<? steem insert edit semver.org first version 1.01.0120.120.20Abravoalpha with timestamp link >
scribe (37-12=20+5.0) 7.00 hours ago (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Append-only
Why is Craig Wright (CSW) the only one writing about that? Is CSW repeating that their goal was not drugs and taxes, a defense of the CIA/DEA (is that why the FBI has never researched CSW in public, too much of a double standard looking in the FBI/DEA/CIA mirror? Our gov wants to wait why again, so we can stake/crucify Mark Z first and make some money first?) er, or, themself?
Is the law ready to talk about redefining the law with an API too? Because that part I just mentioned, would be called a "bug" not a "feature".
(I mean, APIs have been around long before blockchains existed, we're talking about old news ideas here, and whether or not the government knowingly avoids remembering itself, too.
If you could describe the surface of a US gov't structure, it would be called dirty err clean?)
You want to talk about structure and organization, do you mean API and Law? (You do not even need a blockchain, just publish on paper in a glass box building?)
Is CSW the only one writing about that next to the word Law, when is the government going to interview them at a hearing, is the US ready to have that discussion on even paper yet? Why is the government not following "append-only" as CSW writes, I mean, as CSW codes?
_
<? steem insert edit [semver.org](https://www.semver.org?v= 1.0120.120.20bbravoalpha.37) second 2nd version 1.0120.120.20bbravoalpha with timestamp link >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Append-only
Why is Craig Wright (CSW) the only one writing about that? Is CSW repeating that their goal was not drugs and taxes, a defense of the CIA/DEA (is that why the FBI has never researched CSW in public, too much of a double standard looking in the FBI/DEA/CIA mirror? Our gov wants to wait why again, so we can stake/crucify Mark Z first and make some money first? We want to attack Mark Z{uck[erberg]} [recreating the Bill G{ates, in case anyone wants to base their political campaign on how I did not spell the rest of the word, and gets more upvotes than me} story must be a rush of paper...] for "inventing" algorithms the government wants to cherry-pick its own secretly for to avoid append-only data laws? USA Law is severely if not indefensibly behind if we have the FBI making claims about the internet like this/that.) er, or, themself?
Is the law ready to talk about redefining the law with an API too? Because that part I just mentioned, would be called a "bug" not a "feature".
(I mean, APIs have been around long before blockchains existed, we're talking about old news ideas here, and whether or not the government knowingly avoids remembering itself, too.
If you could describe the surface of a US gov't structure, it would be called dirty err clean?)
You want to talk about structure and organization, do you mean API and Law? (You do not even need a blockchain, just publish on paper in a glass box building?)
Is CSW the only one writing about that next to the word Law, when is the government going to interview them at a hearing, is the US ready to have that discussion on even paper yet? Why is the government not following "append-only" as CSW writes, I mean, as CSW codes?
_
<? steem insert edit semver.org third version 1.037.0.1_.333.6.99.20ABravoAlphaCharlie with timestamp link >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Append-only
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API
Why is Craig Wright (CSW) the only one writing about that, as specific Laws? Is CSW repeating that their goal was not drugs and taxes, a defense of the CIA/DEA (is that why the FBI has never researched CSW in public, too much of a double standard looking in the Goog-d/FBI/DEA/CIA/NSA/NASA/G-d mirror? Our gov wants to wait why again, so we can stake/crucify Mark Z first and make some money first?) er, or, themself?
Is the law ready to talk about redefining the law with an API too? Because that part I just mentioned, would be called a "bug" not a "feature".
(I mean, APIs have been around long before blockchains existed, we're talking about old news ideas here, and whether or not the government knowingly avoids remembering itself, too.
If you could describe the surface of a US gov't structure, it would be called dirty err clean?)
You want to talk about structure and organization, do you mean API and Law? (You do not even need a blockchain, just publish on paper in a glass box building?)
Is CSW the only one writing about that next to the word Law, when is the government going to interview them at a hearing, is the US ready to have that discussion on even paper yet? Why is the government not following "append-only" as CSW writes, I mean, as CSW codes?
_
<? steem insert edit [semver.org](https://www.semver.org?v= 1.0451.20.120.20bBravoAlphaCharlieFeeFiFoFum) forth A/B_Test version 1.0451.20.120.20bBravoAlphaCharlieFeeFiFoFum with timestamp link >
"FocusGroup"::A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API
"ConcentrationGroup"::B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Append-only
"_C":'AB' Test.run.crawl.scrape.save.rec.law.log (you think it's funny reading real variables, Senator WhatsyourscreennameagaintheotheronenothatoneImean?)
Why is Craig Wright (CSW) the only one writing about that, as specific U.S. Laws? Is CSW repeating that their goal was not drugs and taxes, a defense of the CIA/DEA (is that why the FBI has never researched CSW in public, too much of a double standard looking in the Goog-d/FBI/DEA/CIA/NSA/NASA/G-d (pick your favorite nominal pejorative name, one that is "Cops"/"Mods" legal, ideally one with a Hollycryptowood reference in the Box Office only one weekend, to show propaganda got faster too, and now we train agents to talk with those references alone, only those reference points, I have some calling me Hollywood names from what was only there {in theatures, shout to the product placement language experts who say they're using "English", ten actors, not abusive of course WiseGov said, at once repeating the line "go to a theatre it's better", where is the agency monitoring for that?} literally from yesterday's advert) algorithmic mirror ["algorithmic mirror" is from YCombinator.com, it got good votes, thank you for asking where these words come from before guessing... maybe I should require repliers to prove they're able to define every word/ref, find a bunch of officials can't pass that test either, while repeating a Crypowood advert from yesterday with authority in their voice like some combination of Keanu and Paris actually being sober and saying that... instead of installing soundproof/bulletproof glass dividers in theatres and innovating, I mean to protect from Facebook-powered WiseGov Undercovers telling/singing/shooting one-liner jokes next to you...? Oath.com WiseGov employees not at the congressional hearings.]? Our gov wants to wait why again, so we can stake/crucify Mark Z first and make some money first? We want to attack Mark Z{uck[erberg]} [recreating the Bill G{ates congresional hearings spectacle while getting good at running NSA's PRISM staring "For the Right Reasons" {in a Good Parent voice, maybe Batman or Batwoman for the voiceover, in the scene where they're raising copdren.} in the backroom, in case anyone wants to base their political campaign on how I did not spell the rest of the word, and gets more upvotes than me} story must be a rush of paper...] for "inventing" algorithms the government wants to cherry-pick its own secretly for to avoid append-only data laws? USA Law is severely if not indefensibly behind if we have the FBI making claims about the internet like this/that.) er, or, themself?
Is the law ready to talk about redefining the law with an API too? Because that part I just mentioned, would be called a "bug" not a "feature".
(I mean, APIs have been around long before blockchains existed, we're talking about old news ideas here, and whether or not the government knowingly avoids remembering itself, too.
If you could describe the surface of a US gov't's web/internet-based structure, it would be called dirty err clean?
You want to talk about structure and organization, do you mean API and Law? (You do not even need a blockchain, just publish on paper in a glass box {Edit: Sorry, clear plastic text only from plainlanguage.gov [only the best words ever, with endearing looking rubber stamp lacking any meaning in terms of evidence of a Log for Law by API, and proof of a Log for API by Law, which sadly only CSW seems to have fit a frontpage article about and the NYT is having trouble dealing with that part of the narrative where we talk about how mommy and daddy have personal problems running the internet because "There is not a book for raising cops and mods" I heard one WiseGov parent say in a very loving voice which is too good to not pass every filter and get a good vote, because that's intellectual honesty by government standards and we're okay with that...? And that agents' talking looks/talks hot, instead of who has/controls the raw data!?, why follow Internet Laws for Logs and APIs...really we need average idiots to point to and notice how the intelligence community does not advocate Laws with Code written/spoken by the agent at the hearing instead of repeating their speechwriters after inbibing nepotism napkins at a bar?], BPA and BBB.org free. We support how BBA.org is not shut down, yet Google+ is missing data?} building?)
Is CSW the only one writing about that next to the word Law? When is the government going to interview them at a hearing? Is the US ready to have that discussion on even paper yet? Why is the government not following "Append-Only" standards as CSW writes, I mean, as CSW codes?