I shall continue answering in order.
The original questions are posted here.
And, you may see yesterday’s responses in part 1.
I answered question 17 in part 1.
18. As there is a big misunderstanding on patents and licences, could you share your thoughts on the following:
I shall answer this question in-line.
A patent is a right to exploit the property you have created. It is not — as some try and falsely use — to mislead others a mere idea. To patent, you need to have an implementation, a design.
In many cases, there are many ways to achieve the same end, and a patent is just one expression of that end.
· Can you please clarify, confirm and provide a quick overview, on what will not/cannot be patented and what actually has or going to been patented
Anything that has been released in the public cannot be patented. Next, you need to have a real name on a patent application, there is no provision for pseudonyms. So, no Satoshi Nakamoto.
More importantly, there are excluded subjects, that is, there are things you cannot patent.
· For the BCH Patent/license” (e.g. for free us of patents, the CoinGeek token contest, etc.) in case of, if there was a chain split? Which side of a fork is still allowed to use that technology?
If there is a chain split, then we will ensure that anything other than Bitcoin dies off. To remain and work and survive as a split fork, the split coin will need to move from SHA256d to a separate hashing algorithm. There is no scenario where we will allow a scenario that Jihan engineered to occur ever again.
I opposed dividing the chain in 2017, but, it turned out, others (Bitmain) wanted this to occur. They do not care for cash, they want to have more coins to allow more speculation on their exchanges and have more (now obsolete) mining rigs sold.
So, the scenario with BTC and BCH is a one-off that will not occur again.
If you alter Bitcoin, it is not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a chain of digital signatures based on ECDSA (unless this is compromised, and only will this change in the event of a compromise to ECDSA). If you change the block time, the reward, add RBF etc, then, it is not Bitcoin.
So, BTC may have the ticker, but, a ticker is an exchange mechanism. This is a cancer in Bitcoin, that people believe that it is something to use as a speculative asset; a HODL coin, a means to flip to and from other coins in a zero sum game adding no value but allowing open gambling.
That is not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is first, foremost, and always P2P electronic CASH.
Can you confirm and clarify, how nChain intends to use its patents/licences:
· Option 1 — Start charging ridiculous absurd fees and target individuals and restricting almost all access (like Martin Shkreli, as a Patent troll)
There is no such thing as a patent troll. Shkreli invested in a company that made Daraprim, a drug where the patent had expired, but that had no generics. So, the fact is, this is not a patent troll. Rather, it was an attempt at market manipulation.
So, you start with a lie and sell the idea that patents are wrong using misleading evidence…
Sorry, this is not how patents work, it is how bad reporting and those with a socialist agenda sell the concept of patents.
· Option 2 — Normal Business practice and offer paid licences to all and/or in return for royalties for Bitcoin Cash
The concept is simple, we have allowed many of the patents (and these are not only for Bitcoin) to be used freely on the BCH (that is Bitcoin) blockchain.
We will develop some solutions ourselves, others we will licence in partnership. An example of such a partnership is that with SBI where we are jointly developing a dealer-less threshold wallet system.
Here is a list of the “Global 2018 companies list blockchain patents” — As we can see and notice, how IBM and Bank of America are there and leading ahead. (Please see references below for more details)
This list is incredibly inaccurate. We (nChain) have multiple companies, and even then, a simple search will return 157 that are published. We seek PCT which locks in the priority internationally for the patents. So, in a way, the reporter has failed to understand that a PCT grant leads to a patent from the initial priority date.
We have today hit 882 in the Whitepaper list that will end as PCT filings. We use the PCT filing process. This allows us to maximise the ability to file in many places, and the process is harder than simply filing in the US.
19. From the above patent list we can see how IBM and numerous other listed companies, have already being developing and exploring blockchain technology.
- What are your thoughts and views on private permissioned blockchains and their role, such as IBM’s HyperLedger going forward?
The same as a private permissioned Internet. A joke.
IBM also tried this in the ’90s. They failed to understand the Internet, and tried to capture closed networks and systems. This led to large losses for IBM. Here again, they fail to understand the basics of Bitcoin, and have made a joke of themselves long-term.
IBM are simply a buzz word company. There is nothing of value in anything they offer and from having seen (and laughed at) the patents filed by IBM, I know that they are a dinosaur and a sick one at that.
20. Stability at protocol level. I agree and share your views that Bitcoin needs to be locked down and kept stable, as most business will never adopt Bitcoin at this stage and rate. This may be going a while back to your early accounting days, but in the early 1470s Luca Pacioli developed the “double entry system” in accounting, almost after 500 years, that exact system and fundamental principles are still being used by every single business every day and will be for the future. I also watched a talk, on how a project lead commented, on how the actual barriers and challenges for companies to implement their blockchain, proved to be more challenging than initially expected, due to different communication styles and ideas with their team and expectations vs their clients ability to understand.
Yes, Bitcoin needs to be stable. The double entry book keeping system has been used for over half a millennium, and it has changed very little in that time.
There is no blockchain, there is Bitcoin.
That is the challenge. And by Bitcoin, BCH. BTC stopped being Bitcoin a long time ago, and even now, we need work to take BCH back to what it needs to be. Unless you start to see one chain, and second layer solutions in script, then, there is nothing you will ever successfully create.
ETH is a dead end. It is a joke really. This idea that running all apps a billion times instead of one… just funny that anyone would fall for a scam like that.
A distributed oracle requires a user and two systems that do not know of the existence of the other FOR THAT CALCULATION. That is distributed. This socialist idea, one vote one person one coin each, it is a joke that stopped being funny a long time ago.
Sorry. Bitcoin is a system that works as one chain. It works as one, or not at all. There is not a single private blockchain idea that makes any sense nor which can be secure.
Given how in the personal section, I mentioned about your the ability to look at things from multiple views,
- Do you feel this picture sums up the current situation and fragmentation in the space, and barrier for business adoption and should there be more of a KISS in Crypto — an acronym frequently used business and design, which stands for “Keep it simple, stupid”?
Bitcoin was complete in version 0.1.
There were code errors and bugs, but, it was an Alpha. The people in Core call Bitcoin a failure as they never wanted what Bitcoin is. It is a capitalist system and they seek to make it socialist.
Sorry, but it is socialist-resistant. There is no way to make a socialist chain that works. There is a single protocol and competition.
To use BCH, you build in chain, that is, using script. There are no layers outside or off-chain. This is not how any blockchain could work, and the reality is, Bitcoin (as at version 0.1 for the protocol) is about the only way (excluding minor tweaks — and LTC is not a minor twerk) to make the system work correctly.
21. Can you clearly enunciate your views or philosophy on scaling that seems to be: Put it to the market, if there’s pressure the market will find a way which seem to be opposite to others philosophy on scaling which seems to be: no-child left behind.
Bitcoin (BCH) used by nearly every person on Earth daily.
The market — we are the market. There is no GOD of market. The market is JUST the people in it. It is a system, just like Bitcoin. The market is PoW. It is vote with “skin in the game”. The market is the players willing to risk the most. The market is NOT one voice one vote, it is one dollar, one pound, etc one vote. Not one dollar in the bank (PoS), but one dollar risked.
Compete or wither.
I do NOT subsidise. I came from poor, and I have lived worse than what those on welfare receive. In this world, there are opportunities. Bitcoin brings those to places such as the African continent and South America. In the west, there is NO individual who cannot work, fight, and strive to become far more than what they started as.
22. What do you think is the biggest hurdle for you in the future and for Bitcoin?
Staying healthy, spending enough time with my family.
For Bitcoin, thinking that it needs to be something else. Not accepting v0.1 was good, and thinking it needs to be altered. Bitcoin should be frozen and then, allowed to be built on.
There is more than you can imagine in BCH now, and once we allow the full script capabilities, more than any child thought of (such as the reasons for ETH) can be achieved.
23. How do see mass adoption occurring, and what is your strategy for this to occur.
· As better UI and Apps are now being developed (Handcash, Money Button etc) should there be more marketing in the community for projects like Handcash and Pop? As a lot of people are unaware of about the fact they implement double-spend alarm even when others claim it cannot be done.
We will slowly alter the narrative and make Bitcoin business-friendly. Others will use the technology we are developing, and in doing this, they will create business that adds value.
Over time, as more and more businesses start to create wealth, more will start to develop on BCH.
What we have coming will make ETH be seen as the shit show and joke it is. The process will take time, but, the rust is more against the ability to earn in mining and is not a fear of competition. There is no BCH competitor — and nothing even remotely close.
The simple answer is: cash first. This is the killer app. To deliver this, we need stability and a business-friendly system. That was all Bitcoin was lacking. In Bitcoin Cash, this will not be an issue again. We are locking the protocol to one as close as we can achieve to version 0.1 (there are some crap additions that are not easy to remove as you cannot roll back changes in bitcoin script).
24. What kind of apps/services does you feel are lacking in the space, after better wallets and UI?
Everything on the chain.
Use script, but make it simple. There are no accounting apps, payroll apps, no simple apps to enable the vast range of contracts and financial scenarios that can be created.
There is more that can be created using BCH, on chain, than exists on the Internet now.
25. Would you agree or disagree, in terms of Bitcoin’s use and the targeting/marketing differently to developing countries vs western countries.
I am not a marketer.
- In lower developing countries, there is a greater need and chance for people to use Bitcoin directly as cash, due to no access to traditional banking services and as a better safety to store their currency, without the risk of having it all stolen, or having to spend and store all their cash in property, and then the risk of losing all of that that due to environmental damage. As well as if they are required to leave their home, due to conflict or other issues, they can still easily transport their currency across borders, not having to financially start from 0. The low fees help given the significant remittances costs to and from overseas.
The goal is low-fee cash everywhere.
- Whereas in the western countries, there is a need to bring more awareness of how bitcoin is immune to inflation and cannot be debased, as this helps and favours people who have deferred gratification, rather than instant gratification. Why should the former be penalised and continue to lose their purchasing power over time, because of continuous monetary policies, which debase their local currency, leading to a rise in inflation and their overall purchasing power ability to fall and leading to a less desire to save?
In a world of low inflation and few of the younger generation who remember the inflation of the 70s, you are not going to sell Bitcoin on inflation.
Bitcoin is cash. It is simple, it works globally, and it can be used to build much more. Contracts, financial instruments, GST/VAT automation…
The killer app is cash, and now we need to have businesses see this and start to build using it.
- I also feel the need that businesses in the western who export goods and services, especially digital services, would have the most benefit, it would reduce business risks such as financial, credit defaults and fx changes of sellings goods and services across the border. As there will be a rise in demand for services, in developing countries, of those who have gotten past the issues highlighted in the first section. It will allow businesses to sell goods more easily, with reduced risks and cater for these untapped markets and have a chance increase their market share, given how most western countries markets have reached saturation point.
Yes, this requires a business to build and supply such a system.
The reason this has not occurred is that the protocol was changing — at times weekly. The project with SBI is over years. Business invests in systems that they can be assured will not change before completion. Ones they can know they will have the time to recover the investment from.
So, again, this is why we need to lock the protocol.
26. How and when do you think, ordinary people will be able to save in Bitcoin, such as a traditional savings account, whereby one can lock an amount of BCH as a term deposit to save and earn interest e.g €1,000 on your savings account for a year with a term deposit rate of 10% and after that year you get +100€ of interest, having a total of €1,100. These traditional types of regular financial products, but Bitcoin backed?
Right now, you do not earn close to 10%. In fact, you are lucky to get 1%. Some may be more (with terms), but these also require that you pay tax on the entire interest income.
Yet, the inflation rate is
The reality in “savings” accounts is that you pay for the privilege of having the bank “protect” your money. That is, they slowly eat away at what you save. If you are earning 1% interest and your marginal tax bracket is 30%, then for a £100,000 GBP saving and investment, you are earning £1,000 GBP before tax. This requires that you pay £300 GBP in tax. So, you earn a real return of only £700 GBP.
When you now add inflation to this, the value of your £100,000 GBP investment has decreased in real spending power to only £98,260.98 as the required value of what you have is now £102,500.
100,000/102,500 x 100,000 + 700 = 97,560.98 + 700 = 98,260.98
This gives you a nominal protection of £85,000 GBP savings that the bank will have covered in a loss by the government.
You are not saving by placing money into a bank. You just have the convenience. If you want to save, then you need to invest. A bank is a means to distribute capital (loans etc) but, the way that the government has interfered has created a perverse system that does not deliver value in the form it should.
BCH is a deflationary system. You gain value long-term by saving, and a BCH bank would pay you to have the use of the money you invest. This is how banking used to work. As a saver, you invested under a contract for a term. This term could be long-term (2 years or more). A demand account would be one you pay to have, as this provides you with security.
I shall again continue answering tomorrow.