under a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) after they paid their damage compensations.

15:27 UTC+1
Ontonics Blitz Fund I #32.6.4

We have started to prepare the introductory presentation for at least 1 of our Superbolts of the investment program series Blitz Fund I included in our Ontonics Blitz Fund Investment Program (IP), which will be presented exclusively and personally to majority shareholders and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of

under a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) after they paid their damage compensations.

05.December.2024

08:18, 09:28, and 15:08 UTC+1
Illegal crypto crap traded for 100 ts USD, but still worthless

United States Dollar, American Dollar (USD or U.S. Dollar)

We quote a first report: "Bitcoin began as "essentially an experimental hobbyist project," said [...] the author of a 2019 book about the history of cryptocurrency."

We quote a second report: "[...]
1. The mysterious creator of Bitcoin
Despite its enormous profile, no-one actually knows for sure who invented Bitcoin. The idea for it was posted on internet forums in 2008 by someone calling themselves Satoshi Nakamoto.
They explained how a peer-to-peer digital cash system [("a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis")] could work to enable people to send virtual coins over the internet, just as easily as sending an email.
Satoshi created a complex computer system that would process transactions and create new coins using a huge network of self-appointed volunteers around the world who used special software and powerful computers.
But he - or they - never revealed their identity, and the world has never worked it out."

Comment
No, of course this is not true, but only a myth related to the unsolved mysterious origin of another one of the many unauthorized and therefore illegal Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
It began definitely as an artistic project with our original and unique, personal and copyrighted work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., which expresses, compiles, composes, integrates, and so on all of the basic properties of that illegal cryptocurrency, including the fields of

• Grid Computing (GC or GridC), including
  • Opportunistic SuperComputing (OSC or OSupC),
• Volunteer Computing (VC), including its utilization for
  • prime factorization (e.g. Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS) in 1996),
  • scientific computing and large scale problem solving (e.g. distributed.net in 1997), and
  • Searching for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) (e.g. SETI@home on the 17th of May 1999 and later Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) in February 2002).
• Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC),
• etc.,

in addititon to the basic properties of our other original and unique, personal and copyrighted work of art also titled Evolutionary operating system and created by C.S..
See our Ontologic File System (OntoFS), specifically the following properties integrated with the other basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS) by its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA):

and the related clarifications and also the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) project (e.g. SETI@home) referenced on the webpage Links to Software of our OS variants OntoLix and OntoLinux.

Likewise, Askemos, Ethereum, etc. have begun with our original and unique, personal and copyrighted work of art titled Evolutionary operating system and created by C.S., which expresses, compiles, composes, integrates, and so on most of the basic properties of those illegal Decentralized System (DS or DecC) (Federated System (FS or FedS) and Distributed System (DS or DisS) developments, including the

And all is part of our original and unique Ontoverse (Ov), including what is wrongly called Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), Metaverse, and so on.

In fact, C.S. also knew about the possibility to use the smart contract, the blockchain, and the P2PVM for finanical matters, including virtual money and money transfer, which was always one of the main goals of enthusiasts, who want to reduce the control by the government, and even has read in Internet forums some few related discussions about the matter by hobbyists before the year 2005 and hence years before the illegal crypto crap become a global bubble. And despite C.S. is not Satoshi Nakamoto, we nevertheless created the foundational functionality of OAOS, such as Bitcoin, at least 2 years earlier.
But we always thought that the money supply and federal reserves, would by the task of the central banks, federal reserve systems, and other monetary authorities and therefore

See also the note SOPR preparing official start of Ov coins of the 10th of November 2024, which shows were the only legal endeavour is going to without 300% tariff or even blacklisting.

We demand the payment of damage compensations from the cryptocurrency industry, which are the higher of apportioned compensation (triple damages of actually 6 trillion U.S. Dollar in case of Bitcoin and up to 8.1 trillion U.S. Dollar in case of all illegal cryptocurrencies), profit, and value (actually 3.3 trillion U.S. Dollar in case of crypto companies).

No modifications.
All or nothing at all. :)

14:21 UTC+1
Some more crypto crap blacklisted

We have blacklisted the following companies of the so-called crypto industry:

We quote a first short description of a company: "Every day billions of people try to save for their financial future. But they are stuck in a traditional financial system that is tipped in favor of large institutions. Plus, with government money printing and inflation at record levels, the money that people save today will be worth far less in the future.
[The company] is democratizing Bitcoin data so that everyone, not just the financial elite, can benefit from this revolutionary new asset class and the data around it."

Comment
Where is the difference between money printing and cryptocurrency mining?
Eventually, that crypto crap is stuck in the traditional financial system. The Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are

And about democracy by operating a snowball system we even do not need to talk about anymore. See also the related comments to the quotes below.

We quote a second short description of a company: "[The company] fosters a robust Bitcoin ecosystem designed to drive innovation, enhance financial resilience, and promote long-term growth for organizations looking to adopt Bitcoin."

Comment
Financial resilience by a

Innovation, financial resilience, and growth only for those, who bought earlier in that snowball system?
Get it in your heads that all indicators and facts crystal clearly show and prove again and again: That is pure fraud protected by hidden corruption and cliquism, and also the lying press.

We quote a third short description of a company: "[The company] is on a mission to reinvent the world of finance and bring investing closer to everyone, everywhere. Today's financial ecosystem is complex, exclusive and expensive, and we're here to change this as the #1 investment platform in Europe and beyond."

Comment
We are very sure that everybody understands the bill in the wallet and the vast majority understands the credit card or the debit card in the pocket, but not the blockchain, the NFT, the digital wallet, the ETF, etc..
And a cryptocurrency is not required to reach these goals of that company at all.

We quote a fourth short description of a company: "With its ease of use, [the company] allows a user to begin investing in digital assets and ultimately, achieve financial freedom in a safe and stress-free environment."

Comment
It looks more like changing from one financial slavery into the next one or even from financial slavery into insolvency.
See the related comments to the quotes above and below.

We quote a fifth short description of a company: " [... the company] offers [snowball coin cryptocurrency] Bitcoin and [stablecoin cryptocurrency USD Coin (]USDC[)] savings accounts and bitcoin-backed loans, enabling clients to access dollars or additional bitcoin without selling their existing holdings.
[The company] is the first-ever digital asset lending platform to undergo a formal proof-of-reserves attestation, where an independent public accountant regularly attests that the company is properly accounting for client assets."

Comment
In relation to "access dollars" we refer to the comment to the first quote above.
In relation to "access [...] additional bitcoin" we refer to the comment to the second quote above.

In general, we heard all that bull$#!+ before with the claims in relation to freedom and democracy in general and an alternative and legal tender, and the part of our Web 3.0 also wrongly called Web3, Decentralized Web (DWeb), Decentralized Finance (DeFi), and Decentralized Commerce (D-Commerce), and also Federated Universe (Fediverse), etc. in particular.
Now, the same fraudsters claim to be an alternative to the money creation, also known as money printing in relation to the money supply, and the central and federal monetary authorities.
They even offer derivative instruments of put option and call option on Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs).

It is only a snowball system, hot air, which makes the first ones rich, while the rest becomes poorer.

Form alternative tender over alternative asset to alternative speculative gambling. Tock. Tock. Tock. Anybody home? Dream on.

We also quote something else: "God Bless Bitcoin"

Comment
See the Comment of the Day of the 7th of November 2024.

06.December.2024

Comment of the Day

See the Picture of the Day of the 19th of December 2019.

09:57 UTC+1
SOPR Further steps

In the last months, we have drawn the white, yellow, or red line more precisely and clearly, so that the transfer of all illegal materials will be more than sufficient enough to enforce our rights and properties and to reach our goals, if an entity has a serious problem to become a happy member of our club, clique, community, society, or whatever designation fits best.
Eventually, what is wrongly and illegally called

and also

based on them, as well as our many other creations are already out of discussion and therefore not the basis for communications and negotiations.

See for example the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims, specifically the

and the other publications cited therein.

We would also like to share our opinion that decisions made by intergovernmental commisssions, federal authorities, and courts have to be considered in case of the payment of damage compensations, establishment of Joint Ventures (JVs), and other regulations included in the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and might require another revision of the estimations made for the list of damages.
Needless to say, Alphabet (Google) without the web browser Chrome and the online advertisement tools is worth much less, which also holds true (in the original meaning and in the common sense of the word) in the cases of other companies.

See once again the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

In this relation, our SOPR is also considering the scope of the contribution of business of a potential Joint Venture Partner (JVP).
In case of the listed companies and all other companies, that are in the same situation, the scope is the complete business.
But our corporation is larger and if the scope would be our complete business, then the estimated ratios of company shares are too high for others and too low for us due to the undisclosed second catalogue of ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and created and matured since around the year 2014 and other reasons.
Another aspect are the correspondences, intersections, differentiations, etc. between

• others' traditional business, or
• our business copied,

and

Despite that the Main Contractor Model (MCM) of the Terms of Service (ToS) is under reconsideration (see also the note SOPR added regulations to ToS of the 29th of September 2024), our SOPR is also considering to take the MCM as an additional blueprint and make adjustments, specifically in accordance with other points mentioned above, which are not already related to the MCM.

We also would like to recall that our SOPR will also collect the other damage compensations, which could result in additional JVPs.

These are some few of the details, that would have to be negotiated.

09.December.2024

17:11 UTC+2
Gaxos.AI blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

14.December.2024

08:55 UTC+1
List of damages update

We have updated the list of damages of the

slightly.
Some estimations and preliminary decisions in relation to the payment of damage compensations, the higher of apportioned compensation, profit, and value:

09:31 and 12:41 UTC+1
Further steps

We are still finishing the Clarification of the 14th of November 2024.
One important point is the isolation of processes as part of our integration of Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) with Agent-Oriented technologies (AOx) (e.g. Multi-Agent System (MAS) (e.g. Holonic Agent System (HAS)) and Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP)) and Resource-Oriented technologies (ROx) (e.g. operating system (os), Holonic Agent System (HAS)).
However, eventually what is wrongly and illegally called Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and Cloud-native technologies (Cnx), and also Cloud Computing of the third generation (CC 3.0) by us only for better understanding are our integrations of

These integrations and their overall integration with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), and the various and slightly different definitions of the fields of microService (mS) and microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA), ServerLess (SL or SeL), StateLess (SL or StL), and Function as a Service (FaaS) are not important, because eventually we have a Distributed System (DS), specifically Multi-Agent System (MAS), which requires (agent) process isolation, management (orchestration, scheduling, etc.), communication, and so on, and the breakthrough was made possible with our Evoos and our OS, but not with Cloud 1.0, ABos, Java Jini, Web Services (WS), .NET, Cloud 2.0, Amazon Web Services Elastic Cloud, etc., and the decisive difference is just the compilation (collection and assembling), selection, composition, arrangement, and integration of hardware virtualization, in addition to automation, and much more.

We also concluded that the data query and manipulation language for Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) GraphQL is also based on our Evoos, because the declarative data fetching is used in an operational way, specifically in relation to SOA, mSOA, and as a Service (aaS) capability and operational models, which is what we created as well by operationalizing ontology in general and the Resource-Description Format (RDF) (e.g. SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL)) in particular for exactly the same reason and also other reasons.
Just making a subset, taking a part, or downsizing a work of art is not considered as creating a new expression of idea.

We also recall once again that microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA) or simply microService Architecture (mSA) enables the fields of

which are based on our integration of

• Continuous Improvement (CI) or Continual Improvement Process (CIP), specifically
  • Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) and similar iterative design and management methods,

• iterative and incremental software development, such as the Evolutionary Project Management (EPM), Adaptive Software Development (ASD), etc., and
• Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE), Rapid Application Development (RAD), Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case-Driven Approach (OOSE), Object-Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD), components, etc.,

We were never a friend of the Agile Programming (AP) and Extreme Programming (EP) paradigms, because they throw out the E in Software Engineering (SE). From the methodical point of view it was a step back and reminds us of organized chaos. Due to the focus on iterative and incremental software development with adaptive development and without evolutionary development and the lack of automation (e.g. "Thoughts on Test Automation in Agile", 21st of February 2012) no DevOps.
Our solution for certain issues was the so-called Model-Driven Architecture (MDA), the ontology-based Object-Oriented (OO 1.5) paradigm, model checking, our Ontology-Oriented (OO 2) paradigm, as much as possible automation in analysis, design, modeling, building, implementation, coding, testing, validation, verification, deployment, operation, monitoring, etc..
And all is already based on our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) since 1999 as well.

We also note that so-called field of Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) shared some similarities with our DevOps at first, but eventually has also become a specific implementation of DevOps.

So add to the list given in the note microServices 'R' Us of the 25th of November 2024 the points

And of course, our creation, expression of idea, compilation, integration, architecture, etc. is a protected work of art and economic performance, is not an Application Programming Interface (API), is this and is not that, etc..

09:53 UTC+1
Android XR with KG, LLM, RAG, Os, etc. gets no license

eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR)
Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG)
Large Language Model (LLM)
Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)
Ontoscope (Os)

We recommend to designate the truly legal part Android MR, because eXtended Reality (XR) is the unauthorized short form of our designation eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) and therefore the use of XR would confuse the members of the addressed and interested public about the true origin of both the field and the term, and also lead to inference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S. and our corporation.

We do know that the companies Alphabet (Google) and Samsung do know that they have to pay damage compensations, the higher of ..., transfer all illegal materials, sign a written admission of guilt, specifically Alphabet (DeepMind) :), and do other legally required actions at first respectively sign the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and comply with its regulations for getting the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Components (OSC) and Ontoscope Components (OsC).

The same holds for HarmonyOS XR, HyperOS XR, and comparable plagiarisms and fakes.

10:09 and 19:34 UTC+1
SOPR Further steps

We continued the discussion and concluded that the scope of a Joint Venture (JV) could be defined in several ways in the SOPR Further steps of the 6th of December 2024.
And because certain entities concerned are still unhappy with the best solution and offer they would ever get, we considered the demand for (partial) payment of damage compensations, the higher of ..., respectively offsetting or the establishment of a JV in the cases of

the demand for (partial) payment of damage compensations, the higher of ..., respectively offsetting and transfer of all illegal materials in the cases of

and the separation in cases of

Below is a simplified example to illustrate the basic concept:
takeover by (partial) payment of damages respectively offsetting or establishment of JV
core business, others'

takeover by (partial) payment of damages respectively offsetting
same business, others' traditional business

takeover by transfer of illegal materials
same business, our business copied

separation
different business

The same with for example the following fields:

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

We hope that we were able to better communicate our concerns and make them more accessible.

16.December.2024

23:40 UTC+1
Ontonics Blitz Fund II #6.3.1

We would like to give some informations about our Superbolt™ #3 of the investment program series Blitz Fund™ II.
Its first generation (1.0)

Its second generation (2.0)

Its third generation (3.0)

Our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) have also been created for its utilization, as crystal clearly presented and discussed (see the related publications).
The related as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. (business) capability and (cloud Ontoverse (Ov) operational models, (sub)systems, and platforms) (aaSx) belong to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services according to the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR (see the related issues of our SOPR of January 2019, June 2021, and August 2021). :)

Shares in this absolutely astonishing Superbolt #3 of the Blitz Fund II are offered to investors under the following conditions:

We do not want to designate this Superbolt as a spare time project and a finger exercise to decrease its value and the confidence of investors. But to call it a problem, which would be difficult to solve for us, would decrease our Hightech Competence™.
We have much more done.
We hope that it is also reasonable for external enitties that we will not give additional informations in public.

All rights reserved.

Wow!!!

By the way:

19.December.2024

19:03 UTC+1
EQTY Lab blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.
Its product and service is based on the basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS)

1 point could be sufficient, but 3 or more points are convicting

Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) and Trusted Computing Base (TCB) are neutral
Trusted Artificial Intelligence (TAI) or Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI), TAI 'R' Us,
TAI and Trust as a Service (TaaS) (e.g. notary and custody services) are parts of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies according to the

Obviously, we have an

We also got more and more evidences that show the abuse of market power, blackmailing, and corruption.

Intel, Nvidia, ServiceNow, Databricks, and Palantir Technologies have also been blacklisted already.
These companies have shown again and again that they

We also see Microsoft Azure, Amazon Amazon Web Services, and Alphabet Google Cloud Platform, and also Oracle (most potentially Oracle Cloud), and Hedera (P2PVM Ethereum), as well as Dell Technologies listed as partners.
See also the note Hedera Lab blacklisted of today below.

It is just the same fraud and serious crime as seen before multiple times.
Jensen Huang

but definitely not to make the earth a better place.
See also the notes

And that Nvidia director, who sold shares for a lot of money, will be catched as well.

So much about freedom of expression and competition.

We are writting the set of legal documents.

By the way:

• knows what is wrong or right, and also that not everything is either black or white,
• has a good understanding of technology, and
• is able to use a computer for every ordinary task,

in four or five sentences the legal situation in relation to our OS, inclusive the legal exception from statutory protection that other entities have the right to utilize essential facilities for a FRANDAC license fee, but only if the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))) are not violated in this way. His prompt conclusion was: "Then they will get nothing."
And the members of the management of companies, including most of them listed at the stock markets, want to tell us and the rest of the world that they have no clue.
And we have said again and again over the last 6 years that we do not explain it to them again and again. We keep the complete control and keep the royalties as low as possible, and therefore do not license everything, such as the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS), Trust as a Service (TaaS), and Quantum Computing as a Service (QCaaS), and also some other parts (see also the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021).

22:03 UTC+1
Hedera blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.
illegal Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and certain integrations of it are based on the basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS)

• linear data structure (chronological chain of hashed data, cryptographic concatenation of individual transaction blocks, or simply blockchain),
• Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) data structure, and
• hybrid data structure,

all created for our

but not scientific theory, system, etc., and

We also quote a graphical landscape titled "Hedera Ecosystem Overview": "[...]
Governing Council
(Standard Life Aberdeen) Abrdn
[...]
Boeing
[...]
(Development Bank of Singapore) DBS Bank (Singapore)
Dell Technologies
DLA Piper
Dentons
Deutsche Telekom
Électricité de France
[...]
Alphabet→Google
IBM
Indian Institute of Technology Mandras
LG Electronics
London School of Economics and Political Science
Nomura Holdings (Japan)
ServiceNow
Shinhan Financial Group→Shinhan Bank (Vietnam)
Standard Bank Group (South Africa)
[...]
Ubisoft
University College London
Tata Group→Tata Communications (formerly Government of India→Videsh Sanchar Nigam)
[...]

Industry Associations
[...]
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Linux Foundation→Hyperledger Foundation (blockchain-based distributed ledgers)
[...]
World Economic Forum
Texas Blockchain Council"

And everywhere is that illegal Decentralized Web (DWeb), Web3, etc., and also Goolge Cloud Platform, which also partnered with Coinbase in 2020 in relation to the same fields and activities.
See also the note EQTY Lab blacklisted of today above.

So much about freedom of expression and competition.

We are writting the set of legal documents.

20.December.2024

13:03 UTC+1
Ontonics Blitz Fund II #7.4.1

It is very well known that we have developed our own processor technology since more than 1 decade, which

• Graphics Processing Unit (GPU),
• Intelligence Processing Unit (IPU),
  • Tensor Processing Unit (TPU),
  • Vision Processing Unit (VPU),
  • Neural Processing Unit (NPU),
• other Accelerated Processing Unit (APU),

including the ones of the partners of our SOPR, and

• data centers,
• Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT), Cyber-Physical System (CPS), and Networked Embedded System (NES),
• mobile devices,
• vehicles,
• robots,
• etc..

Because our processor technology has matured so much and others are so far behind us, as can be seen by its

we have designated it as a Superbolt as well and assigned it the last slot #4 of our Blitz Fund II.

We also concluded that our high-technologies utilized and developed for our processor technology can also be utilized for the production of memory chips. Why not?

22.December.2024

10:45 and 18:03 UTC+1
Deepchecks blacklisted

The main reason for the blacklisting of that fraudulent and even serious criminal company Deepchecks is not its application, but the comprehensive and consistent attempt to damage the moral rights and the integrities of C.S. and our corporation by copying as much as possible terms and phrases of our publications and supporting other illegal and even serious criminal businesses in addition to some features and functionalities of its application based on the basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS)

alone and integrated with our other essential parts of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx), OntoBlender, etc..

We are also looking at this case in relation to the activities of the company Amazon with its illegal Amazon Web Services (AWS), or better said Amazon Ontologic System Services (AOSS), business unit, specifically its so-called Amazon SageMaker AI cloud-based Ontologic Net (ON) Machine Learning (ML) and AWS Marketplace platforms, which belong to the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with the

according to the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR.

It is just the same fraud and serious crime as seen before multiple times.

By the way:

14:43 UTC+1
Intelligent Node blacklisted

We quote a short description: "Intelli is an open-source tool developed by Intelligent Node, and it was created using graph theory to enhance [Machine Learning (]ML[)] workflows. Thanks to the rapid evolution of AI, the need for tools like Intelli keeps increasing, [...] and Intelli is just one of the many tools of its kind that make things easier for [developers (]devs[)] and researchers to build, train, and deploy ML models and improve workflows.
Intelli is special because it focuses on the relationships and structures within the data, and thanks to this, it allows users to create powerful ML solutions that are more innovative and go further than most traditional approaches. [This is a part of our coherent Ontologic Model (OM).]
[...] What are some more specific things that make it stand out in this vastly competitive landscape of ML and AI? [...]

Key Features of Intelli
Graph Theory in Machine Learning
The core of Intelli is the aforementioned graph theory integration into ML workflows, which is something that other tools rarely use, if any. It shows data as nodes and edges and thus lets users analyze complicated relationships and dependencies that they might not have noticed if it weren't for the graph theory integration. This is a very strong method for apps such as social network analysis as it opens new possibilities for creating and deploying ML models that are very accurate and precise but also able to understand complex data structures. [Understanding means semantics. This is one of many advantages of our coherent Ontologic Model (OM).]

Intuitive Model Building
Building an ML model with Intelli is a pretty smooth and simple process. This is thanks to user-friendly APIs and modular architecture, which allow users to change things as they need. The modular architecture offers impressive flexibility, which lets users handle different kinds of machine-learning tasks, such as classification and anomaly detection, among many others. Like many other tools, Intelli can easily integrate with ML libraries [...], which lets users add it to their workflows without breaking anything.

Advanced Visualization Tools
One of the more important aspects of ML development, deployment, training, etc., is its visualization aspect. This helps show patterns and diagnose issues, as well as effectively show results and outcomes in an easily understandable way. Visualization is especially good for both developers and stakeholders because it makes understanding and interpreting ML models much easier. Exploring graph structures, model predictions, and other key metrics is easy with Intelli's advanced visualization tools.
[...]"

Comment
We were at this point around the year 1998.
The main reason for the blacklisting of that company Intelligent Node is that this is a significant part of our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), which integrates the Arrow System (AS) of the Distributed operating system (Dos) TUNES OS and our field of SoftBionics (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, MAS, etc.) and belongs to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), and our Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx), which belongs to our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

In general, cherry picking, unauthorized performing and reproducing, and licensing under different terms and conditions (here as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) under an Apache License) are not allowed.

15:38 and 18:16 UTC+1
UC Berkeley Sky Computing Lab and AI Research blacklisted

University California (UC)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)

What is wrongly and illegally called "backbone for interconnected cloud computing" (31st of May 2022) is an essential part of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and the backbone, core network, or fabric (e.g. so-called Smart Network Fabric with its core cloud and converged edge cloud, Big Cloud Fabric, InterCloud Fabric, etc., and also so-called converged node and 5G Future X, also called 5G Next Generation (5G NG)) of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

Furthermore, what is wrongly and illegally called Gorilla Large Language Model (LLM), specifically the integration of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and the generation of actions, like code, API calls, etc., and the Gorilla Execution Engine (GoEX) or runtime, are blatant infringements of the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights and also the copyrights of C.S. and our corporation, as we have also observed and documented in the past.

At least, we have an interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights and also the copyrights, including the exclusive rights for

• referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
• designation,

and also

of C.S. and our corporation.
And no, scientific research has no exception from the copyright for economic use, and proper referencing and licensing are always required.

We are also looking at this case in relation to the activities of the company Microsoft, specifically in relation to a revision of the estimation of the damage compensations.

By the way:

18:07 UTC+1
Vectara blacklisted

The Search Engine as a Service (SEaaS) or simply Search as a Service (SaaS or SearchaaS) capability and operational model based on a Large Lanuage Model (LLM) is a part of our Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind), and also our Ontologic Net (ON) and Ontologic Web (OW), as well as our SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS) models, doubtlessly and definitely.

By the way:

18:34 UTC+1
Jina AI blacklisted

We quote a short description: "Jina lets you build multimodal AI services and pipelines that communicate via [gRPC Remote Procedure Calls (]gRPC[)], [HyperText Transfer Protocol (]HTTP[)] and WebSockets, then scale them up and deploy to production."

Comment
This case is self-explanatory.

18:37 UTC+1
Fixie AI blacklisted

We quote a short description: "Cloud-based platform-as-a-service [(PaaS)] that allows developers to build smart agents that couple LLMs with back-end logic to interface to data, systems, and tools."

Comment
This case is self-explanatory.

18:55 UTC+1
Glide blacklisted

We quote a short description: "Cloud-Native [Large Language Model (]LLM[)] Routing Engine. Improve LLM app resilience and speed."

Comment
This case is self-explanatory.
What is wrongly and illegally called Cloud-native technologies (Cnx) is a part of our Ontologic Net (ON) and Ontologic Web (OW).
And what is wrongly and illegally called Large Language Model (LLM) is a part of our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) and utilized in other ways than Natural Language Processing (NLP (Natural Language Parsing (NLP) and Natural Language Generation (NLG)) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU).
Furthermore, SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS) belongs to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

By the way:

18:59 UTC+1
OpenLLM blacklisted

We quote a short description: "An open platform for operating large language models (LLMs) in production. Fine-tune, serve, deploy, and monitor any LLMs with ease."

Comment
This case is self-explanatory.

19:14 UTC+1
Qwak blacklisted

We quote a short description: "Qwak is a fully managed, accessible, and reliable MLOps/LLMOps Platform. It allows builders to transform and store data, build, train, and deploy models, and monitor the entire Machine Learning pipeline."

Comment
This case is self-explanatory.
Fully managed means Platform as a Service (PaaS) or ServerLess technologies (SLx).
Ops platform means Product Lifecylce Management (PLM) and (most potentially) in this context microService technologies (mSx).
Furthermore, SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS) belongs to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

19:28 UTC+1
Anyscale blacklisted

We quote a short description: "Open source, free, cloud-based LLM-serving infrastructure designed to help developers choose and deploy the right technologies and approach for their LLM-based applications."

Comment
This case is self-explanatory.
SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS) belongs to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.
Hasta la vista, AI cloud kiddy.

19:39 UTC+1
Bloomberg LLM blacklisted

We quote a short description: "This large language model (LLM) has been specifically trained on a wide range of financial data to support a diverse set of natural language processing (NLP) tasks within the financial industry."

Comment
This case is self-explanatory.
One always meets twice in life, at least.
Not this way anymore. :)

23.December.2024

16:22 UTC+1
Clarification

*** Work in progress - better explanation, order, wording ***

We already discussed the blockchain technique, the Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), and the other technologies, goods (e.g. applications, devices), and services in the past (see for example the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps or Clarification of the 6th of April 2018 and the other publications cited therein).
But when reviewing the subject matters, then we got the impression that a certain amount of confusion and manipulation exists, which

has its root in the differences between the centralization and decentralization (federation and distribution) of

We also have discussed some aspects in this regard and would like to continue the discussion in this clarification.
Therefore, we begin with some introducing informations and facts about the related fields of

• Distributed DataBase (DDB) and
• Peer (network node) Data Store (PDS),

• Distributed Storage System (DSS), Clustered File System (CFS), Shared-Disk File System (SDFS), and
• Block Storage System (BSS),

• Shared-Disk File System (SDFS) (block-level) and
• Distributed File System (DFS) (file-level),

and

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject centralization: "Centralisation or centralization [...] is the process by which the activities of an organisation, particularly those regarding planning, decision-making, and framing strategies and policies, become concentrated within a particular group within that organisation."

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject decentralization: "Decentralization or decentralisation is the process by which the activities of an organization, particularly those related to planning and decision-making, are distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group and given to smaller factions within it.[1]"

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject decentralized and centralized systems: "A decentralised system in systems theory is a system in which lower level components operate on local information to accomplish global goals. The global pattern of behaviour is an emergent property of dynamical mechanisms that act upon local components, such as indirect communication, rather than the result of a central ordering influence of a centralised system.

Centralised versus decentralised systems
A centralised system is one in which a central controller exercises control over the lower-level components of the system directly or through the use of a power hierarchy (such as instructing a middle level component to instruct a lower level component).[1] The complex behaviour exhibited by this system is thus the result of the central controller's "control" over lower level components in the system, including the active supervision of the lower-level components.
A decentralised system, on the other hand, is one in which complex behaviour emerges through the work of lower level components operating on local information, not the instructions of any commanding influence. This form of control is known as [decentral control] distributed control, or control in which each component of the system is equally responsible for contributing to the global, complex behaviour by acting on local information in the appropriate manner. The lower level components are implicitly aware of these appropriate responses through mechanisms that are based on the component's interaction with the environment, including other components in that environment."

Comment
Obviously, a

can control a concentrated system or a distributed system respectively a

can be under a central control or a decentral control.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Decentralized Computing (DC or DecC) and Decentralized System (DS or DecS): "Decentralized computing is the allocation of resources, both hardware and software, to each individual workstation, or office location. In contrast, centralized computing exists when the majority of functions are carried out or obtained from a remote centralized location. [...]

Origins of decentralized computing
The origins of decentralized computing [potentially] originate[d] from the work of David Chaum.[citation needed]
During 1979 he conceived the first concept of a decentralized computer system known as Mix Network. It provided an anonymous email communications network, which decentralized the authentication of the messages in a protocol that would become the precursor to Onion Routing, the protocol of the TOR browser. Through this initial development of an anonymous communications network, David Chaum applied his Mix Network philosophy concept, approach, or model to design the world's first decentralized payment system and patented it in 1980.[2] Later in 1982 [...] he wrote about the need for decentralized computing services in the paper Computer Systems Established, Maintained and Trusted by Mutually Suspicious Groups.[3] Chaum proposed an electronic payment system called Ecash in 1982. Chaum's company DigiCash implemented this system from 1990 until 1998.[non-primary source needed]

Peer-to-peer
Based on a "grid model" a peer-to-peer system, or P2P system, is a collection of applications software run on several computers, which connect remotely to each other to complete a function or a task. There is no main operating system to which satellite systems are subordinate. This approach to software development (and distribution) affords developers great savings, as they don't have to create a central control point. An example application is LAN messaging which allows users to communicate without a central server.
Peer-to-peer networks, where no entity controls an effective or controlling number of the network nodes [...] are said to effect a decentralized [and even distributed] network protocol. These networks are harder for outside actors to shut down, as they have no central headquarters.[4][better source needed]

[...]"

Comment
Who truly invented Decentralized Computing (DC or DecC) has to be researched more thoroughly.
But the facts about the works of D.L. Chaum are truly interesting, such as his mix network and vault system, which is described in the works titled "Computer Systems Established, Maintained, and Trusted by Mutually Suspicious Groups" (February 1979 and April, June 1982) and "is the first known proposal for a blockchain protocol" according to an online encyclopedia.
In this relation, we also note the following: "Large-scale implementations of the mix network concept began to emerge in the 2020s, driven by advancements in privacy-preserving technologies and decentralized infrastructure."

But somehow we have the impression that one or more entities are trying to construct prior art in relation to what is called Decentralized Web (DWeb), Web3, etc., which was created with our Evoos and our OS, as also shown once again in this clarification (see also the related quote and comment below).

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Decentralized Web (DWeb): "The decentralized web is a network of independent computers that provide secure, censorship-resistant access to information and services without relying on central servers or clouds, using decentralized computing.

History and development
Decentralized computing has a long theoretical and practical history in the design of robust systems. The internet itself was designed around principles of decentralization, allowing an unknown network of machines to be organically connected, addressed, and updated over time without a central administration.
In the development of the internet World Wide Web (WWW), Web 1.0 is sometimes described as primarily static webpages with minimal interactivity [see also the HyperText Markup Language (HTML)]; while Web 2.0 was described as the "read/write[/participate]" web, with dynamic content and user interaction, including platforms like [... wikis] and the advent of smartphones [and early generations of our Ontoscope (Os)] which could easily capture and broadcast information from anywhere.[1] The rise of cloud computing [of the second generation (CC 2.0)] and large platforms that served the needs of Web 2.0 [and Mobile Computing (MC)] led to a recentralization of the internet WWW around those services.
Web3, also called Web 3.0, is the name given to a decentralized web movement that is sometimes described as a "read/write/own" stage of internet web development. It focuses on decentralizing the underlying infrastructure of the internet web, shifting away from centralized data storage and management using new protocols and technologies. Motivation for this includes:

Decentralized protocols
Like the centralized data storage of the centralized web, decentralized web protocols provide a shared data layer, eliminating the need for centralized data centers. This means data is stored on users' computers and used across various decentralized applications.[4]
BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer filesharing networks are one of the earliest successful decentralized distributed protocols, allowing for file sharing and storage without a central archive, and allowing large files to be shared by many participants who could not store it in its entirety. Blockchain networks are a more recent example of decentralized tools and systems, in particular built on low-trust networks and transactions.[5][6]
In 2021, BitTorrent announced the development of [...] a fully decentralized and censorship-resistant browser.[4] Other decentralized browsers such as Beaker have been developed building on top of [... our OntoFS, ON, and OW] other file-storage protocols.

[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that the first version of the webpage was only publicized on the 18th of February 2021.

We also note that the World Wide Web of the first generation (Web 1.0) and the World Wide Web of the second generation (Web 2.0) were centralized networks, with centralized data centers, and centralized data stores.

And the decentralization and democratization is a myth created by fraudulent marketing units, self-exposers, and plagiarists. The best example is the illegal virtual currency and cryptocurrency Bitcoin and the illegal Peer-to-Peer Virtual Machine (P2PVM) Ethereum: "[in October 2018] permissionless blockchains (such as Bitcoin and Ethereum) are much more centralized than many people assume: 20 mining pools control 90% of the computing power".

It is proven that the P2PVMs Askemos and Ethereum are based on our Evoos and our OS, as also shown once again in this clarification, and that a developer of Ethereum stole our designation Web 3.0, which is also the designation for (our further development of) the Semantic (World Wide) Web (WWW).

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Distributed Computing (DC or DisC) and Distributed System (DS or DisS): "Distributed computing is a field of computer science that studies distributed systems, defined as computer systems whose inter-communicating components are located on different networked computers.[1][2]
The components of a distributed system communicate and coordinate their actions by passing messages to one another in order to achieve a common goal. Three significant challenges of distributed systems are: maintaining concurrency of components, overcoming the lack of a global clock, and managing the independent failure of components.[1] When a component of one system fails, the entire system does not fail.[3] Examples of distributed systems vary from [Service-Oriented Architecture (]SOA[)]-based systems to microservices to massively multiplayer online games to peer-to-peer applications. [...]
[...] There are many different types of implementations for the message passing mechanism, including pure HTTP, RPC-like connectors and message queues.[9]
Distributed computing also refers to the use of distributed systems to solve computational problems. In distributed computing, a problem is divided into many tasks, each of which is solved by one or more computers,[10] which communicate with each other via message passing.[11]

[...]"]

Comment
We note

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Distributed Data Store (DDS): "A distributed data store is a computer network where information is stored on more than one node, often in a replicated fashion.[1] It is usually specifically used to refer to either a distributed database where users store information on a number of nodes, or a computer network in which users store information on a number of peer network nodes.[2]

Distributed databases
[...]

Peer network node data stores
In peer network data stores, the user can usually reciprocate and allow other users to use their computer as a storage node as well. Information may or may not be accessible to other users depending on the design of the network. [...]

[...]

Peer network node data stores

Comment
First of all, we note that a blockchain is not a DataBase (DB) and a Distributed Data Store (DDS), but a data structure, which is the result of linking records or blocks by the blockchain technique.
How these records or blocks and a resulting blockchain are organized, controlled, and utilized are independent aspects.

See also the quotes about the fields of Distributed Hash Table (DHT), Merkle tree, and Content-Addressable Storage (CAS).

Furthermore, it is also obvious that the same data must not be stored on every node of a computer network of a DDS.
Specifically, in a Peer-to-Peer System (P2PS) one or more of the data could be stored at only one of its peers under the central control of said peer, while all active peers manage the navigation to all available data as a decentralized system.

This shows that many variants of a ledger based on the blockchain technique are possible.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Distributed Hash Table (DHT): "A distributed hash table (DHT) is a distributed system that provides a lookup service similar to a hash table. Key-value pairs are stored in a DHT, and any participating node can efficiently retrieve the value associated with a given key. [...]

History
DHT research was originally motivated, in part, by peer-to-peer (P2P) systems such as Freenet, Gnutella, BitTorrent and Napster, which took advantage of resources distributed across the Internet to provide a single useful application.[...]. [...]
In 2001, four systems - [Content-Addressable Network (]CAN[)],[7] Chord,[8] Pastry, and Tapestry - ignited DHTs as a popular research topic. A project called the Infrastructure for Resilient Internet Systems (Iris) was funded by a $12 million grant from the United States National Science Foundation in 2002.[9] [...] Outside academia, DHT technology has been adopted as a component of BitTorrent and in PlanetLab projects such as the Coral Content Distribution Network.[11 [Democratizing content publication with Coral. [2004]]]

[...]

Examples
DHT protocols and implementations

Applications using DHTs

Comment
We note that at least Napster is not a pure Distributed System (DS) respectively pure Peer-to-Peer System (P2PS), but a hybrid decentralized system, which consists of a distributed system of centralized servers, which again are connected with clients, which again become peers and establish an overlay network of a DS respectively P2PS and therefore is also called brokered P2P.
Furthermore, adaptive techniques are utilized to solve operational problems and increase performance.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject hash tree or Merkle tree: "In cryptography and computer science, a hash tree or Merkle tree is a tree in which every "leaf" node is labelled with the cryptographic hash of a data block, and every node that is not a leaf (called a branch, inner node, or inode) is labelled with the cryptographic hash of the labels of its child nodes. A hash tree allows efficient and secure verification of the contents of a large data structure. A hash tree is a generalization of a hash list and a hash chain.
[...] A Merkle tree is therefore an efficient example of a cryptographic commitment scheme, in which the root of the tree is seen as a commitment and leaf nodes may be revealed and proven to be part of the original commitment.[2] [...]

Uses
Hash trees can be used to verify any kind of data stored, handled and transferred in and between computers. They can help ensure that data blocks received from other peers in a peer-to-peer network are received undamaged and unaltered, and even to check that the other peers do not lie and send fake blocks.
Hash trees are used in:

Suggestions have been made to use hash trees in trusted computing systems.[11]
[...]

Overview
[...]
Usually, a cryptographic hash function such as [Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA)] SHA-2 is used for the hashing. If the hash tree only needs to protect against unintentional damage, unsecured checksums such as [Cyclic Redundancy Checks (]CRCs[)] can be used.
[...]"]

Comment
We note

• Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) and
• Trusted Computing Base (TCB).

We also recall that a

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Content-Addressable Storage (CAS): "Content-addressable storage (CAS), also referred to as content-addressed storage or fixed-content storage, is a way to store information so it can be retrieved based on its content, not its name or location. It has been used for high-speed storage and retrieval of fixed content, such as documents stored for compliance with government regulations[citation needed]. Content-addressable storage is similar to content-addressable memory.
CAS systems work by passing the content of the file through a cryptographic hash function to generate a unique key, the "content address". The file system's directory stores these addresses and a pointer to the physical storage of the content. Because an attempt to store the same file will generate the same key, CAS systems ensure that the files within them are unique, and because changing the file will result in a new key, CAS systems provide assurance that the file is unchanged.
[...] the principles of content addressability continue to be of great interest to computer scientists, and form the core of numerous emerging technologies, such as peer-to-peer file sharing, cryptocurrencies, and distributed computing.

[...]

In distributed computing
The simplest way to implement a CAS system is to store all of the files within a typical database to which clients connect to add, query, and retrieve files. However, the unique properties of content addressability mean that the paradigm is well suited for computer systems in which multiple hosts collaboratively manage files with no central authority, such as distributed file sharing systems, in which the physical location of a hosted file can change rapidly in response to changes in network topology, while the exact content of the files to be retrieved are of more importance to users than their current physical location. In a distributed system, content hashes are often used for quick network-wide searches for specific files, or to quickly see which data in a given file has been changed and must be propagated to other members of the network with minimal bandwidth usage. In these systems, content addressability allows highly variable network topology to be abstracted away from users who wish to access data, compared to systems like the World Wide Web, in which a consistent location of a file or service is key to easy use.

Content-addressable networks
The content-addressable network (CAN) is a distributed, decentralized P2P infrastructure that provides hash table functionality on an Internet-like scale. CAN was one of the original four distributed hash table proposals, introduced concurrently with Chord, Pastry, and Tapestry.

History
[...]
CAS was not associated with peer-to-peer applications until the 2000s [...]. [...]

Implementations
[...]"

Comment
We note that the general process can be described as

In the latter case, the timestamp is given with the creation date of the resulting encoded file.
The checksum, Cryptographic Hash Function (CHF), and creation date are metadata of a file.

CAS is an old topic in relation to the Global Brain (GB), the Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), and the field of ontology-based technologies.

We quote once again an online encyclopedia about the subject blockchain: "[...]
Compared to decentralized blockchains, centralized blockchains normally can provide a higher throughput and lower latency of transactions than consensus-based distributed blockchains. [...]"

Comment
The differentiation between centralized and decentralized blockchain utilized for a Decentralized System (DS or DecS), such as Distributed Data Store (DDS), shows that a confusion may arise about the different variants of a digital ledger based on the blockchain technique.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Distributed Ledger (DL): "A distributed ledger (also called a shared ledger or distributed ledger technology or DLT) is a system whereby replicated, shared, and synchronized digital data is geographically spread (distributed) across many sites, countries, or institutions.[1] In contrast to a centralized database, a distributed ledger does not require a central administrator, and consequently does not have a single (central) point-of-failure.[2][3]
In general, a distributed ledger requires a peer-to-peer (P2P) computer network and consensus algorithms so that the ledger is reliably replicated across distributed computer nodes (servers, clients, etc. peers).[2] The most common form of distributed ledger technology is the blockchain (commonly associated with the bitcoin cryptocurrency), which can either be on a public or private network. Infrastructure for data [organization and] management is a common barrier to implementing DLT.[4]

Characteristics
Distributed ledger data is typically spread across multiple nodes (computational devices) on a P2P network, where each [peer] replicates and saves an identical copy of the ledger data and updates itself independently of other nodes. The primary advantage of this distributed processing pattern data organization and management activities is the lack of a central authority, which would constitute a single point of failure. When a ledger update transaction is broadcast to the P2P network, each distributed node processes a new update transaction independently, and then collectively all working nodes use a consensus algorithm to determine the correct copy of the updated ledger. Once a consensus has been determined, all the other nodes update themselves with the latest, correct copy of the updated ledger.[5] Security is enforced through cryptographic keys and signatures.[6][7][8]

[...]"

Comment
Obviously, the classification of a data structure as a Distributed Ledger (DL) is not correct, because a DL has more elements.
In more detail, a data structure, such as a

is not a DL by itself, because a DL also requires a validation or proof respectively consensus method, algorithm, or protocol, such as

Furthermore, a Distributed Ledger (DL) can be based on

• data storage and
• consensus method, algorithm, or protocol computing, computation, or processing,

Correspondingly, the Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) includes the basic variants based on

With this more precise classification of digital ledger (e.g. Distributed Ledger), we can show in a better way that our explanations about the DL variants based on the

are correct.
These were created by us, but not by the author of the Peer-to-Peer Virtual Machine (P2PVM) Askemos, which seems to be based on Multiparty Secure Computation (MSC), and definitely not by an entity related to the illegal Bitcoin and the illegal Ethereum.
Satoshi Nakamoto: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, 31st of October 2008.

• Client-Server Multichain Technology (CSMT),
• Cluster Multichain Technology (CMT), and
• Peer-to-Peer Multichain Technology (P2PMT)

We quote a report, which is about the oldest blockchain technique as envisioned by Stuart Haber and Wakefield Scott Stornetta: "The World's Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York [Trolls] Since 1995
[...]
At its core, a blockchain is just a [data structure and a digital ledger based on a blockchain is just a] database that is maintained by a network of users and secured through cryptography. When new information is added to the database it is parceled in "blocks," which can be thought of as containers for this data. Every so often a new block is created and linked to a "chain" of previously created blocks. Each block has a unique ID called a hash that is created by running the ID of the block that preceded it and the data stored in the current block through a cryptographic algorithm. This ensures the integrity of all the data stored on the blockchain because altering the data in any block would produce a different hash.
Today, "blockchain" is treated as shorthand for the technology that underlies most cryptocurrencies and digital token systems [...]. [...]
Blockchains, insofar as they constitute a chronological chain of hashed data, were first invented by the cryptographers Stuart Haber and Scott Stornetta in 1991 and their use cases were a lot less ambitious. Instead, Haber and Stornetta envisioned the technology as a way to timestamp digital documents to verify their authenticity. As they detailed in a paper [titled "How to Time-Stamp a Digital Document" and] published in The Journal of Cryptology, the ability to certify when a document was created or last modified is crucial for resolving things like intellectual property rights.
In meatspace, there a variety of mundane ways to timestamp a document [...]. But when it comes to verifying the authenticity of a digital document, it's much harder to determine if the document has been altered.
As Haber and Stornetta realized, timestamping a digital document would require solving two problems. First, the data itself would have to be timestamped "so that it is impossible to change even one bit of the document without the change being apparent." Second, it would have to be impossible to change the timestamp itself.
An obvious solution to this problem is to send the digital document to a timestamping service that would retain the document in a "digital safety deposit box," which meets both of the criteria mentioned above. The downsides of this approach are that it would compromise the privacy of the person submitting the document and it's possible that the document could become corrupted when it is sent or stored by the service.
The solution that Haber and Stornetta arrived at instead was to run the document through a cryptographic hashing algorithm, which produces a unique ID for the document. If even a single bit is changed in the document and it is run through the hashing algorithm again, the ID will be totally different [(see also the fields of Content-Addressable Storage (CAS) and Content-Addressable Network (CAN))]. This idea was coupled with the related idea of digital signatures, which can be used to uniquely identify the signatory. Thus, instead of sending the entire document to a timestamping service, users could just send the cryptographic hash value, which could be signed by the service to ensure that it had been received at a certain time and wasn't corrupted - kind of like notarizing a document IRL.
[...]

Inspiring Satoshi C.S.
What Haber and Stornetta described in their 1991 research paper is a prototypical version of the blockchains that power most cryptocurrencies today. [...]
But 14 12 years before Bitcoin Ontologic System was invented presented, Haber and Stornetta created their own timestamping service called Surety to put their scheme into action.
Surety's main product is called "AbsoluteProof" that acts as a cryptographically secure seal on digital documents. Its basic mechanism is the same described in Haber and Stornetta's original paper [cited above]. Clients use Surety's AbsoluteProof software to create a hash of a digital document [(a unique ID)], which is then sent to Surety's servers where it is timestamped to create a seal. This seal is a cryptographically secure unique identifier that is then returned to the software program to be stored for the customer. [Null problemo with our Ontologic File System (OntoFS) as part of a Distributed System (DS), specifically a Distributed operating system (Dos) (see the comment).]
At the same time, a copy of that seal and every other seal created by Surety's customers is sent to the AbsoluteProof "universal registry database," which is a "hash-chain" composed entirely of Surety customer seals. This creates an immutable record of all the Surety seals ever produced, so that it is impossible for the company or any malicious actor to modify a seal [(see our basic algorithm based on our OntoFS based on the fact that metadata is data and the specific basic feature of the integrated File System (FS) that "a file is actually a folder [or directory,] and a file")]. But it leaves out an important part of the blockchain equation: Trustlessness. How can anyone trust that Surety's internal records are legit? [See also the comment to this quote below.]
Instead of posting customer hashes to a public digital ledger, Surety creates a unique hash value of all the new seals added to the database each week and publishes this hash value in the New York Times. [...]
[...] if someone wanted to compromise Surety's blockchain they could "make fake newspapers with a different chain of hashes and circulate them more widely." [...] [At least 51% of the original newspapers.]
[...]"]

Comment
In this case we have a system, which is based on a
decentralized and distributed storage of an individual record respectively timestamped hash of a document, which is a seal,
centralized and concentrated database or registry or ledger as a blockchain of seal, and
centralized and concentrated consensus, but
no Distributed System (DS or DisS) (no Peer-to-Peer System (P2PS)),
no Distributed Data Store (DDS),
no Distributed Storage System (DSS), Clustered File Systm (CFS), Shared-Disk File System (SDFS) (e.g. SAN), Distributed File System (DFS), Distributed Block Storage (DBS), and
no Distributed Ledger (DL).

We also note once again the document titled "Computer Systems Established, Maintained, and Trusted by Mutually Suspicious Groups" and publicized in February 1979 and June 1982.

We quote another time some relevant parts of the document titled "Secure Property Titles with Owner Authority" and publicized in 1998: "[...]
[...] secure, distributed title database [...]
[...]
[...] implement transferable global rights, enforced entirely by protocol, to names, attributions, bit gold, and similar purely informatic property owned by a particular entity but possessed and relied upon by the public, and how to implement a secure title database for other kinds of property. [...]
[...]
[...] replicated database technology [...]
[...] hypothetical property title software, and especially its protocol for distributing the title database across a public network [...] The property is represented by titles: names referring to the property, and the public key corresponding to a private key held by its current owner, signed by the previous owner, along with a chain of previous such titles. [...]
The ideal title database would have the following properties:
1. [...] (similar to the "double spending" problem in digital cash)
[...]
[...] we introduce "voting" as follows. A good model of secure replicated databases is the "Byzantine Quorum System" [...]. In contrast to most recent work in peer-to-peer software, our design is based on mathematical proofs of security rather than handwaving. [...] threshold-of-servers approaches [...]
[...]
With secure timestamps, [a utilization] could be done on a first-come rather than emergent respect basis.
[...]digital cash [...]
The two theoretical areas dealing with [keeping servers honest] are Byzantine agreement (used here) and multiparty secure computation (the virtual computer also called virtual machine).
[...]
The Byzantine agreement and related results typically require n>3f. (n is the number of servers and f is the number of maliciously faulty, or "Byzantine", servers that can be tolerated). Multiparty secure comptutions achieve n>2f but assume Byzantine agreement for synchronization, so they have in theory a 3f "security hole".
Variations don't always achieve such numbers. The [... BQS] replicated database achieved only n>4f. [...]
Under the assumption of digital signatures, agreement can be reached in n > f [reliability respectively trust threshold]. [...] It would be neat if one could do a replicated database with such a high trust threshold. [...]."

Comment
At this point, we recall that we came to the blockchain technique through the use case of a "secure, distributed title database" discussed in this work, when we looked for more prior art at first around 1999, while drafting A Prototype, specifically the chapter 3 Kolmogorov-Komplexität und algorithmische Informationstheorie==Kolmogorov Complexity and Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT).
AIT is also mentioned for example in the document titled "Smart Contracts: Building Blocks for Digital Markets" and publicized in 1996, which again also includes the following statement: "Digital cash is the premier example of a digital bearer instrument, in which the clearing agent is a bank."

We quote another time some relevant parts of the document titled "Advances in Distributed Security" and publicized in 2003: "[...]

Partial and Total Orders
[...]

Breaking Ties - Creating a Fair Total Order
[...]
One way to break ties fairly is have the participants toss fair coins [...]. [...]
[...]

Bit Commitment
[...]
[...] A common kind of a one-way function is a cryptographic hash function.
[...]

Multiparty Secure Computation
[...]

Threshold Cryptography
Threshold cryptography has been used to help achieve Byzantine-resilient replication in [...] SITRA SINTRA, and several other distributed service or filesystem architectures. Threshold cryptography is an optimized special case of a more general technique called multiparty secure computation[.]
[...]

[...]

Secure Time-stamping
[...]
These protocols [for committing to an unforgeable, non-repudiable time-stamp] work by users sending a cryptographic hash (a.k.a. message digest [or unique ID]) of their document to the time-tstamping servers. The servers chain messages and click clock ticks together by order of arrival [to create a seal, which is s cryptographically secure unique identifier]. Replicated servers can break ambiguities in order of arrival with a protocol such as fair coin tossing to achieve a fair total order. [See also the sections about the fields of logical broadcast and Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) below and for example the Secure INtrusion-Tolerant Replication Architecture (SINTRA).]

[...]

Logical Broadcast Over the Internet
[...]
[...] we have another option for creating a fair total order - the fair coin flipping methods described above. The result is a logical broadcast with the same basic security properties as an unjammable physical broadcast.

Byzantine-Resilient Replication
[...]
[...] Byzantine-resilient replicated service infrastructures have been implemented. They use techniques such as threshold cryptography and fair coin tossing to achieve logical broadcast on asynchronous networks like the Internet, protected against attack structures of colluding and malicious servers, such that the attack structure is the set complement of the access structure. See Appendix A below for sources of more information. A wide variety of Byzantine-resilient services can be built on top of logical broadcast. A high bandwidth, many-to-many unjammable physical broadcast network might provide similar but more efficient solutions in the future. A Byzantine-resilient replicated object library, for implementing online services with distributed trust in the CORBA distributed object system is described [...].
[...]
[...] "voting" implicit in Byzantine resilient protocols like that used here protects the integrity of a particular remote method call. [...]

Some Applications
[...]
Whether thought of as property rights or not, a wide variety of such currently centralized services can be re-implemented with much greater ensurable integrity and availability by distributing their trust with techniques such as Byzantine-resilient replication.
Another large class of potential services that can be distributed are issuers of digital bearer instruments, such as digital cash.
This author's design for a secure property title service uses cryptographic hash functions and digital signatures (without the need for a [Public Key Infrastructure (]PKI[)]) on top of a Byzantine-resilient replicated object service to maintain the integrity of chains of property titles [(actual title and previous such titles) and thus of chains of digital signatures (of the previous owners) (see also the definition of Bitcoin) respectively to guarantee the integrity of the replicated blockchain].
[...]

[...]

Appendex A - Implementations
Byzantine-Resilient Replication [(BRR)]

[...]

Hash Chain Structures and Secure Time-stamping

Oblivious Transfer and Multiparty Secure Computation

Capability / Smart Sandboxing

[...]"

Comment
The document connects secure timestamping and Byzantine-Fault Tolerance (BFT), specifically Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR).

In this case we have a system, which is based on a

But we also note that

• D.L. Chaum with his vault system described in the works titled "Computer Systems Established, Maintained, and Trusted by Mutually Suspicious Groups" (27th of February 1979 and April, June 1982), which is only about partial keys, and
• S. Haber and W.S. Stornetta with their timestamping service and universal registry.

But there are some details, which show differences between D.L. Chaum, S. Haber and W.S. Stornetta, and N. Szabo.

A little curious is the detail about "Rampart, Fleet, SINTRA, and several other distributed service or filesystem architectures".
But if we have to go into such details, then we also have to note that Rampart was publicized in 1994 and discusses the Distributed operating system (Dos) Amoeba and the field of microkernel, but only in the context of reliable and atomic multicast protocols.
In this relation, we also looked at the Agent-Based operating system (ABos) once again, because an ABS can achieve consensus based on Proof of Involvement and Integrity (PoII) and ABos also discusses the Dos Amoeba, but only in the context of Dos, and the field of BlackBoard System (e.g. Tuple Space System (TSS)), but only in the context of autonomy.

And the Fleet System was publicized only in 2001 and discusses Byzantine-Resilient Replication and persistent, Distributed Storage System (DSS) and Distributed Data Store (DDS) based on the field of Tuple Space System (TSS) (e.g. JavaSpaces, and Globe: Global Object Exchange a distributed tuplespace enabling fault-tolerance and scalability in a heterogeneous, loosely coupled network), but only in the context of read-write files and objects.
In this relation, we also looked at the GLOBE "a distributed tuplespace enabling fault-tolerance and scalability in a heterogeneous, loosely coupled network": "Globe stands for GLobal Object Based Environment. Globe is different from [Common Object Request Broker Architecture (]CORBA[)] and [Distributed Component Object Model (]DCOM[)] that it supports a huge number of users across the Internet and still provides distribution transparency." See also the document titled "Scalable Distributed Tuplespaces" and publicized in 2001.

Furthermore, we had not the impression that the SINTRA is related to the fields of File System (FS) and Distributed Data Store (DDS) system.

Our Evoos integrates a fault-tolerant Dos, MAS, TSS, and ABos, and also CAS, AM, BBS, HAS, etc., which has P2PVM, MSC, and persistent, DSS and DDS by its original and unqiue design.
Our OntoFS has both functionalities of timestamping and blockchain. For example, the date of creation of a file is a metadata, a metadata is a data, a data is stored in a file, and a file is stored in a folder or directory, "metadata is stored as sub-files, so a file is actually a folder and a file", data hash, cryptographically linked blocks, records, etc., or simply a blockchain.
All right?

This also raises the question why the author of Bitcoin has not taken another variant, but one belonging to the class of our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).

We quote once again the document titled "Agent Programming in 3APL" and publicized on the 1st of November 1999: "[...] The commitments of AGENT-0 agents correspond to the goals of 3APL agents. AGENT-0 lacks constructs like those of imperative programming to program control flow, but uses explicit representation of time and a global clock to impose some order on the execution of commitments. Commitments are basic actions with a time stamp [timestamp]. The commitment rules correspond to the practical reasoning rules of 3APL. However, commitment rules cannot be used to revise commitments, but can only be used to add new commitments.
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that AGENT-0 has not reflective capabilities in relation to commitment rules.
Furthermore, it should be obvious that a Multi-Agent System (MAS) with the capability to execute commitment rules also

A Multi-Agent System (MAS) requires consensus, specifically if an MAS, which is based on a BlackBoard System (BBS) with multiple BB coordinators or intermediate agents, should have autonomy (see once again Agent-Based operating system (ABos)).
See for example the (partial) plagiarism and fake of our Evoos by Kennedy, Catriona Mairi: "Distributed Reflective Architectures For Anomaly Detection And Autonomous Recovery" publicized in June 2003 and discussing the

• Do we want to extend the reflection to cover the middleware and operating system, so that the agents can reason about these levels and possibly modify them?
• At what level of abstraction do we want to represent the components on the lower level, if we want to reason about them?"

See also the Clarification of the 8th of May 2022.

All right?

Because our Evoos already includes an

the only missing part of a digital ledger was the blockchain technique, which was added to our Evoos with the basic properties and the OntoFS component of our OS.

Relevant for the overall discussion is also our

See also the Clarification of the May and August 2018, July 2019, 26th of April 2020.

P2PVM for resilient (fault-tolerant and trustworthy) Decentralized Computing (DC or DecC) respectively MSC is included in the design of our Evoos, and P2PVM, MASVM, and HASVM for (believable and trustworthy) Distributed Computing (DC or DisC) and also Belief System (BS), spirit, ..., consciousness, etc. created with our Evoos.
MASVM can not only do containerization, microService technologies, etc., like osVM, but the agents can also do MSC and "The God Protocols" according to the fields of Bioholonics and Holonic Agent System (HAS) (see for example "The Society of Mind"). In doing so their common commitment and agreement, ... as consciousness, spirit, etc.. (shows also the connection to an ontological argument or ontological proof, and a belief system (HyperBingo!!!), and our Ontologic System (OS)).
We also recall at this point Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) (Natural Multimodal Parsing or Scanning (NMP or NMS) and Natural Multimodal Generation (NMG)) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), including our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) and transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, as thoughts or minds, "You think as you speak, and vice versa", and the same with other modalities, and Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI).
bionic, cybernetic, ontonic self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait
In this way, they also realize and provide an ordinary MSC environment, Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), and Trusted Computing Base (TCB) for other entities.

We integrated Multiparty Secure Computation (MSC), also known as "The God Protocols", Peer-to-Peer Virtual Machine (P2PVM), blockchain technique, Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), Trusted Computing Base (TCB), etc. for our trustworthy worldview or Belief System (BS), trust machine, spirit, etc., Caliber/Calibre, and Ontoverse (Ov).

See the

and the other publications cited therein.

The P2PVM Askemos is based on the field of Multiparty Secure Computing (MSC) or Secure Multiparty Computing (SMC), specificaly BRR, utilized for the smart contract transaction protocol. But it also based on our Evoos and we do not known why the author is describing it like our Evoos on the basis of a brain and Neuronal Network (NN).

The P2PVM Askemos is also based on the transformation of an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST), which is also included in the Arrow System (AS) of the resilient (fault-tolerant and trustworthy) Distributed operating system (Dos) TUNES OS and our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), by cells or places, which is taken from Neuronal Network (NN), Bioholonics, P2PVM, MASVM, and HASVM, therefore we have shown once again that Askemos is based on Evoos and references SINTRA.

Howsoever, the latter shows that Evoos includes the (fault-tolerant) P2PVM for both fields,

Accordingly, 2 different variants and utilizations of P2PVM and digital ledger exist.
And for better differentiation, explanation, and understanding, we already began to use the terms

We get consensus based on BRR, etc., partial and total order, multi-signature, atomic broadcasting, etc., like for example

virtually for free in addition to other consensus methods, algorithms, or protocols, and also the blockchain technique, and DL by the design of our OS.
Obviously, the DL based on "Byzantine agreement (used here)" (e.g. Byzantine Quorum System (BQS)) and "on top of a Byzantine-resilient replicated object service" and described by N. Szabo is included respectively integrated in our OS, but also P2PS already in MAS {and fault-tolerant Dos} and thus in our Evoos, and therefore DL based on DAG (e.g. OS is graph-based, has File System (FS), etc.) (see OntoBot and OntoFS).

We also note that a supercomputer has synchronization, a cluster computer has synchronization, such as worldwide data centers of online platforms, and our Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup).

We always have a hash with File System (FS), DS, P2PS, DSS, DDS, blockchain, DHT, CAS, which in addition to cryptography, fault tolerance, etc. can be integrated elegantly.

The File System (FS) Reiser4 as part of the integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) of our Ontologic System (OS) with its basic properties, including

• Distributed Data Base (DDB) and
• Peer network node Data Store (PDS) (e.g. Chord, Tahoe-LAFS, Storage@home, etc.),

is a killer thing, which has been recognized, elaborated, and exploited completely as such only by C.S..

Distributed System (DS), Peer-to-Peer System (P2PS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Holonic Agent System (HAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS or CogAS), Associative Memory (AM), BlackBoard System (BBS), Content-Addressable Memory (CAM), Content-Addressable Storage (CAS or ConAS), Content-Addressable Network (CAN), Distributed Hash Table (DHT), Distributed Data Store (DDS), Distributed Ledger (DL), etc., etc., etc., and back to the start, and also integrated all in one.
All right?

We have not looked at the patents related to the hash graph or other DLT variants, but we can already conclude that they are void due to our Ontologic File System (OntoFS), and the other basic properties and functionalities of our Ontologic System (OS), and also the related Teaching, Suggestion, and Motivation (TSM). In fact, the hash graph technique is just a (slightly) different variant of the basic algorithm explained in detail in relation to its variant of the (decentralized) blockchain technique with or without Volunteer Computing (VC) and prime factorization (e.g. Bitcoin) on the basis of our OntoFS, which

In fact, it is based on the feature that "a file is actually a folder [or directory,] and a file", which allows to cryptographically link blocks, records, etc. arbitrarily (e.g. multi-rooted DAG, homogeneous multichain, or similar data structures).

19:25 UTC+1
Ontoscope Further steps

We are looking if a hardware wallet is already included in the variants of our Ontoscope, if it should be added, or if it is not required at all due to our other hardware and software solutions, like for example our

Self-explanatory, applications and services of a hardware wallet are based on the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, including our

• Ontologic Bank (OB or OntoBank),
• Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay),
• Ontologic Payment Processing System (OPPS),
• Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange),
• and so on,

  as well as our digital and virtual currencies

• OntoCoin,
• OntoTaler, and
• Qoin,

  which are exclusive and mandatory in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) (see also the message SOPR preparing official start of Ov coins of the 10th of November 2024),

and also

This implies the prohibition of illegal cryptocurrency and illegal self-custody, and requires the revision of already existing technologies, goods, and services.

26.December.2024

10:37 UTC+1
Iota blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory, though we have not blacklisted that fraudulent and even serious criminal endeavour explicitly in the past for avoiding a certain disharmony with several entities.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject IOTA (technology): "IOTA is a [...] distributed ledger and cryptocurrency designed for the Internet of things (IoT).[1] It uses a directed acyclic graph [(DAG)] to store transactions on its ledger, motivated by a potentially higher scalability over [linear data structure] blockchain based distributed ledgers.[2] IOTA does not use miners to validate transactions, instead, nodes that issue a new transaction on the network must approve two previous transactions.[3] [...] The network currently[as of?] initially achieves consensus through a coordinator node, operated by the IOTA Foundation.[4] As the coordinator is a single point of failure, the network is currently[as of?] was initially centralized.[5 [IOTA wants to ditch its most centralized component, but the timeline is still murky. [28th of May 2019]]][...]
IOTA has been criticized due to its unusual design, of which it is unclear whether it will work in practice.[6][7 [IOTA still wants to build a better blockchain and get it right this time. 13th of April 2021]] As a result, IOTA was rewritten from the ground up for a network update [...], which launched on 28 April 2021.[7] In this update, controversial decisions such as ternary encoding and quantum proof cryptography were left behind and replaced with established standards.[7] A testnet for a follow-up update [...], was deployed in late 2020, with the aim of releasing a distributed network that no longer relies on the coordinator for consensus in 2021.[5][7][8][needs update]

History
[...]
The IOTA network went live in 2016.[10 [Blockchain network IOTA teams up with Microsoft, others on data marketplace. [28 November 2017]]]

IOTA foundation
[...] The IOTA Foundation is a board member of International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications (INATBA),[12 [EU launches blockchain association to accelerate distributed ledger technology adoption. [3rd of April 2019]]] and founding member of the Trusted IoT Alliance[13 [New alliance advocates the blockchain to improve IoT security, trust. [19th of September 2017]]] and Mobility Open Blockchain Initiative (MOBI),[14 [BMW, GM, Ford and Renault launch blockchain research group for automotive industry. [2nd of May 2018]]] to promote blockchain and distributed ledgers in regulatory approaches, the IoT ecosystem and mobility.
[...]

[...]
The Tangle is the moniker used to describe IOTAs directed acyclic graph (DAG) transaction settlement and data integrity layer.[2 [A better blockchain: Bitcoin for nothing and transactions for free? [30th of November 2017]]] [...]"]

Applications and testbeds
Proof-of-concepts building on IOTA technology are being developed in the automotive and IoT industry by corporations, such as Jaguar Land Rover, STMicroelectronics and Bosch.[41][49][50] IOTA is a participant in smart city testbeds, to establish digital identity, waste management and local trade of energy.[1][51][52] In project Alvarium, formed under the Linux Foundation, IOTA is used as an immutable storage and validation mechanism.[53][54] The privacy centered search engine Xayn uses IOTA as a trust anchor for its aggregated AI model.[55][56] In 2024, IOTA partnered with Eviden (an Atos Group company) to announce the Eviden Digital Passport Solution (EDPS), a distributed ledger technology-based service that tracks the life cycle and carbon footprint of automotive batteries (like the origin of the battery, materials used to create it, manufacturing process, usage, repairs, etc.), making a determination on their sustainability through that collection of data.[57]
On 11 February 2020, the Eclipse Foundation and IOTA Foundation jointly launched the Tangle EE (Enterprise Edition) Working Group.[3] Tangle EE is aimed at enterprise users that can take IOTA technology and enable larger organizations to build applications on top of the project, where the Eclipse Foundation will provide a vendor-neutral governance framework.[58]
Announcements of partners were critically received.[59][60] In 2017, IOTA released the data marketplace, a pilot for a market where connected sensors or devices can store, sell or purchase data.[61][62] The data marketplace was received critically by the cryptocurrency community over the extent of the involvement of the participants of the data marketplace, suggesting that "the IOTA Foundation was actively asking publications to use Microsoft's name following the data marketplace announcement.".[59] Izabella Kaminska criticized a Jaguar press release: "our interpretation is that it's very unlikely Jaguar will be bringing a smart-wallet-enabled marketplace any time soon."[60]

Comment
Somehow, we have the impression that the update follows our Ontologic System (OS) with its Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) once again. In fact, one of the decentralized DLT variants is the distribtued version of a digital ledger based on a blockchain (see Nick Szabo) or a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as data structure and a Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) as consensus protocol instead of a coordinator, orchestrator, or mediator.
At least, the company demonstrated once again why Askemos, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Co. are interesting concepts and utilizations of our Evoos and our OS, but also crypto crap from the technical point of view. We did it right just right from the start with our Evoos and our OS, which are so much better and bigger and so on.

See also the illegal Bitcoin, Ethereum, Hedera, and so on, and for example the publications

We are already looking at this case in relation to the activities of the company Microsoft and the other companies, and also the organizations, specifically in relation to a revision of the estimation of the damage compensations, because so far we only estimated the damages, which were directly made, but not the damages, which were indirectly made with collaborations, conspiracies, corruptions, etc..

So much about freedom of expression and competition.

We are writting the set of legal documents.

By the way:

• FIPS-203: CRYptographic SuiTe for Algebraic LatticeS (CRYSTALS) CRYSTALS-Kyber,
• FIPS-204: CRYSTALS-Dilithium,
• FIPS-205: Stateless, Practical, Hash-based, Incredibly Nice Cryptographic or Collision-resilient Signatures (SPHINCS) (based on Practical Stateless Hash-Based Signatures) SPHINCS+, and
• FIPS-206: Falcon.

But honestly, we only made a quick look at the mathematics and informatics underlying PQC, but we will not discuss the matter in public due to bad actors and instead refer to our original and unique Quantum Ledger (QL) of our Ontologic System (OS) and Quantum Coin (Qoin) of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS).

30.December.2024

16:41 UTC+1
...???...!!!

In the last week, we got some interesting insights in certain relationships and developments, but also individual opinions and conclusions.
Sadly to say, while the analyses were quite good, the interpretations were often nonsense.

One point was X (Twitter) as a so-called superapp and X.AI Corporation, which are more or less pipedreams, because all competitors

So the consensus are the voluntarily chosen or legally enforced Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the utilization of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

Another topic was about the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, viewed as the last hope for the freedom of the citizens, the relationship between the U.S.American Federal Reserve System (Fed) and (the actors at) the Wall Street, and the attempt of the latter to get the control over Bitcoin and Co..
Also criticized in this context was the approach to have a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), because this would allow to continue with the fractual-reserve banking.
So once again, Bitcoin is based on a part of our expression of idea, compilation (collection and assembling), selection, composition, arrangement, integration, unification, fusion, design, architecture, etc. created, presented, and discussed as our Ontologic System (OS) and because we

Bitcoin is an illegal cryptocurrency respectively belongs to the illegal Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
The approach with the CBDC was chosen for compatibility and harmony, so that the

can be realized for the benefit of the public. But this requires that governments respect all rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, which is still not the case as promised by the one side and expected by our side. See also the notes

and other publications of this website of OntomaX to get more informations.

Another point was the introduction of the Digital IDentity (DID), which

to get complete mass surveillance and control over the citizens.
No, this might be a wet dream of members of governments and certain other entities, but the foundations of a DID in general and our Ov in particular are much more advanced.
Our Ov provides the same freedoms as the old Internet and the old World Wide Web (WWW), but has no Darknet and we ask for a little fee from certain entities and in a commen sense some anonymized data form users for the benefit of the public and to keep our Ov free.
The DID is only required for OAOS, which are legal, official, and bureaucratic tasks, so that these tasks can be digitalized at the homes, corporations, offices, authorities, ministries, etc., and done from these locations in legally binding ways by the citizens.
This also includes our societal network, which is a social network with real IDentity, etiquette respectively netiquette, children safety, and legal security, and without illegal activities, including misinformation, hatespeech, crime, etc., and also without data kraken, targeted advertiesement, if at all, etc..
A user of this societal network does not dependent on the mercy of a service provider anymore, but can enforce rights and properties in this specific area of the virtual space directly at the authorities in the real space respectively in our fusion of both as our NR.

In this relation, the prohibition of encryption, specifically by the government of the U.K., was also mentioned and criticized, which of course is total nonsense, exactly like including a reserve in the illegal cryptocurrency Bitcoin by a monetary authority.
We do not allow such a modification of our works of art.
And we already explained how all goals of the citizens, also called the sovereign, and their representatives can be achived by the reasonable utilization of advanced cryptography, including the encryption of messages, protection of identities, anonymous networking, anonymous services, and so on. And this is what governments have to sign to get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our works of art due to the

Point.

By the way, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001 and similar undemocratic laws, specifically in relation with the old Internet and old WWW, have to be revised, reduced, or even abolished, because basic rights and freedoms are disproportionately restricted and mass surveillance and control are enacted under the disguise of the fight against terrorism by exploiting an event, which has happened once in a lifetime or even history.

For sure, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its new relation to the media and other areas of socieities is still a hot topic. But as everybody should have understood it now, the so-called generative Artificial Intelligence does not work as marketed and the realization of AI, which truly works, is also included in our OS (e.g. Ontologic roBot (OntoBot)) with its Ov and Ontoscope (Os).
Specifically, we do not think that it is a problem, if the mass media will be replaced by algorithms and disappear, because it sets free resources for much better and even new kinds of journalism and voter empowerment.
However, consensus is that both, the media and the generative AI, have already damaged so much that it is not sure, if those damages can still be cured.

At the end we would like to recall once again two points of us:

31.December.2024

06:06 UTC+1
Web browser and IP suit no legal alternative to OS

Interconnected network (Internet) Protocol (IP)

We would like to recall that we do have our

which are compatible with our Ontologic System Architecture (OS) and our Ontologic System™ (OS) variant OntoLinux™, and the software library WebKit to exclusively exploit (e.g. commercialize (e.g. monetize)) the many original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

Historically, a (web) browser engine is used for the presentation layer. The additional functionality on the basis of for example JavaScript was added after the initial presentation of our OS, which also references the ECMAScript (ECMA-262), including the scripting respectively programming languages JavaScript and ActionScript, explicitly.

But despite the convergence of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) and the web browser and the ongoing disappearance of the web browser, it is still a good idea to choose the favourite web browser.