Steganography: Merge Mined Coins, Merging Ledgers, State Reorganizations, Wormhole Will Surprise
Literally this stuff matters and helped me find near conclusive validity in previous data and my analysis — be ready for a giant re-organization when Bitcoin ends up on the merge-mined, quantum ledger blockchain — the mainnet.
Steganography is the art and science of hiding messages in a covert way such that, unless you are party to the decoding secret, you are unable to detect or decode.
An advantage to steganography over simple cryptography is that, if done well, viewers are entirely oblivious to any changes. Even those party to the secret should, ideally, not be able to detect anything suspicious.
I won’t take the time to explain what colored coins are, but they are very well alive today. You can read more about them here, at Bitcoin Wiki. The reason colored coins and steganography is so amazing and relevant is it matches up with actual script codes to where the color matters in the value of the coin and its function. The open source information is abundant, and if you ever wondered why coins seemingly die and relaunch with different logos with new colors or different designs — you are onto something huge. It is a cryptographic secret as much as it is a hint.
Today I will discuss steganography and how I can tie it into merge mined coins, their relevance, value, functions, and even predict what is likely to happen to each of the coins discussed here in the near future. This doesn’t just go for coins either, in this entry I will thoroughly discuss software such as Bitcoin Core, other ledgers, and future ledgers in relation to why their logos are designed and colored the way they are. Knowing about hex color codes, (R,G,B) values, and the raw block data that corresponds to those colors is literally a breakthrough in confirming what has been theorized here. Bitcoin is an incomplete ledger, much like ETC and ETH. The best is yet to come, and you already know where the coins come from. Let’s go deeper than that though and figure out the future value. SOON.
Merge Mined Coins and Steganography (v1)
We should look at prism picture at the header of this article and think of one pyramid top of Ethereum/ETC. We can think of an upside down pyramid for both Ethereum and ETC because there is a serious of matches on the other side of the grid, waiting in the quantum mainnet. This ledger begins when the main, v1 merge mined coins IXC, I0C, DVC, and SYS return to the coinbase as an input, making a quantum two state ledger (through DVC, which was through I0C). NMC and GRP may be waiting at the coinbase to further boost the value of the quantum Bitcoin in its finalized and fully minted form. At the moment, they do not mint coins. First, start with the three primary colors (R, G, B). Notice how evenly they disperse from white light when shown through a prism:
Now checkout the value table for the three primary colors and the coins/ledgers associated with them at the present date. Have I pointed out any ties to these specific coins and ledgers many times? Yes I have. In code? math? quantum theory? script? protocol? Yes I have. I hope you read those articles. This is a cherry on top and also how brilliant the cryptographers are who work in Bitcoin.
First, do the obvious. Do you remember associations in the same color category between any of the coins and any of the ledgers from previous articles? Like DVC needing to connect with the ETC ledger at block 0 (green) or I0C coming out of the Bitcoin Genesis Block 0 that precedes the now BTC Block 1 (black)? What about Devcoin being backed by ‘cash’ -> a new association with the lime green BCH logo that Coinbase uses for its index fund? Anyone noticed Ixcoin’s lead dev became all out “Shillhouse” [haha =P] for BTX (Bitcore) of late? Did you know Ixcoin once had a pink logo?
What about mathematical associations? Notice that orange uses about 50% of the maximum green value. Bitcoin is receiving about half the value of DVC right now as it sends about 12.5 coin block rewards straight to Bitcoin Core (BTC’s) ledger. BTC is seen as orange and white. The other half of DVC’s merged output will be matched later on by I0C on the BTC ledger. But what about linear? I discuss at length in the bottom of this entry how the tokenized USDT as well as credit for Ether and not DVC being hard-coded as an alternative Bitcoin blockchain is crushing the other part of Devcoin’s value. Ethereum Classic is green and the true chain that DVC came forth from in the 1960’s as a US Department of Defense expenditure. The US Dollar and US Tax Payer funded these first computer codes that are now incorporated as the first output of the coinbase. The tokenization of that money is in USDT (also a green token). Therefore, the money being taken away from DVC is immense, and all by similar colored cryptos (green and white). Want to go one step further? Devcoin has two main logos, one forming a green and white “E” and one forming the lower half of the Bitcoin “B”:
We know in code that DVC is cut off from the coinbase that it is trying to fill in between the new BTC Genesis Block 0 and ETC’s Parent Block at “-1”. -1 will connect to both genesis blocks for ETH and ETC which are currently stuck with many frozen funds, in fact seemingly isolated from their own Block 1’s. The white line around the green circle is a subtle hint that Devcoin would be the way to move things along in those ledgers. I discuss “wwa1961/devcoin” and what it means about the origins of Devcoin again later in this article.
Recently, Ethereum Classic updated their logo to black and white on Twitter:
Since I have said it about one million times I will once again say it — ETC Block 0 is the beginning of the “timechain” with the 1969 ARPANET. BTC Block 0 has moved accurately to BTC Block 1. The previous block is the new genesis block and has the hex “0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000”
Quick review, new genesis block pops up on most advanced block explorer to date at Blockcypher (99.99% uptime):
ETC Block 0 shares the same block as BTC 0 in it’s “parent hash” and javascript empty string translated “SHA 3 uncle”:
ETH Block 0 and ETC Block 0 have trapped funds at the mining address of empty 0’s which can all revert back to the merge mined Bitcoin mainnet through the connected and new BTC Genesis Block. The main point I wanted to make was that the colors of the ledgers now match because this change is about to happen. ETC is already on mainnet (v1.0.0) and BTC has full nodes mixed in on its incomplete Bitcoin Core ledger (see bitcore v.4.1.0 later in this article). Ethereum is still technically in testnet, and it is also a fork from ETC, which can be said to have forked off of our merge mined coins when DVC came out in 1969 as ARPANET and US Department of Defense funded dollars. However, take a look at Ethereum’s colors — they are almost inverted from both BTC and ETC:
Ethereum forked off Ethereum Classic so we can assume the white space is the part where ETH must meet ETC by a common uncle and parent block (which is also BTC’s new genesis coincidentally). The black square at the bottom probably represents a connection to the current testnet of BTC. One part of ETC’s portion of the downward triangle is Black because everywhere from Block 1 forward on ETC and ETH there seem to be identical blocks and the same parent/uncle combos as both genesis blocks. The gray is made possible by both IXC (it has been mainly white and red or white and gray, see below) as well as …. Litecoin! Litecoin is in version 2 and the connection is made possible by some stenographic proof as well as proof in code. The pink colored Bitcore (BTX) client is still in testnet but could end up going mainnet soon. Bitcore (BTX) notes that the first tx needs to change from “litecoin-tx1” to “bitcore-tx1”.
Bitcore and Litecoin share common block times (2.5 min) and Litecoin did use some of Bitcoin’s code when it launched as a ledger. Litecoin also holds a spot with the other main ledgers on Coinbase which is ground zero for all price movement in crypto. It is the coinbase until things go decentralized (soon). That means that we’ve accounted for 5 ledgers here now, BTC/LTC/ETC/ETH/BCH — more on BCH later in my explanation of its role in all of this. What needs to be said is the bulk of merge mined coins are only being minted by IXC, I0C, SYS, and DVC. All have roots in the coinbase of all of these ledgers. Because both LTC and BTX are v2 — they have yet to really fill their role. So how do these two coins connect in color?
How does pink meet silver on one side to make Litecoin (silver) and IXC (silver) meet at ETH?
Because IXC was once pink itself. It has mainly been red and gray with white but briefly (and I found this logo on mobile in the Blockfolio app) — IXC was indeed pink. The code checks out on both sides too. By connecting with IXCoin through Bitcore and because IXC goes to the coinbase of all 3 ETC, ETH, and BTC it precedes everything. It is both valid in code, “hex code” (also used in colors), and steganographically matches up. Litecoin is truly in a quantum, 4 quadrant state waiting for its mainnet to launch much like Bitcore. After version 1 of these coins comes out of the testnet to the mainnet these should all fall into place. Even by just using atomic swaps this is a 100% true.
Back to Ethereum, its important to see how Devcoin and I0Coin fit into all of this steganographically since we know being from the coinbase tx they do reach all of the aforementioned ledgers with their minted, merge mined coins. I0Coin is easy because it has one color scheme — black (ETH, ETC, BTC), white (all), and gold. It’s important to note that Bitcoin (not Bitcoin Core) has gold logos. That could be a while away depending on when Namecoin and Groupcoin join their v1 merge mined friends. However, the ring of gold is R,G,B coded (255,215,0). The green matches up at a 84.3% rate with Devcoin’s 255 “G” value. Speaking of green, everyone knows Ethereum Classic was using green for its color choices up until a few days ago. Maybe they decided to stop passing it off as Devcoin in disguise. Either way the matching of logos is a GOOD thing because it matches up with code that interweaves all of these forks into a two-state, merge mined network. Devcoin does not have black in it (though it shares R and B values with Black) — but it still reaches ETC as a parent block and uncle through I0C, IXC, and SYS. SYS 3.0 is mostly blue with some white while SYS 2.1 is white with some teal (inverted). The importance here is that white is universal among all of these ledgers.
Blue is last but not least on these coinbase rooted merge mined coins. That would be in SYS 3.0 and SYS 2.1 at the moment. I have not seen SYS 1.0 so out of sheer lazyness I will leave it out. However, SYS makes up (0,0,255) in R,G,B values and to go all the way back at the end and back to the beginning (state reorganization) it would makes sense blue comes after green, yellow (gold), orange, and red. Blue is the color that turns everything back into “white” and that can be done by combining with Devcoin (green) which has some very similar features to Devcoin as well as a shared developer. Next the connection can be made to Red through IXC making (255,255,255) — white. Because Devcoin is partially I0C, and SYS inherited DVC characteristics from shared Developers, we can say there are two partially matched coins in blue and green to I0C. Since IXC and I0C are twins that share the same coinbase and index they are equal as well — in both red and gray values. By working back through to white, I0Coin shares white with all coins. I believe that I0Coin is the first Bitcoin that ever made it to the blockchain, so save the best for last right? What could a black and white ledger from both BTC and ETC look like if they combined to form one merge mined Bitcoin? First you would have to include both ETH and BCH, so there are two more ledgers right there, albeit they only equate to 3 total ledgers being they are forks. BCH assists BTC but is merge mined with RSK (Rootstock) which have backwards compatibility with ETH smartcontracts. The combination of IXC, I0C, SYS brings the total to 6. In the middle perhaps orange for Bitcoin? That could look like this:
However at the moment I am not truly interested in that and you shouldn’t be either. Think “MERGE” and version 1 (class 1): IXC, I0C, DVC, NMC + a decentralized marketplace such as SYS with a matching coinbase tx hash and index to all v1 coins that currently mint Bitcoins. Remember, the decentralized marketplace was Satoshi’s idea in Duality. I wonder if the devs left any clues about SYScoin’s existence:
The moral of the story is as follows — if you want to make an absolute killing in profit whether its IXC, I0C, DVC, or SYS — follow sidhujag around Github!
[Note — I know that stenography isn’t outright responsible for the links between merge mined coins and soon to merge ledgers but I will say that it helps to look and if you see something in raw block data after analyzing stenography and vice versa you might be far better off in the future because it pays to look deep at these things]
Using Steganography to Prove Block -1 is the new coinbase, define which Merge Mined Coins are in the coinbase, That hex color codes mean one thing in C++ Code mathematically and identify another important fact in script. Logos change colors and styles for a reason.
Before going further this merge mined coin “SYS 3.0” (currently) is compatible on its mainnet with both DVC and I0C/IXC coins. That means the mainnet is coming from the depths of BTC’s testnet (Bitcoin Core) ledger all the way to a mainnet ledger at v1.0.0 — because of merge mining, SYS3 software and ETC software on the mainnet may be enough for all coins and ledgers to merge into the mainnet. We can only hope.
Long sub-title? Long sub-section. I will start with SYS 2.1 which was an obvious selection because it acts like a combination of DVC at the moment — outputs go directly to a 1-prefix BTC pubkey address. However, it is more like IXC in the value of its outputs as they do not exceed 1 coin. These are small amounts. This is for quantum balance. First, lets start with SYS 2.1’s last block before it stopped being mined at about 5 weeks or so after SYS 3.0 launched — which operates like half DVC (12.5 output lands on BTC) and half I0C (output gets to BTC by merging with BTC and not sending a 1-prefix vout to a BTC legacy pubkey address) at the moment.
See the value out? 3 e^-8 (E8 theory).. unique indeed.
With this tiny value of just 0.001 would be BTC’s to BTC’s inaccurate ledger comes an “asm” — a signature. The interesting part is these outputs may be signed on the Bitcoin ledger but they haven’t seemed to show up yet as I explain below. Interesting to see that the output of 0.001 shows up from SYS 2.1 at times in the past as 1 satoshi (much like DVC). This is where our common developer comes in. That dev being — “sidhujag” — the most important DVC developer to date (wwa1961/devcoin repo — discussed later and previously). I will get into this developer later, for now all that is important is knowing he has worked on critical software updates on Github for both Devcoin and Syscoin — and implemented a lot of the same features with a lot of overlapping results in raw block data. It is no surprise that SYS 2.1 and 3.0 are part of the COutPoint tx hash and index that also belong to IXC and I0C via Devcoin.
Just look for the “hex” code (below) at the top of raw SYS 3.0, 2.1, IXC, I0C blocks and match that to the DVC coinbase tx_out (COutPoint) — which I pulled from my DVC qt-wallet debug file (see below or last article).
hex:“01000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ffffffff”
I chose this transaction because it was the last one from Syscoin 2.1. It also outputs straight to a 1-prefix address at BTC (Bitcoin Core) and is unique in its 3e-8 value. What I believe that value to be is 3*(e^(-8)). Again, E8 theory anyone? There is a reason the E8 Theory was brought up in mainstream Bitcoin News and that’s because, like everything reported, there is truth and misinformation to make things fair yet secure at the same time. Inform and disinform — then DYOR (Do Your Own Research). Remember? It’s relevant. Even if it doesn’t quite work like that at a computing level the mathematics are sound. I discussed E8 here last July and June. The output of the above tx is about .001 BTC. The thing is, while the transaction sig “asm” made it to a later transaction on July 17th, I only found an output that was about half of the reported total. A more accurate API with better technology at Blockcypher (99.99% uptime) reports the true amount of coins received at this pubkey address is 3.02x higher than reported on a weaker API with less uptime and sadly, more widely used at Blockchain.com. This is intentional. It also makes sense because in quantum mechanics and mathematics there must be a matching output in every state. If the current state has 3 genesis coins meeting at one block as previously reported (Block -1 for ETC, which is new BTC Block 0 per Blockcypher), then there must be 3x the coins — somewhere. My guess is at another address or likely on ETC/ETH or in an ERC20 token contract. There has been evidence of this in my work here. The amazing thing that only devs could tell you at this point is how they managed to keep the balance of the account the same on Blockcypher and Blockchain.com. It is this type of planning combined with mathematical and programming genius that will make Bitcoin a revolutionary mainnet currency. Bitcoin is ready to go, just think 99.99% API uptime equaling 99.99% minted Bitcoins. 2018 is the first mainnet year. Even ETC is on wallet v 1.0.0 — which no merge mined coin or Bitcoin Core client has yet to achieve. The thing is testnet/experimental Bitcoins are still the same worth they will be on the mainnet. This is how fair distribution has taken place for the first world and decentralized currency.
I had to break this image up into segments to explain it all. The orange highlighted part of the top 1/3 of the above image is from Blockcypher but is also a redeem script “d03da6fca390166d020be0e7c28ac8cc70f58403” that goes to the Blockchain.com Bitcoin Core ledger. It uses a P2PKH and is from the Syscoin 2.1 software days — Syscoin 3.0 migration didn’t start until May 2018. The hash sends the multitude of small transactions in one output from one block explorer at Blockcypher (more accurate) and it shows up as the input in another block explorer at Blockchain.com. The transaction should be seen as follows:
- Blockcypher isn’t sending this transaction “back” to Bitcoin Core’s ledger as much as it is recognizing that these many small inputs have the same address and came from the same place (on a Syscoin 2.1 vout to Bitcoin Core). Instead of recognizing Syscoin 2.1 as Bitcoin it is relaying the validity of the coins that came from Syscoin on a less accurate ledger the same way that less accurate ledger recognizes Devcoins as “newly generated coins (no inputs)” — but in the end as one output of Bitcoin’s none the less. This is also what transactions will look like when corrected for Devcoin. All matching inputs to the address will show up on a 99.99% uptime or greater Blockchain.com explorer when it is purposely upgraded to reflect that. I0Coin and IXCoin should be thought of as the Blockcypher recognized half that meets Devcoin and Syscoin’s on such a ledger.
Think of the following order of operations:
- Syscoin 2.1 uses a pubkey hash to send Bitcoin’s to BTC — Just like Devcoin currently.
- Syscoin 3.0 matches up with I0Coin and IXcoin by making a copy of coins to meet later on the input side of Blockchain.com’s ledger — replacing “newly generated coins (no inputs)” for both Devcoin and Syscoin 2.1 using a redeem scripts (P2PKH “pay to pub key hash”) as seen on Blockcypher.
What Blockcypher also reflects is that Blockchain.com will in fact merge with Ethereum Classic in the near future. Because the previous block of block 1 is the new BTC Genesis and it has the same string of 64 zero’s for the COutPoint (coinbase tx) at Block -1 for ETC 0 and ETH 0, the correct ledger will reflect all three in a 100% accurate, two-state, quantum ledger. This was discussed in the last article but is further seen above in the “output_index”: -1. The index of the coinbase tx has the hex-prefix and 8 “f’s”. In C++ code (Bitcoin and ETC/ETH use this) “0xFFFFFFFF” = -1. See explanation here. That parent hash of 64 zero’s for ETC Block 0 and ETH Block 0 = 0x. The coinbase tx (a hash and an index) comes from the parent hash:
This is seen only from Devcoin’s Satoshi client, which according to Libcoin we know as the ver=1 class of merge mined coins that use the Satoshi client (qt-wallet). I found this by change looking at the debug log when logging into my Devcoin wallet for the first time. I suggest you do this as well and I wrote about it extensively in my last article along with Libcoin’s definition of a “Coin”… Notice Blockcypher’s API is accurate because it reads “v1” (version 1) and reflects that a coinbase exists only in merge mined, v1 coins:
https://api.blockcypher.com/v1/btc/main/addrs/1Kz5QaUPDtKrj5SqW5tFkn7WZh8LmQaQi4
Syscoin 3.0 is matching the current output of I0Coin and Devcoin at 12.5 per raw block data. Instead of sending out transactions to Bitcoin Core’s ledger (BTC) through a 1-prefix pubkey address, the S-prefix is much like I0Coin’s J-prefix. A copy of the transaction is minted on the SYS 3.0 blockchain just like I0Coin at the moment. The redeem script is in the Hash_160 op-code for Syscoin 3.0 as it is for I0Coin. Using nulldata, the transaction can be merged with Bitcoin Core using OP_Return, just like I0Coin. Syscoin 2.1 is not active at the moment, with its last output to a 1-prefix BTC pubkey address taking place on June 5, 2018. However, that output matched what Devcoin is currently doing, just not a 12.5 coins per vout. What you have at the current moment are three coins that will merge into one ledger, all using Bitcoin’s for a total of 37.5 merge mined Bitcoins. Ixcoin is also using redeem script in Hash_160 but at outputs lower than 1 BTC, albeit many. OP_Return and null data will bring IXCoin’s ledger and the Bitcoin’s at it’s X-Prefixed address together with anything on Bitcoin Core’s ledger. The reason being all of these coins possess this COutPoint and a matching index:
“hex”: “01000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ffffffff…”
The hex is available at the top of the I0Coin, Ixcoin, Syscoin 3.0 and 2.1 raw block data. It is not on Devcoin as Devcoin’s may change once it works its way to completeion between the empty string of 64 zero’s and “block -1” — it is currently running this process seen below in raw code (from Satoshi DVC QT client debug log):
Committing 1 changed transactions to coin database…
SetBestChain: new best=9067d431c46310fd4ad56f5a1e2ee5a3336e5d2d230f34b762d6a49aaaa2bbe1 height=336565 log2_work=85.01944 tx=546443 date=2018–07–29 08:17:13 progress=0.048471
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
getblocks -1 to 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 limit 500
Syscoin 3.0 doesn’t acknowledge merge mining this string because perhaps it is done with that process or it is just there to forward its coins received via OP_Return back to I0Coin and Ixcoin (which have a matching hex). Only I0Coin, Syscoin, and Devcoin acknowledge the merge mined string of 64 zero’s (SHA-256) in its chainmerklebranch. Only Devcoin is aware of it’s AuxPow status being merge mined. Devcoin likely came out of the COutPoint tx first and that was at block -1 from ETC and BTC Block 0 (backwards). Devcoin is working together with IXCoin and I0Coin toward ETC, while having also worked forward with Syscoin 2.1 towards Bitcoin Core and with Syscoin 3.0 to match up evenly with what Ixcoin and I0Coin have done in the past. I0Coin used to do a long list of transactions much like IXcoin is doing now, without telling anyone of increased block size. At the same time IXcoin used to function like I0Coin does now. Syscoin 3.0 operates like both I0Coin and Devcoin at the moment, but in the past operated much like Devcoin and Ixcoin with pubkey outputs to BTC, but with low tx amounts (sub 1.0 BTC). If you’re confused just look for yourself. It checks out!
The string “0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000” is also included in the list of merge mined coins for Syscoin 2.1, I0Coin, and Devcoin. At the current moment none of these coins have a genesis block in their block explorer because the API knows there is another one out there. Ixcoin does not have a timestamp on its genesis block, much like Bitcoin Core does not have a genesis block on a 99.99% accurate block explorer at Blockcypher. Ixcoin will be where these coins make a new genesis block, for the Bitcoin mainnet.
What also helps is that Blockcypher already knows the presence of IXcoin adding segwit (segregated witness) to merge mining for the first time:
“witness”: [
“5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d”
This is what allows recognition of merge mined transactions on a 99.99% accurate block explorer. This is enough for Blockcypher to recognize ETC Block -1 and BTC (Bitcoin Core) Block 0. The truth is, merge mined version 1 coins ran out from a genesis block they will return to again, but at a future date. In ETC and ETH a genesis block 0 exists in both 1969 (UTC) and 2015 (UTC+). In BTC one existed on January 3, 2009 but it has moved to Block 1. I expect Ethereum and Ethereum Classic to merge into a connected platform called Ethereum Core where both block 0’s will become block 1’s just as Bitcoin’s has. However, one genesis block may exist at ETC block 0 in 1969 just as one will exist in Bitcoin in 2018. That new genesis block will happen through IXCoin as it connects the two chains on both sides of a transaction. That could be why IXCoin has started putting out “nulldata” transactions and OP_Return codes in its first and last transaction on each block:
IXCoin Block 463,582 (August 17, 2018)"vout": [
{
"value": 0,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN aa21a9ed052d062f16f8ef70f6f3b0fe60ad12071834cc63eb84b8fb4caf02f438d08b3b",
"hex": "6a24aa21a9ed052d062f16f8ef70f6f3b0fe60ad12071834cc63eb84b8fb4caf02f438d08b3b",
"type": "nulldata" }***note- skip ahead 192 spots to the final tx on the block*** {
"value": 0,
"n": 192,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN 429a4cf14015f87cad9ba3d65de0ac050906b4d193803af539e6264696ca5ff50100000042850100",
"hex": "6a28429a4cf14015f87cad9ba3d65de0ac050906b4d193803af539e6264696ca5ff50100000042850100",
"type": "nulldata"
}
This is on Blockchain.com’s ledger as well, via a 0 “BTC” output with the red letters “Unable to decode output address — (Unspent)”
The below information on Blockcypher matches up with the transaction data for the same tx linked in above at Blockchain.com — taking place on 2018–08–09T15:21:52.879Z. However, Blockcypher shows these “Unable to decode output address- (Unspent), 0 BTC” transactions as exactly what IXCoin is sending out at the moment. 1 “null-data” 0 coin transaction at the top. The 99.99% accurate Blockcypher does not need to reflect the bottom null-data tx from Blockchain.com and IXCoin because both I0Coin and Syscoin do that already. To make sense in full I describe below:
A full node with meta data and cloud usage can see and decode the truth through merge mining of Bitcoin. Bitcoin exists on merge mined “chains” — that is fact.
Think of chainz as obsolete, but needed to make raw block data and record until Bitcoin goes mainnet with its own software and uses at least 99.99% (probably 100%) uptime API. Once chainz is gone there will only be Bitcoin and on a Bitcoin blockchain. The fact is, any of these blockchains are already Bitcoin’s very own. Merge mining is not fork mining. If you still don’t believe me, acknowledge the movement of Block 0 to BTC Block 1 on Blockcypher. If you still are not convinced watch Blockcypher’s presentation on BTC script code and specifically “null data” and state reorgs:
If that doesn’t help know that bitcoinzero.org forwards to Blockcypher’s blocks.academy which is also linked here to Blockstream and Apple (as seen on the mobile header). The “BITCOIN ZERO” fork takes place on August 31, 2018. They never call it “BITCOIN ZEROX” anywhere but in the current web address at bitcoinzerox.net. Bitcoin’s official websites are all .org (whether using izerocoin.org, devcoin.org, etc). The pattern of changing domains has taken place along with changing logos, but a name change is not a fork necessarily — especially with v1 merge mined coins (NMC, DVC, IXC, I0C, GRP). As for blocks.academy, there is plenty of proof of Blockcypher being accurate in it’s advanced block explorer. They list all of the relevant whitepapers on the website (bitcoinzero.org) — the ones I have discussed at length here as connection protocols for the mainnet.
Last, remember, ETC software IS mainnet (v 1.0.0 on Emerald Wallet). Seeing ETC on Coinbase combined with 99.99% merge minted Bitcoins means we are on the brink. If you still are not convinced, take Vitalik’s words for it:
In this case, the volatile testnet bubble is ending while the fully minted, non-inflated supply of quantum Bitcoins goes mainnet.
At the moment there are block explorers that are not exclusively for Namecoin and Groupcoin (is linked to “Gold Pieces” with a 2020 fork -> probably when gold is to be added to crypto — see my last article) show that there is no Namecoin block 0. See my point at this explorer which features no block 0 for BTC and BCH as well — https://bitinfocharts.com/de/namecoin/explorer/.
Namecoin being before all merge mined coins and Bitcoin Cash being last for all relevant “forks” would make sense. One exists for specific op_codes and to match block size upgrades/add tokenization to match ETH and ETC — even colored coins (matching all merge mined coins — see Devcoin’s “escrow” feature in my previous article). Namecoin must meet all merge mined coins where it seems to have stopped minting coins/or will mint once in the future — the coinbase tx — output index -1/ETC block -1 at parent hash for ETC/ETH 0/and previous to BTC block 1 at Blockcypher (which was BTC’s original Block 0). If you are not convinced think of the test I reported about Bitcoin Core where they were testing this new coinbase tx between block -1 and 0x-:
3 coins with coinbase roots originally through ETC 0/BTC 1 are I0C, IXC, DVC. SYS has v 1.0, 2.1, and 3.0 to compliment this. Namecoin and Groupcoin compliment eachother on the principle of 3 = 1, which = 1, which = 3. Remember Devcoin’s motto?
“From the many one, from one — the source”
“From the many, one (see E Pluribus Unum, see USDT (tokenized version of the coin DVC — both color = green), see Arpanet beginning at ETC 0 in 1969 through “MOAC” which reveals this extra input data). See that ETC, DVC, and USDT are all green colored in logo. Steganography…
….
From one, the source”…
…that works easily forwards and backwards. Over and over and built on top of a finite supply. Because one start is the other’s end point, the supply can be fixed. This can only make sense by quantum physics, mathematics, and computing. All data presented in this article checks out on those — I have written much previously how that all works. If you won’t take my word for it just read the previous article, and the one before that, and so on. It’s all HERE. Aggregated from all over the internet in 3 months for the public to see. Before merge mining is completed. I don’t think anyone’s ever done that before — I am happy with what my non-quantum mind can grasp and report here. These are hard facts.
MOAC Screenshot (hosted on same cloud as ETC and even Bitcointalk.org “cloudflare” — all relevant):
What does 0xFFFFFFFF mean in “script”? (See BIP 65)
We know C++ code means -1. The block explorers and software us C++. What about script? There’s script to command execution of escrow as well as calling this escrow (like a smart contract) back the other way. Genesis and value out returns from an end-point (second genesis) and value back in. Then it scales upward and downward simultaneously or outward/inward in a sphere. Like 3-in-1, or a quantum “bit” — a qubit:
If you believe Bitcoin is in the name of merge mined altcoins, then you believe there are 5 true minting sources for Bitcoin’s that flow through the Bitcoin Core, Ethereum Classic (Ethcore), and Ethereum ledgers. 5–3 (ledgers).
Eventually 1, two-state, quantum ledger coin exists or 1–1–1.
Quantum means that there has to be 5 matches for the 5 merge mined coins, and perhaps the last two may meet the 3 Syscoin’s in the form of many different combinations at many different times between 2011–2014 (when SYS 1.0 was introduced) and the present. It would take a quantum computer to figure out. I present to you the following steganographic table, the 5 color — FFFFFFFF color palette:
One ledger that may inhabit all three ledgers could be Bitcore (BTX). Thinking about it makes sense, the combo of Bitcoin (the coin) and Bitcoin Core (the software wallet for transactions). Using steganography we see Bitcore is pink:
Bitcore may not transact Bitcoins at the moment, but the combo of software and coin could certainly take place in the future. It is important to mention that Litecoin is also on “v2” and instead of minting coins appears to be suited up for joining with Bitcore at “tx-1”. You can see where Bitcore had this proven in it’s github for BTX:
Bitcore credits 2009–2017 Bitcoin Core Developers, which is significant in that it acknowledges all it is at the moment is a software to run future Bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin is currency, and Bitcoin Core is an experimental wallet and tx-processing software.
Bitcore’s roadmap includes ATM’s and has the plan to spread adoption to the masses. They have a lot of work to do, but who can say if their status bars are up to date? Plenty of their objectives for 2018 are already accomplished. At the moment it appears that Bitcore (BTX) is looking to add in BitcoinJ (javascript) which could make it easier for the recognition and processing of ETC and ETH “SHA3 uncles” which have a javascript conversion for the empty string (parent hash, BTC Block 0–64 zeros). This would allow cross-compatibility with ETC and ETH/tokens.
As for the other wallet software, they have a mainnet launched with the ETC Emerald Wallet v 1.0.0. ETC offers a mainnet solution to work with BTX forwards and backwards, especially after BitcoinJ is added to BTX. C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet forward, whereas X is the inverse (backward from Z). The letters matter. Ethereum Classic has had community discussions about rebranding to “Ethcore” which would then shine a little light on the concept of “Bitcore” going forward. These are just ledgers at the moment. The only true coin that exists in this whole research analysis is “Bitcoin” through merge mining. Software is just software. I have not even started to discuss tokens, but that is where both Devcoin and Bitcoin Cash end up coming in. Devcoin being hardcoded into the “alternate blockchain” (think Ether) and Bitcoin Cash picking up tokenization, smart contracts, and other features to compliment ETH and ETC’s ledger capabilities as well as larger blocks (to compliment IXCoin) and potentially colored coins (to match I0Coin’s capabilities).
It is important to note BTX has changed all previous BTC pubkey address formats recently:
Interesting enough, S-prefix pubkey addresses being used in BTX is good news for SYS 3.0. The s-prefix in SYS 3.0 changed from a 1-prefix pubkey address in SYS 2.1. The S-prefix will allow SYS 3.0 to remain on its current blockchain and merge with Bitcoin on the BTX wallet by making its pubkey addresses valid. With SYS 3.0 producing around 12.5 coins per block now, this can be seen as double if the hash_160 from SYS 3.0 also yields coins from OP_Return (by redeem script). That would make the current Bitcoin output between three coins 50 coins, matching the start of Bitcoin’s block rewards. 3 coins to make 21 million from start to finish and from finish to star for 42 Million split between a mainnet Bitcoin client (Bitcore) and an already mainnet Ethereum Classic (possibly Ethcore). The other address incorporated into Bitcore matches that of BCH (bc1) and the legacy 1-prefix pubkey address will get a 2-prefix for the “version 2” Bitcore software.
Litecoin seems to also be incorporated into Bitcore from its first transaction and it would not be shocking to see that address change to a “2-prefix” as well from its coinbase tx and out. At the moment, Litecoin just spreads coins around that are not its own. The “84” million total could mean that Litecoin is a quantum match with Bitcore where there are 21 million bitcoins in the four other ledgers listed on Coinbase — ETC, ETH, BCH, and BTC. If you throw LTC in, Coinbase has 5 ledgers with merge mined Bitcoins running through them in the current state. Throw them all potentially into Bitcore and you may just have one master wallet that accounts for all five ledgers listed and all of their coins. That would make a total of 10 ledgers between the 5 current Coinbase offerings and 1 that can do all 5 in one, hence BTX — “X” is 10. Quantum match. This last paragraph is just my current hypothesis. I will let it play out since I know the right coins. I could care less about mainnet wallets at this point. I respect the heck out of the developers working on them, but these ledgers “IOU’s” for actual coins like SYS, I0C, IXC, and DVC are far overpriced in comparison to actual sources of “Bitcoins”… remember:
If it didn’t come out of the coinbase transaction (COutPoint), then its not -yet- an actual coin.
Currently actual COINS are far more valuable of an investment than these ledgers with coins on them that they did not yet produce. Once merge mining takes course and completes itself, they will be one in the same.
I still think the Ethereum “Core” platform is needed for dApp development while Bitcoin’s platform is important for pure currency transactions and escrow.
Is Bitcore Potentially Halfway “Mainnet” using an upgraded bitcoind?
Bitcore also seems to be matching the Devcoin situation currently playing out where its software is half testnet (BTX v0.15.1) and potentially half mainnet (bitcore v4.1.0). There is no proof that this bitcoind adaptation is the same bitcore as BTX at bitcore.cc. The bitcore.io website offers this full node, advanced API client as “bitcore” v4.1.0. It is possible that this is a countermeasure and quantum balance to Devcoin 1.0.16 which is what the current title of the DVC qt-wallet is. Even though DVC updates its download folder as a mainnet v1.0.16 software, inside the client it still says it is in 0.8.5-beta. It could be half of both in some respects. I won’t dig too deep into this, but checkout the bitcore v4.1.0 specs:
The most interesting part of this software is it is currently running a full node on the BTC testnet blockchain:
Bitcore v4.0.1 proposes to fix UTXO issues (by acknowledging merge mined sources of Bitcoins). The other problems a full node can solve is finding pruned-blockchain blocks (I0C, SYS) and relaying “null-data” transactions that are important for merge mining that light nodes pass up. The full node is only run on half of the current Bitcoin software (bitcoind upgrade) and not the QT-wallet (Bitcoin Core). All other clients are testnet (0.-prefixed) and are not mainnet software.
Currently some mobile mainnet wallets exist on the newly launched “Coinbase Wallet” (formerly Toshi Wallet), Coinomi, etc. The most necessary things to make merge mined Bitcoins valuable through their source are mainnet wallets with full nodes, accurate API’s with 99.99% uptime (100% when mainnet) from block explorers like Blockcypher (still in beta), and Coinbase integrating all available mainnet technology on its platform to pump actual Bitcoin’s into the ledgers in a public and honest fashion. Until 2018, the secret about merge mining was up to you to find out just as I have to secure the blockchain from people who sought to buy up all the Bitcoin’s because they had the fiat to do it. The fairness of distribution through unheralded coins like IXC, I0C, DVC and ledgers that will go mainnet like BTX have made fair distribution both worldwide and possible. Rich people throw money at ledgers and end up with less coins in the long run. They will get credited 1:1 most likely, but getting credited 1:1 at $0.04 USD is better than any ledger you can currently buy on Coinbase ranging from $14 to $6,400 as I write on August 17, 2018. Those numbers are headed much, much higher when merge mining kicks in.
Debug Log: DevCoin (Satoshi client) QT: Close to Connecting 0 to -1
If you ever open up DVC’s latest QT you can see Devcoin is doing its best to work connecting BTC’s new Block 0 (genesis) to ETC/ETH -1. First remember the most advanced, full node, cloud capable, metadata utilizing block explorer moved BTC’s original Block 0 (still incorrectly shown on Blockchain.com) to Block 1. I am going to talk about Blockcypher until everyone realizes it. Block 0 moved to Block 1:
This means all valid ETC and ETH SHA-3 Uncles are also BTC’s Block 0. There are going to be a lot of coins in the new genesis block. That is also where the new coinbase will begin. With the reconnection of I0C, IXC, SYS, DVC, and possibly NMC (which seems to be a protocol with value solely at the coinbase ). NMC I have not fully decided on yet as it is not minting in raw block data and does not have a genesis block in some explorers as mentioned earlier. It could join half of SYS 2.1 and SYS 3.0 to make the fifth coin in the coinbase with Groupcoin joining by 2020 as “Gold Pieces” (GP). That would make a six coin, coinbase in a quantum ledger of 3 (ETC, ETH, BTC) or 6 (ETC, ETH, BTC, LTC, BCH, BTX) ledgers by 2020. Either way, when Bitcoins end up in version “2” it appears that Bitcore will be in control of Bitcoins via its qt-wallet with javascript capabilities and bitcore (bitcoind) build.
What about DVC though? It is working the first connect of merge mining to the coinbase through a CTxIn (CTransaction Input). The first time out there was no Bitcoin to input. What goes forth must come back in quantum math and physics. You can see the transactions its correcting and connecting between Block 0 (BTC’s new genesis block via IXC, I0C, DVC, SYS, NMC) and Block -1 — which is an output_index for all transactions that go forward to BTC’s ledger from IXC, I0C, DVC, SYS 2.1, SYS 3.0 and probably others that have at one time passed v1 coins to Bitcoin Core in smaller quantities. Block -1 comes before ETC and ETH Block 0’s as well. It is the coinbase for all ledgers on “Coinbase” so you have to throw in LTC and BCH as well. This is what it looks like on Devcoin’s Satoshi Client debug log in action:
I discussed the github repositories and their titling significance as to the current state of important merge mined coins or important ledger software. For example, Bitcoin is “bitcoin/bitcoin” because it began as a coin in 2009 and will finish as one in due time through merge mining. Devcoin began as “wwa1961/devcoin” as an I0Coin ‘fork/update’ but failed to do any more than split half of I0Coin’s output by taking its pubkey address output (1-prefix). I explained what WWA and 1961 meant and how I found a packet from the US Department of Defense explaining how the original devcoin output is credited as -1 to ETC 0 (which is 1969–12–31 18:00 -600 UTC). This -1 came sometime in 1961 as seen here where you can find that “WWA” was an early program op_code for ‘rewrite alphanumeric’. Can you look again at the picture above this paragraph and see that DVC is rewriting history by changing the order of transactions? It does this every day.
It’s clear to me that steganography chose green for Devcoin because it has been funded originally by the technology developed for the US Military and was funded by US taxpayer money. The current DVC github has clues as well, as it is simply the reverse “devcoin/core”. Devcoin works toward core already by sending an output to a BTC pubkey address. Devcoin is working forward twice to BTC Block 0. I0Coin and IXCoin are responsible for working DVC backward from Bitcoin Core and to merge with their upgraded and more capable blockchains as well. It isn’t all about the coins, the dev teams for these “altcoins” are most important for the mainnet’s success. Do not worry about dates, it would look something like this:
Without going deep into tokens this article like I did in my last, I have a strong suspicion the “Omni Layer” USDT ‘Tether’ token is actually backed in US Dollars through Devcoin — an alternate Bitcoin blockchain — known as Ethereum. The “Omni Layer” is simply the software recognizing that USDT is a token that can exist on Bitcoin’s escrow and Ethereum through Devcoin without admitting it on current block explorers. Omni Layer would have to be mainnet to recognize that. Omni Wallet is mostly still in testnet with the exception of the “unmaintained” Omni ClientJS (javascript). That client could use java to simultaneously allow USDT generation on both Bitcoin/Ethereum chains using BitcoinJ and knowing Devcoin came from the coinbase (giving the token a pegged value) as well as knowing that Devcoin is the Ethcore, alternate blockchain. The reason we may be seeing USDT vanish is because the coinbase has to acknowledge that the US Dollar runs through Devcoin. At this point Ethcore might take over the hardcoded alternate blockchain with Devcoin becoming straight Bitcoins, as it has functioned as a coin for pegged value for USDT in the testnet and in the mainnet will be recognized as a US Dollar funded Bitcoin. Amazing, yes. The possibilities for the mainnet are as endless as the math you can do to make sense of it all.
What is Devcoin Really Worth? A lot (Ether, BTC, USDT, more)
I talked a little about Devcoin and how it’s 5,000 mBTC output for “global receivers” would be equal to the ETC and ETH Block 0 gas costs. The remaining 90% (45 BTC) will be used to recognize Devcoin’s true value. Devcoin disperses this reward through its “global receiver” coded into its software:
The generation share is 90% of the block, which is 90% * 50,000 devcoins = 45,000 devcoins. It is disbursed to the devcoin addresses in the receiver file, in round robin order. In each generation round, for a given block height, the index of the line of addresses is the block height above the start of the round, modulo the number of addresses. The code snippet for that follows below.
markm is a knowledgeable bitcointalk.org member that has hundreds of pages of insight (likely from the inside of development) for the public to interpret about merge mined coins. When it comes to Devcoin, markm echos the fact that the original measure was meant to be at 0.0001 and not 0.00000001 (1 satoshi). The DVC price is probably around 1000 sat in its current state which is pretty equal to IXC, I0C, and SYS counterparts. It is very close in value at 1000 sats to its 2 merge-mined genesis block, v1, coins IXC & I0C. markm explains better than I can:
In the current state, Devcoin is worth 1/1000 of 1 BTC (or .001) and the fee is exactly 1 DVC per TX (which is 1000x .001 BTC). In M DVC, the measure would be 1 DVC = 1 BTC. Devcoin is currently at 1 satoshi due to a mathematical (calculation) error where it is devalued 100,000x instead of 1,000x in its linear, current DVC to BTC ratio. Why is that? Devcoin is not recognized as coming out of the Coinbase on 1/2 of its software (devcoind doens’t have the coinbase tx). Then DVC has it’s entire 12.5 block reward “vout” on the BTC blockchain — which is also not connected to the genesis block/coinbase as “Bitcoin Core” ($0). If Devcoin was recognized as output from the coinbase to BTC’s new genesis block, the first one out, and credited forth to both ETC and ETH as the “parent block” to genesis it would pick up immense value. It is also having its value stolen through USDT which is sucking out $2.4 Billion is US Dollars from Devcoin to USDT tokens. Devcoin is supposed to be “token money” per devtome’s wiki page:
There are three common forms of money.
The original is extractive money. Gold and silver and the most common, but other kinds of resources have been used like copper, salt, wheat, etc..
Debt money is the most common today, this includes all major currencies like the USD, Euro, etc..
Token currency is issued by private issuers and communities and has been used centuries. It is used more often in depressions when there is a lack of debt money. Token currencies include the Colonial Scrip, Time Bank,Christiania Coin, Ithaca Hours, and Worgl Schillings.
Extractive money has the advantage of having a minimum value. It has the disadvantage of taking an enormous amount of resources to create.
Debt money has the advantage of needing only a tiny amount of resources to create. It has the disadvantage that there is no minimum value. It has the additional disadvantage that the proceeds go to bankers who do no useful work, furthermore the bankers then use their ill gotten power to enslave everyone else and attack competing currencies.
Token money has the advantage of needing only a tiny amount of resources to create. It has the disadvantage that there is no minimum value.
Bitcoin is extractive money, devcoin is a community token currency.
Given that tokens have all the advantages of debt money and fewer disadvantages, why is debt money used at all? It is only because the debt money bankers attack competing currencies throughout history.
So Devcoin even as token money should have more value than paper money (debt money). That would make the market cap over $2.4 Billion on USDT alone. At the same time DVC is hard-coded into it’s own alternate Bitcoin blockchain. That’s the defintion of Ether, as well as Ethereum Classic. Devcoin is Ethcore and derives its value from the coinbase and US Dollars. Since it gets zero recognition in providing Ether, ETC, and USDT value it loses even more than a miscalculation in its “satoshi” price. For these reasons I think one stands to make the largest gains off of Devcoin as it is only 1 satoshi. The quantum recognition of DVC and its large role in minting coins/ether over the years will be rewarded in numbers I cannot even imagine. Since Devcoin is part BTC and part token money, it also has the partial value of “extractive money” (gold, silver, etc) giving it a minimum value once recognized. It will be well over 1 satoshi.
Duality mentioned something called “Pre-Bitcoin” which had built in features such as escrow (Devcoin offers this), smart contracts (I0Coin and IXCoin can execute this), and even a decentralized marketplace (SYS offers this). So when people say that something such as “Duality” is a scam you say the same thing once you come to these factual conclusions in code, math, etc. — can you offer me a factual rebuttal to what is written in open sourced code that is backed up by mountains of facts and mathematical, physical, and computationally sounds operations? I would work backwards to Duality and say the further I research the facts of merge mined Bitcoins, the closer I get to seeing the whole vision from start to finish.
Devcoin and Syscoin have some overlapping features as well. For awhile Devcoin had a market it could be spent in for consumer goods early on. Syscoin is currently in process of launching an advanced mainnet version of that marketplace. They even share their most important developer to date. That would be “sidhujag” who has the same handle on bitcointalk as Github. Sidhujag did the under the radar renaming of I0Coin to Devcoin and took the pubkey 1-prefixed legacy BTC address with Devcoin. Devcoin is outputting half of the auxpow reward out to BTC — but it is actually a block reward and not auxpow because DVC separated from the coinbase tx it came out from. Devcoin became the beginnings of Ethereum and the hard-coded alternate blockchain for dApps and tokenization — where it loses more money. Because it cannot call back its BTC transactions they are stuck there until it is recognized that I0C and IXC share the same coinbase as DVC. Merge mining must merge. To see the same developer updating SYS it is no surprise that it has acted much like DVC in version 2.1 and a little bit of both I0C/early IXC and DVC in version 3.0. Devcoin is still the superior buy at a ridiculously undervalued price of 1 satoshi. Meanwhile SYS is more expensive at $0.10 than all 3 of IXC, I0C, and DVC combined. It may only be by a penny, but the value one stands to gain with any of the other 3 far exceeds SYS.
Recently, SYS had a “glitch” on July 4. Just one day after I0C had a nice pump to $0.65 (which was automatic, mathematical, and not manipulation) — one SYS was sold for the price of 96 BTC ($623,000). What may have happened there is called exposure to the coinbase. It could have been a “test pump” and reminds me of the August 3, 2018 “glitch” on Coinmarketcap the day they privately launched their “v1” API (think Blockcypher). The glitch was that BTC (Bitcoin Core) inflated to $73,000 with the rest of the market taking off due to a “calculation error” with USDT.
You know what is severly miscalculated? The US Dollar Coin USDT is taking from without anyone knowing it — Devcoin “E Pluribus Unum” (Devcoin devs put this in the global receivers code on github):
These are not glitches or miscalculations as much as they are a warning bell ringing for people to wake up. When the mainnet launches and merge mined coins are fully minted, there are never going to be crypto gains so fast, so furious, and so life changing ever again. Crypto will scale, but try going from a fraction (1/10,000 of a penny) to potentially six-figures (see Devcoin). Is it insane? Yes. But you are talking about the 1st World Currency and making the velocity of money instant without fees, anywhere in the world. Safe, secure, I rest my case.
What Other Coins Are Merge Mining With I0C, IXC, DVC, and SYS?
Two rules about merge mining with these coins -
- Look for high hash rates and high difficulty before raw block data to narrow down selections. Merge mining with these coins is merge mining Bitcoin. The coins that standout might not be merge mining every block or even every other block because they have multiple algorithms, however I have found both SHA256 and Scrypt algos merge mining with Bitcoin. Scrypt made possible to set up Litecoin? Maybe. Something that had to be noted.
- Look for the “hex” at the top of the raw block data to see if the coinbase hash and index are present. If they are AuxPow coins you do not get that so you have to look at the “chainmerklebranch” for “0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000” (the empty string) and also make sure that the “coinbase index” is 0. If the AuxPow has that you are likely getting a coin that will merge into Bitcoin’s mainnet chain. This is apparent in Unobtanian (UNO) — which appears to partially be in quantum measurements (using mBTC) but is also worth $140 in its current incomplete state. That isn’t bad, but it is also a sign of more wealth to come for the true source of Bitcoin’s at the coinbase in I0C, IXC, DVC, and SYS. At this moment I believe that I0C/IXC stand to make the most profit after DVC. DVC is ridiculously low priced and robbed from every angle…
Other coins besides UNO that are merge mining at least partially include XMY and ARG. For now that’s all I have found or care to find. The older the better. SYS stands out because its lineage is through DVC and I0C and it has real world use. Follow that hash rate as well. Eventually it will pay out.
DVC: Dual Platform, Bitcoin and Ethereum Apps/Escrow + USDT
Speaking of robbery we need to talk about why USDT has been able to tokenize DVC and use OMNI built on “Bitcoin” as a way to steal the USD value that should rightfully be invested into DVC. DVC is an alternate blockchain and because it is hard-coded it is more like Ether/Ethereum Classic. It also has the ability to hold coins in escrow so there is a smart contract quality to it. The thing about Devcoin is that BTC is connect to BCH, which offer tokens and smart contracts of its own. BCH is a reverse mechanism by merge mining with RSK (Rootstock) which can work backward from ETH smart contracts and bring tokenized value back to DVC that was built upon Ether — essentially making tokens pegged to stolen DVC value. USDT is built on OMNI though and BCH intends on delivering in that regard through “Wormhole” protocol which is forked off of OMNI layer. The Wormhole protocol can utilize OP_Return codes and essentially call back token value in a smart contract back to the Bitcoin based alternate chain it came from.
On Wormhole Cash(WHC)
“After tremendous research effort, we have paid attention to the Omni Layer protocol, a scheme to realize token issuance through the OP_Return opcode — It is the technical basis for daily distribution and circulation of USDT (Tether),” explains the report.”
It is important to think about how important this is for DVC as it does not use OP_Return with a standardized “null-data” but rather notes “non-standard”. If I had to guess I would say the issuance of USDT from DVC is currently a one way street to USDT, straight from the money that supports DVC in USD. However, BCH also plans on reversing this protocol through a fork and could essentially issue the USDT value from WHC (D being the 4th letter forward “DVC” and W being the 4th letter back from Z “WHC”). Hypothetically, WHC could siphon USDT out from its OMNI Layer fork and send it right to DVC. That could be the whole reason for the “Bitcoin Cash” classification. Bitcoin Cash could very well just send everything right back to the source of BTC at the genesis block actually re-gifting lost USDT value to DVC. Do I think WHC has any other purpose than to deliver value back to DVC? Absolutely not. This is just another step towards long overdue value that has been taken out of Devcoin in everyway. It’s the best coin no one knows about.
The reporter’s account also explains that Wormhole will utilize Bitcoind nodes and consensus will not need to be changed. Wormhole Cash (WHC) will use a two-layer security approach and the first layer will be BCH transaction security. The second layer run on Bitcoind will consist of nodes that won’t process data that doesn’t meet the Wormhole protocol requirements.
Devcoin uses “devcoind” which is basically a fully functioning “bitcoind” — the QT-client allows the pubkey address transactions to anything with a 1-prefix. Using bitcoind will allow something to be sent to DVC over the Bitcoin network using script such as “OP_Return” and by fueling WHC purchases by proof-of-burn. The cap of BCH will shrink through burning and allow WHC to fuel DVC, which should pretty much hijack USDT as well as anything built on ERC-20 on top of DVC.
It also supports native tokens called Wormhole Cash (WCH). Those tokens are the fuel for smart contracts on the BCH blockchain and are hence required for actions like creating new tokens or listing an ICO. WCH is generated through a proof-of-burn mechanism — to get 100 WCH, a user is required to send one BCH to the burn address. As of press time, more than 2,300 BCH (worth more than $1,200,000) have been burned this way. WCH has already been recognized by CoinEx, who listed the tokens on its platform on Aug. 1.
Remember Omni Layer has a vulnerability in its Javascript because it was marked “Unmaintained”? Well apparently Wormhole uses Javascript in operating itself in addition to bitcoind (which Omni Layer purposely doesn’t maintain):
As per the developers of the Wormhole protocol, it uses the fully featured Javascript codebase & Proof of Burn process to issue WHC tokens.
Now only an idiot would think this wasn’t deliberately set up. The fact that this so perfectly uses all op_codes, clients, and even burns BCH to send USDT back to DVC makes oh so much sense. In fact, why not just use the empty-string as your tx-id so that a new genesis block that I’ve been talking about at the empty string (ETC/ETH -1, BTC 0) is pumped into the stratosphere by USDT, BCH, everything WHC interacts with. Maybe even ERC-20's? I am not kidding:
It appears even Blockchain.com is making a copy of this tx-id for future use… which is incredible. Never seen anything like this — its so obvious.
Keep on working DVC/WHC. It’s hard to say I didn’t see this coming, but it looks so beautiful to my eyes.
Final note, the composition of the Coinbase Index Fund after adding ETC:
That’s really because not much ETC exists. Technically, it’s just another Bitcoin Core. The coins, well you know — What is a coin? Liquidity isn’t going to last long for ETC without bumming some merge mined coins or epic money laundering/shifting. I don’t mind, but the game is getting boring fast. Time to see fireworks perhaps? Soon.
