SEC Accelerates and Expands Reporting of Significant Events on Form 8-K
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers |
Last updated April 20, 2017
https://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/sec-accelerates-and-expands-reporting-of-significant-events-on.html

The letter is material and required an 8-k to be lodged by Coinbase.

You should NOTE this. That Coinbase is technically in default from withholding the SEC mandated 8-k form

It comes with possible felony charges. And, the CEO could be banned from operating an exchange or even a public company by not telling the market of this material event.

Funny how much h of this stuff I know.

Look up Rule 144, SEC.

Turn out, they (main pre-Ipo holders and officers) are legally bared and in criminal breach if they sell a single share or even take I lien on then for failing to disclose.

CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636576941274100?thread_ts=1636576941.274100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/3362

"Ira Kleiman NO va a recibir los cien millones de dólares NUNCA"
Andres Rivero
https://youtu.be/RD7N-6PUldg

CSW
Dec 23, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1640272998430900?thread_ts=1640272998.430900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/3530

Question from SS:
Has Craig publically stated why he doesn't want to publically sign a message with a key from block 9 or with some other known Satoshi key?

I am talking about a statement in the last couple of years, not the 2016 Sartre statement.

Answer from CSW:
It is not a solution aND FUCK OFF with this

Honestly - IT IS EVERYTHING BITCOIN IS NOT@!!!!

If this is what you want - honestly - FUCK OFF!

I am tired of this crap.

You do not prove crap at all this way and I am more than sick of complete wankers stating this as they are too lazy to do real work!

No.
I say you cannot sign in reverse.

You cannot use an unregistered key to sign, buy definition

I said, proof has nothing to do with keys, never will, and if you think that, you need a lot of study as you are completely deluded

I said, bitcoin will move because of court orders.

It will NOT move by keys, ever.

It will be moved as KEYS ARE FUCKING NOT REQUIRED!

Please listen and please think!

Code is not law, keys are not identical. Nor will the ever be

There will never be any proof by keys as no fucking duck thing exists.

Keys do not, cannot, will fucking not ever in any way prove identity and stop thinking the crap a bunch of drug addicted shit for brain fools want to believe.

CSW
Dec 28, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1640615325107400?thread_ts=1640615325.107400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/3543

To some, the current developer issues in bitcoin are about overturning all the changes around Grokster and Limewire.

There is a concept in law called secondary liability. Another name is vicarious liability. I have covered this concept many times, and in fact, it is a part of my LLM thesis that was released before the launch of bitcoin. So you see, stating that you are peer-to-peer does not remove liability. I have mentioned that I used to work for groups associated with the software and media copyright industries. This includes RIAA and others. I also mentioned that I did work for MGM. I’m surprised that people haven’t put some of these things together properly, and if they did, they would come to understand what I see as the core of bitcoin in this.

In 2005, Grokster was sued by MGM, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in the USA. MGM won, and Grokster lost with the developers being considered fiduciaries. The Supreme Court held that groups and offenders, which could be loosely defined as it is with bitcoin core who develop and actively promote technology, can be held liable for an infringement that the user commits.

In addition, I understand the competition law in the United Kingdom very well. This was incorporated into my studies.

In addition, I understand the competition law in the United Kingdom very well. This was incorporated into my studies.
The action in the Federal Court to shut down Limewire applies to other peer-to-peer networks and systems as well. So if people believe that BTC is outside the law, they should remember the entire Limewire system being closed. If you don’t believe that peer-to-peer networks are outside of the reach of courts, you should look at Grokster. From that case, it was noted that if you actively recruit people who seek to infringe and bypass the law, you don’t have clean hands, and your system can be shut down. At present, the promotion of my database without any rights and the incorporation of some of my intellectual property into that system is a breach that is being promoted.

If you investigate this, you will find that it is a case of where a copyright owner, myself and urge the court to find the technology vendor, BTC core, liable for distributing a multiuse technology capable and purposely activated to infringe the database rights which are based on copyright in the US and special rules in the UK.

Creating a completely new system is a valid response, but you start from scratch. I have no issue with someone doing this unless they integrate my technology, in which case, the same issues from above apply. You should have no problems if you have a completely new database and start with no existing holders and don’t pre-mine (this is a tax issue and something separate as a pre-mine is a taxable event) unless you use any of the intellectual property that I have developed. So when people say that they will copy BSV, they seem to forget that you can’t. When people set up new systems or integrate some of the existing patented material that I have, they seem to neglect this form of infringement.

CSW
Jan 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1641367479357000?thread_ts=1641367479.357000&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/3615

CSW
Feb 13, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1644775707601989?thread_ts=1644775707.601989&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/3991

What I will state very simply and make sure that people understand is that bitcoin is a legal contract system. There is a unilateral contract that pays miners. Those miners or nodes are paid money to conduct a service. If they don’t do the service, if they attempt to change the protocol or operate outside of the legal boundaries or think that they can do things that are not within the protocol, they are liable for any damages in contract and tort.

Double spend protection is not technical. Like most aspects of Bitcoin, it is a technical constraint linked to an economic condition. In this, if a node, any node does not relay a single transaction and this ends in a double spend, that node is 100% liable for the direct loss and ALL costs. Without execption.

If a 100 millin USD transaction is made with ZERO fees and your node does not relay it, and ANY node connected to you fails to get this and sees a double spend, your node is liable for the loss. The recipient of the double spend and come to you and you will need to pay.

That is how relay fees work

If you have one, you have a HUGE liability

UNLIMITED

Liability

to save SMALL amounts of money

Basically, the entire concept of a relay fee is a stupid idea

And, any miner not forwarding EVERY TX is a dumb fuck who wants to be put out of business.

You do not need to mine a zero fee tx... YOU DO NEED TO FORWARD it as a miner

Not mining and puttin git in a block is separate to not forwarding

Nodes Relay

They are Paid for this - they have a subsidy

CSW
Feb 23, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1645622968111309?thread_ts=1645622968.111309&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/4060

"The software was developed with the aim to allow miners to freeze coins which are determined by valid legal process to be lost or stolen, such that they may be returned to their rightful owner."

https://bitcoinassociation.net/bitcoin-association-for-bsv-tulip-trading-ltd-settlement-statement-and-faq/

The law applied to Bitcoin when it was issued and launched in 2009. I studied UK Law for my LLM thesis which was submitted in 2007. I did this to ensure that Bitcoin was within the legal frameworks.

Electronic cash was regulated in 1996.

CSW
jun 17, 2022
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/craigswright_regulation-crypto-blockchain-activity-6943525509939003392-IFyN?

The Impact of Internet Intermediary Liability
89 Pages
Date Written: April 17, 2008
Dr Craig S Wright
nChain
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2953929

The Evolution of the Constitution
By Craig Wright
29 Jun 2022
Law & Regulation

https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/the-evolution-of-the-constitution/

NOTICE OF OWNERSHIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shVA-7Z7YvE
BitcoinSV TV - 01/Jul/2022
--
by @BSVVideosBot / @BSVBots