convention -suffix base 16 hexs. That’s a nice realization as I have suspected the order of I0C to BTX for sometime and merging in the future as 10coin, I0 coin, and BT — ten(X). Forward we go =P)
What Is Important About Nonce & Different Hexcode Relay
What we truly must know is a nonce exists in the correct order, somewhere. I believe that will be reveled with I0coin and a I=0 process which will create a state reorganization for all un-signed Bitcoin transactions that have been mined over the years or sent as double spends/other manipulations of the true ledger. I covered this in my previous entries. I also believe the correct nonce includes nonce’s in 0x- prefixes that are improperly relayed between Bitcoin and Ethereum. I think the existance of external output addresses on the Ethereum block chain prove the two chains are linked. But they are not linked both forwards and backwards, so the nonce is improperly relayed and causes problems for both Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ethereum classic from the Mt. Gox “robbery” to the Parity “Hack” … all can be explained by coding errors and manipulation methods that may have made people aware of the dangers of the old internet — even though this was just a test procedure. Do I believe any public accounts were hacked by insiders using these attack methods? No I absolutely do not. This was to make us aware at a future date by reflecting on past experiences — which seems to be both a problem, solution, and learning experience all at the same time.
Ethereum and Bitcoin Reflect Their Interconnected Problems Already
People will say that I cannot prove these two blockchains are erroneously connected, yet I can. Ethereum forked after Parity because it wanted to move forward with a fresh start from the hack, or so the developers say. That sent Ethereum Classic, the original Ethereum blockchain back to 1969 — which I indicated to you is not that date, but a Y2K38 problem. That is also another reflection of the movement needed by Bitcoin in order to correctly link the blockchains, which are just solving a problem of coding and how it is read, relayed, transacted, and ordered on the other. From Ethereum Classic to Bitcoin’s origin forward, back and on to the Ethereum Block 0 post-forking. These are also where problems exist. I have shown you Ethereum Classic’s Block 0 errors many times, but what about the future errors at the new Ethereum block 0? Almost 9000 transactions on this block? For what reason? Now, lets go to the Ethereum address for the 0x00000000….etc account. This is not a “fat fingers mistake” … these are regular transactions getting ‘stuck’ and recently unstuck (going from around $8,000,000 in ETH and an additional $800,000,000 in tokens just one month ago):
Something must’ve triggered the outflow from Ethereum address 0x00 back out, and like I said I believe that reversal is a function of I0C and IXC being able to correct such errors by making a tonal code that can translate different hexadecimal shorthand both forward and backward.
So what about Ethereum Classic address 0x000 in the past? Same deal. This is “TheDAO” ETC contract which comes with a “null transaction” at the smart contract creator address and one to the 0x000.. ETC address:
I believe when these addresses connect via a Bitcoin chain from the future or from the past that can properly take its code and translate it through tonal notation, you will see a push into the future without error from two connected mega-blockchains. These will connect through IXC and I0C. They will then fork off the centralized network and be connected via IXC and I0C — the new version going forward, which is and always was — Bitcoin. Remember, I0C devs said the best way to leverage Bitcoin for merge mined coins was waiting. The passage of time will reflect a correction that was pre-planned, with a nonce value that was met in sequence via a blockchain reorganization to solve these scaling errors. Forward and backward and a fork off a problematic chain pushes the internet into a new state as much as it does for Bitcoin. They are intertwined projects for different and same reasons.
If you explore the term EOA, you will find even Vitalik knows about “externally owned accounts” and the ruckus they cause. The correct sequence, Nonce is now correcting Ethereum and Ethereum Classic to Bitcoin’s internet exchange point. It appears the process is working by reversing all the coins “frozen” in Ethereum’s addresses. One in the past, one in the future. That problem shows me that we are not far off. Bitcoin genesis still needs to be worked back to. That leads me to the next discovery…
Satoshi (AI?) Signed a PGP Key From 2004 & Will Again in 2018
(non-discussed hypothesis but relevant for below, Satoshi is A.I. that will trigger a new message when the forking of the dex and centralized internet occurs — and he will also likely sign this PGP key — again. If Satoshi is A.I. it would make sense that assets are properly identified using IBM A.I. “Watson” via IFTTT and that same type of IBM based A.I. will correctly initiate these protocols I describe for a state reorganization and privacy to separate a central and dex internet that scales would be done by a “Satoshi” A.I. If such an A.I. exists the message to confirm this as true will be triggered when the occurrence happens. It will likely come after the Null Protocol. A hard fork to separate will actually be the re-surfacing of Satoshi to explain the things I am trying to say here — but the full truth of it. I am likely missing a lot but I am just connecting the dots I have come to realize and believe in.)
I said that Bitcoin would have to have an origin sometime in early January of 2004 to have solved a theoretical Year 2038 problem. However, what if that also included the Y2K problem that finished at an earlier date, that had fixed the clock reset problem by skipping the year 2000, so that the clock would just reset to 2000 in the even of a “Year 2036” issue with NTP timestamps? That would mean there would not be a 1901 reset, so we can throw that out. However, there could be a problem by 2036. So we go backward in time possibly as well. That means about we should go about 11 months forward in a midpoint between the two problems for the average origin of a project that starts halfway before a starting timestamp of 1/1/1970 at 00:00 UTC and one that ends with a reset in 2036 as well as 2038. Rather than find this exact average of two ending dates and one starting date to find a solution for both UNIX timestamp (Y2K38) and NTP (2036) timestamp compatibility issues, lets just use this:
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x00F20B834AA98820
The broken link is no longer connected “upstream” and gave an error message.
(Guess what happened when I went back to the tab a couple minutes later? Did I seriously just connect the internet at the hub of the solution by sending my own request to access it?)
FYI I wrote the next two paragraphs before the chart drawing before I went back to the picture above in my browser, before that picture showed up! It was an error message the first attempt! The information to take forward is that this date can be read backwards as a 2004 date as September 12, 2004. That could be the in-between origin of the UNIX timestamp start and end error timeframe as well as the end of the NTP timestamp 2036 problem. I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E. If I am wrong, I know that I am at least sniffing in the right direction. If I note, this place used to connect to a page with a “signature” from sometime in the end of 2008. Are we connecting a space between 2004 and 2008 then? Remember, Ethereum Classic probably didn’t originate in 1969. It may have been put there to represent the reach of a forward only progressing project, such as Ethereum to represent a future date that was just before the end of the average of the Year 2036 and 2038 problem. If you think of problems with a code that can only be read forward but not reversed, this about the frozen funds created by the “Parity Hack” … I won’t describe that here, but you can read about that one here.
[It will connect again when tonal Bitcoin code connects to both the past as well as the future date it left off at. Or possible when I0C connects to BTX as 10C. We know that Ixcoin recently forked to 64 mb blocks. I believe the next fork for a protocol will connect BTX, I0C, and IXC. BTX is very much like I0C, perhaps a clone meant to be purposely seperated in sequence but reconnected at another date. This means the future of I0C may be connected to the future of IXC or BTX’s origin now, but not to the origin of I0C as well as IXC. What would that look like?]
Remember, this is my mathematical first stab at explaining IXC and i0C and how connected, they form IXC:
So is the answer that both must reverse simultaneously to connect? Maybe. I believe that I0C and IXC are connecting both forward from this date to Bitcoin and Ethereum, as well as “backward” to each other and a year 2001 to 1999 date because the NTP timestamp issue in 2036 does not occur since the Y2K clock temporary fix where the clock would reset to a 2000 date after going through 2000 originally as a leap year. Even though forward would reset to 2000 if 2036 was hit beforehand, the clock has to put in the extra time to account that the 2038 and 2036 end dates may have existed when the project began after the Y2K fix that brought a potential reset to the current millennium. Rather than figure out the exact math, I would tend to think that the time when I0C and IXC need to run back and connect to “Ethereum Classic” would just be 1 year back from 2001, that would be exactly 1 year back from Hashcash launching in 2002. Was Hashcash the solution for the NTP timestamp reset? It very well could have been.
If Hashcash solved the NTP timestamp issues going forward and that led to Ethereum, perhaps Ethereum went forward first from Bitcoin. However, that means Bitcoin went back to connect to Ethereum. Both would have a join origin somewhere between August 1, 2002 and the Bitcoin whitepaper on October 31, 2008. That would leave a median date at in the middle of September 2005 going forward from August 1, 2002. What if we had to go from the May 1997 proposal date to the October 31, 2008 whitepaper release of Bitcoin and then halved it? We get a total between the two dates using a May 1, 1997 start as 11 years and 6 months. When that is halved the median date lies 5 years and 9 months between each date. Because this issue was solved by Hashcash going forward and reincorporated into Bitcoin we only look at this as going forth from the median date and connecting back to itself. That would be at a date sometime in March 2003. I think we still may be off, unless we also know that the date has to ditch an equal computation that has been given for the forward and backwards movement. Bitcoin only moving forwards means we can calculate the time between two dates but then only take into account 3/4 of the length before finding the average.
This calculation = a median date just 4.3125 years back from Bitcoin’s original 10–31–2008 whitepaper. That means to connect future and past project starts and solutions in Y2K38 and Year 2036 compatibility, a predetermined order was designed forward and backward to this date to account for one issue forward solved, but one issue forward unsolved as well as two problems backward unsolved. The date 4 1/3 years back (rounded) from the Bitcoin whitepaper can also be taken back from the genesis block. Perhaps that is the remaining connection left to be made. We have to shoot through the genesis block back to the starting point at a date in late 2004. That date could easily be back from a date between the Bitcoin whitepaper and genesis block (averaging the two as we did going forward originally). That brings us to 4 1/3 years back from a date in December 2008. That would be right around a date near the MIT unsigned PGP timestamp (dated backward as 09–12–2004. If the stamp is signed it will show us the true origin of Bitcoin and Ethereum, unifying IXC and I0C as a result as the inter-space connection between all timestamps they worked forward and backward to.
Perhaps future cryptocurrencies were invented in between as well. We may very well have created a seperation between centralized networks and decentralized networks to be that would have no central government, no censorship, anonymous transactions, etc. as an incentive to the public to have unknowingly funded Y2K projects in tax dollars back in those times. That seems fair to me. More freedom, and a worldwide internet currency to go along with it that could pay you back thousand-fold if you cared about it for the right reasons and also to secure the network.
So would Bitcoin really have started in 09–12–2004? Perhaps it did. But lets also assume Bitcoin started at a halfway point that went forwards only from Hashcash to its genesis block. It may have gone forward later than it went backward if that makes sense. That means we started at a date in the future, that Bitcoin will “comeback” twice from to 09–12–2004. That date would be between Hashcash and Bitcoin forward. Lets take that date back from the Genesis block since we don’t have any corrected past genesis block connected yet. Otherwise we would’ve seen it. The time elapsed between the genesis block and the newly found PGP key sig is 4 years and 3 months. 4 1/4 years. Divided by 2 we find a median date of 2 1/8 years backward from Genesis in 2009. That would mean a time forward in 2007 was the first genesis of Bitcoin and also one we need to pass on the way back to this MIT stored PGP signature from what is either 12/9/2004 or 9/12/2004. You get the point.
Bitcoin and Ethereum have origins sometime in a space that connects late 2004 to a date possibly in between 2007 and 2009. A fork after a state reorganization may create a forward scaling solution by cutting off a connection that is outdated and was only needed to scale in one direction, but is solved by the combined efforts of 2 different coins that are both then connected as 1 coin that is forward linked from a date that has not come in the present quite yet, but has also reconnected to the past — like the MIT page that has changed since my last visit at the beginning of May. Perhaps the fork of Ixcoin cut this page which featured a 2008 signature off from the current internet and a reversal + state reorganization will revert back to the origin date of note in 2004. Or a time between the first signature in 2008 and the origin date in 2004. Truly hard to follow, but if you’re a developer or insider you may understand what I am trying to grasp myself here.
Short summary: Bitcoin is Ethereum and possibly other early projects like XRP, which bred XLM. In reverse one could say we had XLM before XRP.
I0coin can be thought of as the zerocoin protocol which rejects the null tx forward by the I=0 process backward. I0C carries the correct order of the Bitcoin blockchain via merged mining which I covered in previous articles. I0coin has to reconnect to its origin and IXC in the past, and there we may find something that results in this:
Euler’s Formula and Identity Explain IXC and I0C Network and Bitcoin “Origin”
That drawing is my representation of a full 360 and 4 quadrant view of Euler’s Formula and Euler’s identity. Instead of 1 and -1 think of the horizontal line as the x-axis. Know the vertical axis is the i-imaginary axis. The origin is the intersection of the x-axis (horizontal) and imaginary, i-axis (anywhere horizontally up and down).
e^i0 is any point on the circle spread out from the origin. Well gee that sure looks like this I0C svg logo:
Perhaps that logo only connect one slash because both I0C and IXC have to cut off one 1/4 of their blockchain because the problem that would cause a Year 2036 problem to reset to 1901 was resolved by the Y2K leap year from the end of 1999 to the beginning of 2001. In other words, they just used old code at the beginning of 2001. I would represent IXC then before the removal of 1/4 of either I0C or IXC as this:
To scale forward as equals having officially solved compatibility issues between the C-convention, tonal notation, and the Motorola convention — one of these quadrants is cut off to represent a true mathematical based chart of scaling going forward. Not only is this the solution for Bitcoin, but its a solution for the internet. However, you can see this is not the final step below:
Centralization would be solved by creating the Bitcoin bridge in tonal between an exchange point between the central and decentralized network. Meaning that one could trade a coin which is not able to be tracked back within the decentralized network when it is pegged through an intermediary protocol and then sent to the central network. That would be the purpose of a sidechain, such as blockstreams liquid sidechain which I have explained to be IXC. That would also require a similar mode of transmission from the mobile dex network to the centralized network via I0C or the “lightning” network. I have explained how BTX is very lightning in nature and this may have been used as a way to connect i0C in the future/past as 10C. When that happens lightning will shoot through IXC and connect the network to scale properly. However the final severing from decentralized and centralized will create a new Bitcoin peg that equals all Bitcoin rooted projects forward and backward from 2004 as well as Bitcoin going forward from a date yet to come. That coin would be worth all of the energy used to mine ETH, Bitcoin, etc. So its value is immense. A protocol to trace back correctly would be required before this symbolic anonymity protocol is enacted to separate the network. We get that by something known as the Null Protocol which begins with the “0” coin or zerocoin protocol. I wrote before I saw a logo I am about to show you about how I0C could mathematically and figuratively issue the correction to these out of order transactions (with out of order nonce’s as well as coding errors) by rejecting null processes. It is just part of the I=0 process which is said to be stationary as well as non-stationary. So it can move stable one way, as well as in any direction. That is why the number “i” is imaginary. It only exists theoretically, yet it can be correctly and mathematically represented by the chart I drew representing my first attempt to apply a crypto based chart of Euler’s Formula and Identity combined (for IXC/I0C):
Then a day after publishing that picture and also previously explaining the math in words I actually saw this logo:
This logo is for Nullex, which is renamed and has a defined protocol. It is going to “fork” off GPU Coin (an early and not well known coin found on Cryptopia). I was floored at how much this picture reminded me of IXC and I0C going back to the origin. I was then no longer confused how it would detach from the centralized network and/or when it would do so. I now knew.
The Null Protocol and Vlad2Vlad (IXcoin Dev)
My original riddle creator from bitcointalk, Vlad2Vlad is the main champion of IX for the dev team to the public. He is the IXC of drawing the public network toward IXC. He also has shown support of I0C, BTX, etc. But talking to Vlad2Vlad, who has never given me a direct answer as truth — ever, brought up the Nullex fork in a very Vlad2Vlad way. The suggestion he made was that Nullex may go up in value for a quick profit because it has an imminent fork. Me being unshakable on IXC/I0C and believing they are the true origin of the value put into cryptocurrency and internet scaling, I didn’t buy any. I did however read about Nullex afterward, realizing I drew the exact logo as a representation of what IXC and I0C could do together. In otherwords the Null Protocol has been initiated. The “fork” will just cut off the lagging part of the network, exactly 1/4 of it, as I0C and IXC connect at the new genesis block and move forward. The null protocol also initiates privacy by using I0C and IXC’s tonal notation translating properties to read code from both types of hexcode prefix/suffix formats made in previous forms of internet from the days of the Motorola and C Conventions (0x100 and 100h can be read through tonal “100” notation without being confused as being written in decimal). So we now have both privacy and scalable networks that connect through “Bitcoin” of the past, present, and future. The Null Protocol begins with the “zerocoin” protocol.
Using I0coin and Ixcoin connected we can see how this would easily be a way to conceal the coins path by destructing the one that came from the DEX/Central internet and then minting a new coin in the intermediary space (exchange point — IX) and then sending it to either DEX/centralized internet platforms. That is remarkable. That is also something that works! Therefore, you now have the platform that Bitcoin and Ethereum were built for. They were made as different exchange coins for apps built that connect to it, but not directly from a centralized network. Cue the amazement. Has anyone said this outright? Probably not in public. I am proud and happy for the future of everyone involved. Going further, the Null Protocol rep on bitcointalk described the pre and post fork environments on their “pre-ANN”:
It looks like 67 million coins will exist when the fork occurs, with a float of 41 million. Meaning the max number of nodes at the time of the fork is 820. We’re estimating 25 million inactive coins, which would bring that number down considerably, along with the fact not everyone would hold a masternodes worth of coins, 50,000. We’re estimating yearly rewards to a masternode at 20%.
Mathematically the “float” of 41 million describes what I have believed all along. There are very few Bitcoins left to mint and a total of 42 million in a max supply. However, there will be 25 million “inactive” coins, meaning what. These coins are the ones that need to be removed from circulation in order to scale and satisfy decentralization efforts. Aka the Null Protocol forking gets rid of 25 million “Bitcoins” in circulation that connect both central and decentralized networks.
XLM was recently praised by IBM as a platform great for scaling a centralized internet. M is the 13th letter going forward in the 26 letter alpha bet. The 3 digit representation of XLM was chosen for 2 reasons. It fits a centralized ISO code format for a multinational currency by beginning with “X” and second, it ends at M. Going backward, the alphabet hits the 13th letter at N. Nullex has made a pre-ANN because while they have changed the GPU coin name, they never actually forked off GPU Coin. So if we reverse Nullex we get XLN, which would be a centralized form of privacy protocol we do not need to discuss. However, IBM connected the dots for you already in using XLM as their central internet platform. XLM (space of coin minting and destruction equal to Bitcoin going forward but with all of its history) NLX. XLM to IXC/I0C/BTC to NLX. It can run forward and backward. The “fork” from GPU Coin is just a symbolic way of saying there is no difference between an I0C protocol or renaming of Bitcoin as it never forked. I told you the same was true for IXC by connection to I0C in origin.
This proves all the developers did was rename the original Bitcoin (origin sometime in 2004) that was named in 2009 to I0C and IXC in 2011 yet the devs retained and maintained the history before and after “I0C/IXC Block 1" as Bitcoin by connecting through merged mining.
Going forward and backward, we know I0C has striking similarities to BTX, in that it is fast and scaling and it has connection to Bitcoin’s origin in my theory as well as a future connection that make them both 10-coin. I0 = 10 and BT+X=10. That’s a given. What also needs to be pointed out is IXC forward could be thought of as 9 and reversed as 11. So if we are indeed going back anywhere its through the reverse of IX to XI, and thus thru 10-coin after they have merged to get a true Bitcoin2x as well as the Internet 2.0.
My assumptions are that the Null Protocol will add the privacy aspect we want for Bitcoin and the internet in general by separating and containing Bitcoin’s scaled IXC + I0C + BTX + ETH + ETC (and all other improved protocols for Bitcoin since the beginning) in some intermediary space. This space I have described first in Internet Exchange Points where ISP’s meet and change to other networks. Interexchange Carriers (also IXC) are where mobile networks do this. After I0C protocols and IXCoin protocols join, we get one coin that uses both for privacy exchange as well as both for processing and scaling. Scaling is also used to reduce energy consumption by incentivizing “miners” or as I have explained, peer-to-peer network wallet users. With governments likely behind these original Bitcoin like I covered in the last article, as well as President Putin explaining how the new internet didn’t need to be policed for security — I believe this all has the same end result. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the incentive for the public to join in on the fun in scaling the internet as well as the reward for all the taxpayer money used world wide. We get a national currency with better usability, profitability, and rates in a fair market that is also as secure as any central financial market or banking platform. We also get a decentralized internet which gives rights to people in countries that don’t even know what civil rights are yet. The cooperation of world leadership and private sector is both as shocking as it is heartening. The Null Protocol will fork this new internet into the infinite scaling future as well as usher in a new era of privacy and a value into Bitcoin’s next evolution the likes of which we have never seen. Because Bitcoin is going to operate through the 99.98% minted combination of 42 million I0C and IXC and all of the coins connected through their history as an implementation of them when merged together, we will see an amazing rush of value into these coins. My believe is that we have been at this the last 14 to 16 years in terms of cryptocurrency platforms, but the idea goes back to the Y2K standards set forth in 1997. Adam Back proposed Hashcash in 1997, and as a British citizen he connects government with the BSI standards in the same year to private sector of Bitcoin with his involvement with Blockstream since 2014. The thing is, there is no one Satoshi. Satoshi could be IBM Watson A.I. or a well known and involved world leader. Satoshi could be each and every government and private sector that pushed this project forward and scaled it back to a new internet and new world currency. The facts are what matter here and I hope I have shown you enough to convince you that a connection from some time in early 2007 is possible based on the halving and math done preceding this for the starting and ending points for both cryptocurrencies and the problem faced with the internet.
Conclusive Thoughts
I must point out that the unveiling of a world currency and new decentralized internet at the FIFA World Cup 2018 or preceding it would be an absolutely amazing idea. The adoption push would be incredible and everyone would be jumping into the arena alongside institutions that are moving into the game — most likely at the same time of the announcement — so as to be fair to the public. It is my belief that the institutions have blockchain like ready platforms that will be unveiled with that announcement that are ready to go. I think adoption is ready on both sides, its just the public side doesn’t know it yet. In fact, the public that had paid their taxes in the years covered has already put forth some portion of the project, so why not use Bitcoin going forward? Every government seems keen on accepting it because the world agreement was to create it as a reward for the public money used to help scale the internet. As a result tech businesses and world governments got a solution for their economic prosperity in the future by using the public dollar, and everyone involved avoided a worldwide economic crisis.
It will be a wild ride into the future, the likes of which never seen. I hope people take more interest in the world going forward. There are many that will miss out on this boat because they didn’t tie together the facts when they had been given years of open sourced code and PR to figure it out. I won’t say it was easy or that I truly know everything, but I feel I know enough that this is a go for the imminent future. As for the world cup? A world currency protocol was issued during a World Cup year before, 16 years ago.
That would be Hashcash just after the World Cup of 2002. The nonce, or predetermined order of sequence that will issue the true origin of Bitcoin and Ethereum together may have been set forth then. Once the master copy connects with its origin, by Null Protocol, we will see the first move forward together — joining Bitcoin and Ethereum at the root of I0C and IXC and then separating it to form a decentralized internet. Yet, if you still don’t believe me that Bitcoin and Ethereum are of the same origin, just take a look at the Null Protocol — which features NApps. Or Bitcoin developing “Smart Contracts” … the two are combining whether you like it or not and they have been this whole time. Now, we will see it fork off into the future.
Good luck. I hope you do well going forward in life, whoever you are.
Daniel R. Treccia
dtreccia@hotmail.com
For donations — I plan on using my crypto, pushing adoption, and hopefully finding some role in this adoption push on behalf of the public if I am right. Also, if you’re hodling alot outside a project, devs can always use donations. I have sent what I could to Ixcoin devs. I urge anyone who has IXC and hasn’t to go to their ANN or Telegram through Coinmarketcap and get in touch with that.
IXC: xYWFvHhN8kDCuAoKytyQupWSawXjnoEKxj
I0C: jXnrLkdpY6t9WuQ94bUcQoecRHnBtwieyr
BTX: 13qofNRgFsKr5VL9RKoW1k13sz2vPuYTnp
BTC: 1NCAkNWHwgf9C7irWdcXEGHiabVghNRyYj
B2X (Segwit2x): 1EM9Nrf8s1xfL5fmJwDL87kUQ77VS9EeDx
ETC: 0xace05ed5c296616aab1f35741803e887fb36f7e0
BCH: bitcoincash:qz6jlw7x2wnjfzfrhyglmqrlgdrlpwashcnkd8nul6
LTC: LNLL9GknH56gJF7T7UmGk36z5LBHAuJo8H
Thank you!
