Blockchain as a Service

To date I’ve generally avoided outright spruiking BSV, because although I am a huge fan of the technology, there has been a long and frustrating disconnect between what it delivers and the price performance that is occurring in this highly corrupt and manipulated crypto market. I don’t want people to be trading on my advice, because in this market – at least until it is regulated, you will be likely to be as disappointed price wise as I have been.

That said, while I’ve found the price performance of BSV to be frustrating, the technological developments that continue to occur in the BSV space continue to provide me with reassurance that my interest in the technology is not misplaced. So with these parameters of expectations established I think I’ll take the opportunity to specifically write an article on BSV.

So as most will know I’m a fan of BSV and the idea that there is only really a need for one public blockchain, and possibly a couple use cases for private chains too. As I’ve mentioned before, this line of thought is referred to as a ‘BitCoin Maximalist’ or the inevitability of ‘one blockchain’ to rule them all. Basically the blockchain that is the most economically efficient and that can gobble up the most use cases that distributed ledger technology can deliver, will be the one that eventually wins.

In this regard Coingeek has done an article that does a nice job of encapsulating this line of thinking as “blockchain as a service”:

The term “as a service” is meant to recognize the range of products and tools which are delivered to users via the internet, rather than, for example, using on-premise hardware or locally stored software. 

The idea being that in a Maximalist scenario the succeeding chain will effectively become a protocol for internet data/payments to occur, in much the same way as HTTP became the main application protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems that allows users to communicate data on the web.

Essentially the winner aims to become the integrated digital payment protocol for distributed internet payments. Currently this is a list of services and apps that are already available at BSV app meta store:

There is quite a bit of vaporware in that list, but a lot of gems too. The other thing to note is that there are products listed there, like TDXP (Truly Distributed Exchange Protocol), BitcoinFiles, CryptoFights, that completely fulfill the use cases for what entire stand alone blockchains have been created for e.g. Filecoin.

Note: One of the reasons it took me so long to complete this post was that CryptoFights came out and it suddenly expanded into two articles now, this one and a seperate case study post on ‘CryptoFights’ that I’ll post later this week.

As to whether this model can succeed or not is a point of much discussion, and it will ultimately succeed or fail on the economics of it versus competing systems (including existing systems), and the ultimate technical limitations of the technology in storage and processing abilities.

These ‘products and tools as a service’ will be apps like digital wallets that will host your CBDC or like stable coins, your coffee tokens from your local barista and his coffee shop, including his loyalty points every time you buy a coffee. It will give you instant access to your credit card award points, or your QANTAS points, all carried as tokens which you’ll be able to spend directly. Then there will be the entire range of existing products * 10 that are known as DeFi – they will pose a huge threat to traditional bankings range of consumer products and the fat margins they earn.

But all those services are likely to come later, if they even come at all. What you will likely see before then are a whole range of micro-services, for things that you won’t even be aware that are taking place. When you open articles small micro-payments will be triggered in the background, this will extend across to other adds that people click on (making “click” farms in China suddenly more expensive). This direct marketing and payments cycle is being pioneered by Tonic Pow. While the technology is currently hamstrung by a lack of stable coins or CBDCs to pay for these advertisements, the technology bugs are currently being ironed out in the native currency, and so will be ready when they do come. In time I expect these direct marketing payments to become almost ubiquitous.

Even those enterprise services like Tonic Pow, that require human interaction, will be in the minority. A great many services will simply be the IoT in operation, as computers talk and interact with each other, and things as simple as log files, get permanently and indelibly written to the blockchain… RouterSV is already working on providing such a service.

That is the real issue here, the vast majority and by vast I mean probably 99% of traffic on this system will be machine data generated through the IoT – the median transaction value of each transaction event on the blockchain will be incredibly low*.

*provided expectations on economics and storage costs are met.

This is flood of microtransactions in effects is something that will also add security to the network. Here is a short 8 minute video of Steve Shadders demonstrating a boot up of transaction processing hitting 50,000 tps:

Steve is an Australian blockchain engineer who works at nChain, being one of the main developers and intellectual property holders working with BSV. He actually sounds nervous as fuck giving this presentation – you can hear his voice wobble throughout. Every time he talks of facts or explains something, confident, every time he refers the demo his voice starts wobbling. Apparently he admitted later he was nervous as fuck that his live demo was going to crash out.

Within the ‘White Paper’ miners are envisaged as neutral players – uninterested in what they are processing other than the technical specifications, transaction fee and databyte/sat and simply processing it according to the protocol rules.

The vast majority of transactions over which they process will have virtually no economic worth, yet collectively they will provide the miners with the vast majority of their income. So the motivation to ‘cheat’ on a micro-transaction is next to non-existent, because of the next to non-existent value of the majority of the transactions, yet despite that these microtransactions will provide miners with the vast bulk of their income incentivising them to maintain the system integrity.

Comparatively for transactions of high value miners might have a higher motivation to ‘cheat’, but if they do they are also likely to have more owners keeping eyes on their coins and the relevant transactions, which in a regulated system would expose them to regulator prosecution while simultaneously threatening to undermine their far greater source of revenue in terms of the rivers of gold flowing to them from billions or even trillions of microtransactions.

The opportunity to cheat outside of these two areas, especially when the protocol is locked down, is effectively limited. Miners can’t change the code to give them more BTC without it being made public and without all miners agreeing on it. If only one miner continued to hold out and side with public outrage, that would be the chain that would be most likely to persist.

Currently this is the high level structural differences between BTC and BSV. BTC has around 300 times more hash devoted to it than BSV, and consequently its price is around 300 times higher. If you added up all the Hash devoted to all the Bitcoin forks, BTC soaks up 98% of all the hash…. yet if you examine the block sizes and the transactions being processed, BSV is carrying 98% of the data. Data is where the long term value is, that is where work other than passing magic beans to each other is carried out, that is why long term I believe (and I will write some more on that later this week) that eventually the Hash Rate and the transaction rate will converge on both systems:

As I have said many times before, BitCoin is a Gordian knot of competing economic, legal and cryptographic principals. There is the “Red Queen’s Game” in terms of the manner in which miners are motivated to eternally compete with each other to become more and more efficient at processing transactions, which means they have to continuously run simply in order to stay still.

Then there are the Money transmitting laws that it was designed to operate within in order to satisfy existing regulatory laws. There is the “Byzantine generals problem” and the “Streisand Effect” both of which are useful in solving the problem of bad actors in distributed processing systems, particularly during bootstrapping phases.

Finally there is standard “Game Theory” in behaviors governing miners actions as the system and networks become more mature, malfeasance, chance of being caught and risk of cost in punishment of being caught.

These are a Gordian knot – pull on anyone of them and remove that aspect of their contribution to the problem solving that Bitcoin attempts to achieve, and you do not have Bitcoin according to the original white paper.

4.7 3 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The idea being that in a Maximalist scenario the succeeding chain will effectively become a protocol for internet data/payments to occur, in much the same way as HTTP became the main application protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems that allows users to communicate data on the web.

This is a very poor argument for a single blockchain.
How many webservers are there?
Sql became the default protocol for databases. How many databases are there?
Why would someone use the central chain when they can just run their own for even less cost with the same protocols?


How many SWIFT payment systems are there?

including near equivalents?
Visa, mastercard, bpay, eftpos, diners, paypal, western union, bartercard. Just as a quick within australia off the top of my head list.

But they can’t.

Anyone doing tens or hundreds of millions of transactions almost certainly can do it cheaper.

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678
  1. if you would take, for the sake of argument, that all blockchains are a form of inherent fiat, would you look at any/all of them the same?
  2. will IoT live a long life, say like in-house bath, in-house toilet (meaning become inseparable part of our lives and culture) or will it go the way of 3D television sets?
  3. without IoT, will there be a need for so many transactions?
  4. what is the running cost per transaction where each transaction earns a 1000th fraction of a cent?
  5. what if WU or other lookalikes were using SWIFT only where there was no other option (e.g. urgency) and used localised money only and own credit line (meaning only excess surplus leaves a country)?
  6. How many patents are filed vs. patents in use?
  7. How many patents are filed to just bank an idea?

Not meant to dissuade you or to take the opposite end of spectrum stance, just a few thoughts (I really have no opinion on the topic)


Perhaps the main question is does blockchain brings something never used or it just finds a way to popularise, infest everyone with use and improve something existing?
The later one is heavily subjected to trends.

Reminder: just thoughts I ask myself each time I want to look into the tech and then give up few minutes later.


Perhaps the main question is does blockchain brings something never used

It brings decentralisation.
A single chain that runs everything is the antithesis of decentralised though.


It brings decentralisation.

Do not think so: it brings decentralised storage. Data is centralised in its habitat/ecosystem boundaries which may be spreaded but data is dead outside of it it.
Banking used to be decentralised in a truer meaning until the digital age. If I had to draw my savings in another town (as a kid), they would use my booklet ledger, call my branch, confirm funds, inform them of the withdrawal/deposit sum, update my ledger book, notify my branch of the new tally, print it in the book.
All this was done by a single 1MIPS Honeywell H6000 per *major* branch (e.g. one in whole of the Wollongong).

One database spread over X amount of computers vs. each data held in parallel at several places of the Z possibilities.

after re-reading, I think you summed up what I said in: “A single chain that runs everything is the antithesis of decentralised though.”

Last edited 2 months ago by DjenkA

Microtransactions have been happening for a decade at least.

Google ads and youtube already pay via mircotransactions per view/click.
You can buy facebook ads in microtransactions as well.

The reason they aren’t popular isn’t because tech can’t do them
If the main benefit is microtransaction you’ve already lost.

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678

Microtransactions are already enabled as I pointed out. Blockchain does not make them any easier than before blockchain.


The main benefit it brings is the possibility of microtransactions 

it seems as a solution that needed its problem.


i think we talked about micro transactions some months ago and this is one of the main conclusions (or at least stumbling blocks) that we came to at that time as well.

if the transactions are “micro”, they are probably very low value and not the sort of thing where:

  • you need them to be stored forever
  • you need a trust less environment to process them

and if that’s the case – the doesn’t seem like you need a blockchain….


and if that’s the case – the doesn’t seem like you need a blockchain….

A blockchain is just a woefully inefficient database so unless you need the particular things that a blockchain does you really don’t need one at all.

And THE particular thing a blockchain does is give you a trustless way to decide which of multiple potential blockchains is the valid one in a deterministic and repeatable way that everyone will agree on.
This has very specific uses and none of them are where there is only one or a handful of copies of the chain.


4. The running costs are pretty much the energy usage and the depreciation of computer equipment. Here is a good site to give you some idea of the comparative ‘greenness’ in energy use the technology is. Note that BSV is designed to actually become cheaper per transaction, by all these measurements, the large it scales.

And how do all of those compare to a central database server as has been the standard practice for the last 50 years?
That is what the real competition will be for this technology. Given mining doesn’t exist, and the ledger is much simpler and more efficient no blockchain tech will even be in the ballpark in terms of costs or greenness.


Depends on if you want it to be or not, which I would say is a benefit, not a problem.
Can you see my comments here, stored on the db running
Can you see your group certificate data stored on the ato’s db?


Being “cheaper” will never be a use case.

Relica is just another social media network and functionally identical has already been built without blockchain so I hardly see it as a strong use case.

Meta looks like vapourware that has more “Partners” than content.


How many internets are there?


You spent so much time thinking about the how, that you didn’t bother to think about the why

aside from drug dealing, ransoms, and people smuggling what is the use case cf with a centralised database (eg CBDC)


I can do it for literally 0 per transaction within the hospital. And it will still work when the internet is broken.


I just ignored all the costs you ignored in your “analysis”.

You need a computer and network running software in both cases, and at that point you don’t need an external transaction engine to store data of no interest to anyone outside the hospital.

And realistically the cost of the software is near enough to zero for something in widespread use, and a computer is required to enter the data no matter what tech you use.


The only thing a distributed ledger does that a ledger/Database doesn’t is be distributed.
Other than code is law and store of value I don’t see a use case that requires Distributed, and a single blockchain that stores EVERYTHING simply cannot be distributed so claiming it as a use case for distributed ledgers is beyond perverse.

What extra-extragenous steps in the complete transaction invoicing auditing process would be eliminated by using the blockchain?’

None, it would be more complex to use the blockchain, and require trust of unrelated third parties. All the blockchain does is store data, the same as a database. A local database is a much easier thing to audit than the public blockchain so big you couldn’t even store a copy of it.
OR alternately you use a blockchain locally and get all the supposed benefits without the external party and “all the worlds data size” problems.

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678

I’m saying it’s the only one I’ve seen mentioned that existing tech can’t do cheaper and/or more efficiently


Yeah but you don’t justify your position, because making something more complicated doesn’t make it cheaper.


So show me a single case where blockchain does it cheaper than anything practical other than another blockchain.


The technology is a decade old, near enough.
There has been no attempts to “utilise it in a commercial sense for anything other than pass magic beans to each other” because that is the only thing that it does better than things that already exist.


It has been an amazing success at the magic beans. It’s created a trillion dollars worth of magic beans!


A trillion is a nice dramatic figure to throw out there.

if you’re right and there are shenanigans playing on the lack of liquidity, etc, let’s take 80% off and say it’s closer to $10,000 per coin. that’s still $200b, and can be called a huge success in terms of magic beans.


Why do I need to buy your artificially limited supply tokens for this ?

my hospital can and probably does this already for nearly nothing

It’s either a useful piece of software, or a Ponzi scheme

by definition it can’t be both


Wouldn’t I make more money running a local db selling exactly the same service, given my costs will be less than operating on the blockchain, and I could undercut a service using it.


How many applications need global reach?
None of the ones you have given as use cases.

How many need 100% uptime?
Besides local problems are just as likely as remote problems to bring a system down and if the storage is local you have a single rather than multiple points of failure.


The more expensive the token, the less efficient the service on an AUD basis

the less efficient the service, the less real value the token has

its a paradox that can’t be solved – you’ve tried to create an actual useful service but also wanted to make it a pyramid scheme and a security at the same time

you can say that the price secures the utility, but like peachy says that makes it useless for actual micro transactions


The thing you completely fail to see here is that systems already exist that provide additional transactions at literally 0 additional cost. You will never outperform them on price unless you pay people to process and store transactions for them and that is not going to be a successful business model,..


Maybe you should contact the entire crypto community and tell them someone solved the problem without the complexities and additional costs blockchain adds.

You know those cost charts for miner and storage costs you linked earlier. What do you think they look like for iron mountain who don’t have mining hardware or running costs at all and simply store the data in it’s most efficient form.


permanently stored on the blockchain, forever for the 1/250th of a cent or even less –

so purpose as a database? Storage?


is a distributed ledger database, that opens up a whole heap of microtransaction use cases.

You keep saying that. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

A permanent global store is virtually the worst thing you could use to store microtransactions.


and a blockchain is not a database, it is by definition a single list of transactions in chronological order, otherwise it is no longer a “chain” of “blocks”


Timestamping data causes it to stop being data in a database?

No but storing data doesn’t make it data in a database either.

Creating indexes to look up data in an efficient manner makes it a database. A blockchain is not a database. It has no indexes, merely just a list of data in chronological order.
You can copy the data into a database and keep 2 copies of it, but then you have to ask “what value does the blockchain copy provide?”


Blockchain has NO indexing power at all.
You are being fed complete bullshit by anyone claiming that it does.
A stack of paper printouts in chronological order has as much indexing power as blockchain.
Care to explain how you search through the blockchain by anything other than the time the record was created?


I know little about the technical stuff.

But I can see how you could both be right – BSV might work as a database for some applications: eg if you want to inventory a stock of experimental jabs that get produced and must be used within 3 months, before they go bad. and you’re never (or almost never) needing to try to find a vial from 15 years ago.

I can also see how something like the above could gain from being publicly accessible and verifiable trustlessly.

it might work really poorly as a database to store an individual’s lifetime health record. Where you do need to be able to go and dig through old stuff all the time.

likrwise, for an individual health record , I don’t see the benefit of public access or trust less verification (discounting dystopian situations…. Which perhaps we shouldn’t do so lightly, these days)


I can also see how something like the above could gain from being publicly accessible and verifiable trustlessly.4

But once it contains too much data it can only be stored in a few places and it is no longer verifiable if the owner wants to tamper with it.
To tamper with a blockchain you need to create a chain that embodies more “work” in some form than the competing legitimate chain. If there is no store of a competing chain it is no more verifiable than a simple database somewhere as you create and hold the “only” chain and there is nothing to verify against.

Blockchain doesn’t create a chain that can’t be tampered with, it just makes it harder.


But that is the only potential justification to use it over a more efficient database that has no need for wasting resources on mining.
Once it is as easily tampered with as a database you just use a database.


Code is law works if the blockchain is widespread enough.
That is why it only works for low transaction rates. That is why transaction rates for bitcoin are so limited. We have been through this multiple times and done the maths.


How do you enforce the ruling?
And if it is and crypto is tarnished forever then your little pet projects are going down in flames as well since their main selling point is CRYPTO.

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678

I think that all Craigo might achieve is having his own 3 private forks of BTC, BCH, BSV.

on those forks he will have the coins that he claims.

everyone else will hop on the other fork, where he doesn’t have the coins.

but then he might as well save himself the trouble of court stuff and just make himself these 3 forks on some old PCs in the basement and have at it!


It won’t be the same database. Craigo will have the original one.

everyone else will just decide not to use it anymore and use a slightly older copy 😉

as to contempt – again: perhaps in theory, but not in practice. People can’t be forced to mine on a particular chain. They can mine whatever they want, or not mine at all…

same thing for infinite new cases. Works in theory, but not in practice.


Hey, now that you mention it – how’s that lawsuit going? Has Dr Wright lost or given up yet?

edit: or, better yet – has he won but been thoroughly unable to enforce the judgement?

Last edited 2 months ago by Peachy

Thanks for the update!


I’m not telling them they can’t. You can use a filing cabinet as a database. I’m telling them they shouldn’t.
They will be absolutely outcompeted for everything except stupid venture capital if they do.

Providing these things as examples is only meaningful if they are SUCCESSFUL.

You are all about calling the governments propaganda but but you just eat up the propaganda from people selling you hopium in the crypto space.


Then you are an idiot.

Case study:
How do the crypto exchanges store their data, contracts and other related stuff?
Do they use the crypto chains they promote and are dependent on for their very existence, or do they use existing cheaper, more efficient and usable techniques?
If the crypto exchanges don’t use it why would anyone else?

Qualifier: actual profitable widely used crypto exchanges, not tech demonstrators.


ROFLMAO – I win!

If you believed that you wouldn’t cry like a baby and point at people telling you what you want to hear every time I point out problems with your sales pitch.


Because most of the links you provide have so many factual errors they make my head hurt.
Or are for a company providing something I can’t even figure out that is clearly just fishing for funding.
I am not going to waste my time reading that trash.
If you can’t turn their content into something I can’t invalidate in a sentence or 2 that’s on you and them.

If you don’t understand it well enough to explain it, you might want to consider why you are listening to people with a vested interest and believing everything they say.

And it’s not a critique of a loose definition of a database. You are claiming the benefit blockchain provides is being a database, I am pointing out there are many database engines in existence that do that far better than a blockchain.
A person in front of a computer monitor that reads the request on screen, gets it out of a filing cabinet and types the answer requested back in fits the definition of a database. I wouldn’t use it to run a small business, let alone the entire world though.

provide additional references to which I get my views from.

And this is my biggest problem with your position. It doesn’t come from understanding the tech, and existing alternatives. It comes from people presenting compromised view points devoid of justification.
I get my “views” from decades of developing software commercially and having dug through the sourcecode for bitcoin to understand how and why things were done the way they were.

If I can think of a way to do whatever you are claiming is “THE” use case for your tech using pre-existing tech in a few minutes then you don’t have a killer app, and I don’t even need to understand the fine details of your particular chain to invalidate it.
Flat files(which is what a blockchain is in CompSci data structure terms) are not used for ANYTHING in software because they are ridiculously inefficient for everything, and a blockchain cannot be anything else because it’s integrity relies on every block being unchanged from the point of its creation and linking to the block after it chronologically.

Ultimately if you present a pile of marketing BS in front of me I’m going to nitpick all the holes in it, same as I pick the holes in the marketing BS the government is putting in front of me.

And finally,
but BIS are looking into it, xyz are looking into it, etc
is crying like a baby.


Every computer in existence stores data at addresses.
That does not make it a database.


all a blockchain is is data storage and verification. You can do quite a lot with storage though.
There are just more efficient ways to store things if distributed and trustless and decentralised are not required.


Now that ETH trading volumes are overtaking BTC volumes, and since ETH’s smart contracts allow for subtokens (defi) which are trading on their own markets, wouldn’t BSV have to displace ETH and not BTC?


I can only talk about crypto in broad strokes.

And in doing so I can’t help but think that the crypto community is doing the hard yards for the central banks/BIS/IMF so that in the end they can buy/copy/incorporate the ‘best’ crypto/blockchain for their CBDC.

Maybe you’re creating a monster Stewie and working on your own enslavement 🙃

Last edited 2 months ago by Sacha

All the CB needs to do is duplicate any other retail banks electronic transaction systems and they have a more efficient CBDC than any blockchain or crypto.


What a pile of nonsense. EFTPOS IS essentially CBDC and it is already in use.
Why would they implement anything else?


They may want more/better control over individual coins or wallets…. (Is central control over your coins and your wallets)

with eftpos they can’t really do that.

Last edited 2 months ago by Peachy

They absolutely do have central control with eftpos. Your account exists entirely on their server. You just have a physical password to access it. The bank can 0 your account instantly if they want. or give you millions of dollars.
This is how the banks print AUD.

The defining feature of bitcoin is I have a wallet on my computer that noone can manipulate unless the have the private key associated with it. Crypto goes against everything the CB would want.


They absolutely do have central control with eftpos. Your account exists entirely on their server. You just have a physical password to access it. 

yeh, I know. I should’ve been more specific.

They = central banks.

conceivably with CBDC, the central banks could directly have control over every dollar in every wallet.

so they could flag particular dollars as accruing bonus interest. Or accruing negative interest. Or having an expiry date. Or unable to be moved from their current wallet. Or proceeds of crime. Or whatever.


You can add central bank accounts to eftpos in the same way that regular accounts exist, it’s just another bank to the system.

All the things you describe can be done far more easily with regular accounts in a centralized database than with crypto. You can make the database contain whatever you want, update it and change it at any point in time in any way.
Crypto doesn’t give you any more flexibility to do this.


No, and neither is a blockchain contained in a “single” location.
Isn’t your whole justification based on trusting the people controlling it.


You can add central bank accounts to eftpos in the same way that regular accounts exist, it’s just another bank to the system.

yeh, technically this is true. but this is too close to Pfh007’s idea of allowing people to have accounts at the central bank.

this would severely undermine the banking system.

also it doesn’t allow them to centrally control every dollar.

so I reckon a newfangled crypto solution which allows them to extend tentacles out to every dollar in every account is what they would like best.


Having CBDC outside the existing system would make the Banks obsolete overnight, not just undermine them.
It is central bank accounts on steroids, because it would effectively be a second parallel currency.


I was thinking that the cbdc would replace the normal AUD in bank accounts, rather than be parallel.

a parallel system is quite a different beast. In theory, a two-tier system could be a path out of the clusterfuck that countries find themselves in, and so could be a good thing. But in practice I have real trouble believing that this is achievable.

(previous musings on this theme here:


I was thinking that the cbdc would replace the normal AUD in bank accounts, rather than be parallel.

If it replaces bank accounts the banks no longer have any reason to exist at all. You don’t need someone to secure your excess fiat when it is inherently secure by design.


If it replaces bank accounts the banks no longer have any reason to exist at all. You don’t need someone to secure your excess fiat when it is inherently secure by design

Ah, but only the selected companies ordained as banks will have access to the full feature set of the cbdc!

mere mortals will have access to a crippled future set – basically limited to asking the ordained banks to transfer it to other ordained banks 😌


As per current eftpos and central bank reserves?
I’m not saying you can’t do it with crypto, just that you wouldn’t given the desired outcomes.

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678

In what way would this undermine the banking system?

In the age of centralisation of power and control in I can see central banks being perfectly happy to let commercial banks go extinct.

What do comm banks do that a CB can’t? Other than handle physical currency which will cease to exist in due time.

You could get any loans mortgage/personal/car etc. from a CB.

Bank branches/ATMs are disappearing. All banking done online now. The remaining branches are not much more than a fancy shop for an insurance, and that’s not a closed market that needs a banking charter.


why are you so bitchy today Stewie?


seemed to me that you’re being a bit emotional. Nothing wrong with that, was just asking why…


The BIS keep a very low profile but they are at the apex of global money control, and as such they are one of the most powerful organisations in the world, I would say THE most powerful.
Their birth and history is quite disconcerning.

Stewie, I see so many parallels between crypto and our own system. Tether makes a reserve currency and doesn’t want to get audited, neither does the Fed.
Who is to say that the Fed doesn’t have two books?
One somewhat public and one private? They are a private institution formed by the big banks. If they are never audited we’ll never know.

The US gold hoard, supposedly 8000 tons, hasn’t been audited since 1954. Why? It’s probably no longer there.

For all the people railing against crypto they should have a good look at what we are living with and realise there is not that much difference.


there Isnt much difference.

but there is some. the difference is who is in charge. The power relationships.

Humpty Dumpty has the right analysis:

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

(see also – )


“…the difference is who is in charge.”

That’s why Stewie wants a CBDC on a public blockchain I guess.

Last edited 2 months ago by Sacha

bjw678 can send his resume to:

BIS Head Office – Tower Building.
Centralbahnplatz 2, 4051 Basel, Switzerland. Postal address: CH-4002 Basel. Telephone: (+41-61) 280 80 80. Telex: 962 487 biz ch.

Maybe change of subject?

Did you have a look at my comment regarding numerology/gematria I made at the ‘Overnight Comms – Tokyo Edition’?

It has been a while since I looked into this matter and was wondering if you think it is correct, don’t want to be feeding people fake news.


No, I wasn’t talking about the Olympics specifically but more talking in general terms with the elite signalling their occult symbology.

Numerology is just one of their many ways.

I found the Lagarde clip quite good.
Here is the head of the IMF, again, one of the most powerful institutions, talking numerology in public and in doing so signalling her affiliation to the great cabal.




The BIS are experts in money, not computer science.
I would imagine someone is extracting a huge amount of money to look into it for them.
It is unarguable that centrally it can be done cheaper on an sql server.


I’m sure our governments have people familiar with computers working for them.
Everything they do has the golden touch, right?


Maybe this post should be renamed “crypto fights”, in light of the comments 😂😂😂