Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) is a cryptocurrency that is a hard fork of Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was created in November 2018 by a group of individuals led by Craig Steven Wright, who has claimed since 2015 to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the original bitcoin. == History == === 2018 split from Bitcoin Cash === On 15 November 2018, a hard fork chain split of Bitcoin Cash occurred between two rival factions called Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. On 15 November 2018 Bitcoin Cash traded at about $289, and Bitcoin SV traded at about $96.50, down from $425.01 on 14 November for the un-split Bitcoin Cash. The split originated from what was described as a "civil war" in two competing Bitcoin Cash camps. The first camp, supported by entrepreneur Roger Ver and Jihan Wu of Bitmain, promoted the software entitled Bitcoin ABC (short for Adjustable Blocksize Cap), which would maintain the block size at 32 MB. The second camp led by Craig Steven Wright and billionaire Calvin Ayre put forth a competing software version Bitcoin SV, short for "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", which would increase the block size limit to 128 MB. === 2019 de-listing from Binance === In April 2019, an online feud broke out between those who supported the claims of Bitcoin SV supporter Craig Wright that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, and those who did not. The feud resulted in cryptocurrency exchange Binance de-listing Bitcoin SV from their platform, stating that: At Binance, we periodically review each digital asset we list to ensure that it continues to meet the high level of standard we expect. When a coin or token no longer meets this standard, or the industry changes, we conduct a more in-depth review and potentially delist it. We believe this best protects all of our users. When we conduct these reviews, we consider a variety of factors. Here are some that drive whether we decide to delist a digital asset: Commitment of team to project Level and quality of development activity Network / smart contract stability Level of public communication Responsiveness to our periodic due diligence requests Evidence of unethical / fraudulent conduct Contribution to a healthy and sustainable crypto ecosystem === 2021 network attack === In August 2021, Bitcoin SV suffered a 51% attack, after previously suffering attacks in June and July of the same year. Such an attack involves cryptocurrency miners gaining control of more than half of a network's computing power; these kinds of network attacks have the goal of preventing new transactions from gaining confirmations, allowing the attackers to double-spend coins. Adam James, senior editor at OKEx Insights claimed that "In the intermediate term, the attack has seemingly somewhat-negligible impact on its current price action," however "Faith in [Bitcoin SV] will likely be reduced following the incident." === 2024 high court ruling === In March 2024, Mr Justice James Mellor in the British High Court ruled that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Linked timestamping
Linked timestamping is a type of trusted timestamping where issued time-stamps are related to each other. Each time-stamp would contain data that authenticates the time-stamp before it, the authentication would be authenticating the entire message, including the previous time-stamps authentication, making a chain. This makes it impossible to add a time-stamp in to the middle of the chain, as any time-stamps afterwards would be different. == Description == Linked timestamping creates time-stamp tokens which are dependent on each other, entangled in some authenticated data structure. Later modification of the issued time-stamps would invalidate this structure. The temporal order of issued time-stamps is also protected by this data structure, making backdating of the issued time-stamps impossible, even by the issuing server itself. The top of the authenticated data structure is generally published in some hard-to-modify and widely witnessed media, like printed newspaper or public blockchain. There are no (long-term) private keys in use, avoiding PKI-related risks. Suitable candidates for the authenticated data structure include: Linear hash chain Merkle tree (binary hash tree) Skip list The simplest linear hash chain-based time-stamping scheme is illustrated in the following diagram: The linking-based time-stamping authority (TSA) usually performs the following distinct functions: Aggregation For increased scalability the TSA might group time-stamping requests together which arrive within a short time-frame. These requests are aggregated together without retaining their temporal order and then assigned the same time value. Aggregation creates a cryptographic connection between all involved requests; the authenticating aggregate value will be used as input for the linking operation. Linking Linking creates a verifiable and ordered cryptographic link between the current and already issued time-stamp tokens. Publishing The TSA periodically publishes some links, so that all previously issued time-stamp tokens depend on the published link and that it is practically impossible to forge the published values. By publishing widely witnessed links, the TSA creates unforgeable verification points for validating all previously issued time-stamps. == Security == Linked timestamping is inherently more secure than the usual, public-key signature based time-stamping. All consequential time-stamps "seal" previously issued ones - hash chain (or other authenticated dictionary in use) could be built only in one way; modifying issued time-stamps is nearly as hard as finding a preimage for the used cryptographic hash function. Continuity of operation is observable by users; periodic publications in widely witnessed media provide extra transparency. Tampering with absolute time values could be detected by users, whose time-stamps are relatively comparable by system design. Absence of secret keys increases system trustworthiness. There are no keys to leak and hash algorithms are considered more future-proof than modular arithmetic based algorithms, e.g. RSA. Linked timestamping scales well - hashing is much faster than public key cryptography. There is no need for specific cryptographic hardware with its limitations. The common technology for guaranteeing long-term attestation value of the issued time-stamps (and digitally signed data) is periodic over-time-stamping of the time-stamp token. Because of missing key-related risks and of the plausible safety margin of the reasonably chosen hash function this over-time-stamping period of hash-linked token could be an order of magnitude longer than of public-key signed token. == Research == === Foundations === Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta proposed in 1990 to link issued time-stamps together into linear hash-chain, using a collision-resistant hash function. The main rationale was to diminish TSA trust requirements. Tree-like schemes and operating in rounds were proposed by Benaloh and de Mare in 1991 and by Bayer, Haber and Stornetta in 1992. Benaloh and de Mare constructed a one-way accumulator in 1994 and proposed its use in time-stamping. When used for aggregation, one-way accumulator requires only one constant-time computation for round membership verification. Surety started the first commercial linked timestamping service in January 1995. Linking scheme is described and its security is analyzed in the following article by Haber and Sornetta. Buldas et al. continued with further optimization and formal analysis of binary tree and threaded tree based schemes. Skip-list based time-stamping system was implemented in 2005; related algorithms are quite efficient. === Provable security === Security proof for hash-function based time-stamping schemes was presented by Buldas, Saarepera in 2004. There is an explicit upper bound N {\displaystyle N} for the number of time stamps issued during the aggregation period; it is suggested that it is probably impossible to prove the security without this explicit bound - the so-called black-box reductions will fail in this task. Considering that all known practically relevant and efficient security proofs are black-box, this negative result is quite strong. Next, in 2005 it was shown that bounded time-stamping schemes with a trusted audit party (who periodically reviews the list of all time-stamps issued during an aggregation period) can be made universally composable - they remain secure in arbitrary environments (compositions with other protocols and other instances of the time-stamping protocol itself). Buldas, Laur showed in 2007 that bounded time-stamping schemes are secure in a very strong sense - they satisfy the so-called "knowledge-binding" condition. The security guarantee offered by Buldas, Saarepera in 2004 is improved by diminishing the security loss coefficient from N {\displaystyle N} to N {\displaystyle {\sqrt {N}}} . The hash functions used in the secure time-stamping schemes do not necessarily have to be collision-resistant or even one-way; secure time-stamping schemes are probably possible even in the presence of a universal collision-finding algorithm (i.e. universal and attacking program that is able to find collisions for any hash function). This suggests that it is possible to find even stronger proofs based on some other properties of the hash functions. At the illustration above hash tree based time-stamping system works in rounds ( t {\displaystyle t} , t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} , t + 2 {\displaystyle t+2} , ...), with one aggregation tree per round. Capacity of the system ( N {\displaystyle N} ) is determined by the tree size ( N = 2 l {\displaystyle N=2^{l}} , where l {\displaystyle l} denotes binary tree depth). Current security proofs work on the assumption that there is a hard limit of the aggregation tree size, possibly enforced by the subtree length restriction. == Standards == ISO 18014 part 3 covers 'Mechanisms producing linked tokens'. American National Standard for Financial Services, "Trusted Timestamp Management and Security" (ANSI ASC X9.95 Standard) from June 2005 covers linking-based and hybrid time-stamping schemes. There is no IETF RFC or standard draft about linking based time-stamping. RFC 4998 (Evidence Record Syntax) encompasses hash tree and time-stamp as an integrity guarantee for long-term archiving.
AIVA
AIVA (Artificial Intelligence Virtual Artist) is an electronic composer recognized by the SACEM. == Description == Created in February 2016, AIVA specializes in classical and symphonic music composition. It became the world's first virtual composer to be recognized by a music society (SACEM). By reading a large collection of existing works of classical music (written by human composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart) AIVA is capable of detecting regularities in music and on this base composing on its own. The algorithm AIVA is based on deep learning and reinforcement learning architectures. Since January 2019, the company offers a commercial product, Music Engine, capable of generating short (up to 3 minutes) compositions in various styles (rock, pop, jazz, fantasy, shanty, tango, 20th century cinematic, modern cinematic, and Chinese). AIVA was presented at TED by Pierre Barreau. == Discography == AIVA is a published composer; its first studio album "Genesis" was released in November 2016. Second album "Among the Stars" in 2018. 2016 CD album « Genesis » Hv-Com – LEPM 048427. Track listing "Genesis": 2018 CD album « Among the Stars » Hv-Com – LEPM 048708 Avignon Symphonic Orchestra [ORAP] also performed Aiva's compositions [2] in April 2017.
Enterprise information integration
Enterprise information integration (EII) is the ability to support a unified view of data and information for an entire organization. The goal of EII is to get a large set of heterogeneous data sources to appear to a user or system as a single, homogeneous data source. In a data virtualization application of EII, there is a process of information integration, using data abstraction to provide a unified interface (known as uniform data access) for viewing all the data within an organization, and a single set of structures and naming conventions (known as uniform information representation) to represent this data. == Overview == Data within an enterprise can be stored in heterogeneous formats, including relational databases (which themselves come in a large number of varieties), text files, XML files, spreadsheets and a variety of proprietary storage methods, each with their own indexing and data access methods. Standardized data access APIs have emerged that offer a specific set of commands to retrieve and modify data from a generic data source. Many applications exist that implement these APIs' commands across various data sources, most notably relational databases. Such APIs include ODBC, JDBC, XQJ, OLE DB, and more recently ADO.NET. There are also standard formats for representing data within a file that are very important to information integration. The best-known of these is XML, which has emerged as a standard universal representation format. There are also more specific XML "grammars" defined for specific types of data such as Geography Markup Language for expressing geographical features and Directory Service Markup Language for holding directory-style information. In addition, non-XML standard formats exist such as iCalendar for representing calendar information and vCard for business card information. Enterprise Information Integration (EII) applies data integration commercially. Despite the theoretical problems described above, the private sector shows more concern with the problems of data integration as a viable product. EII emphasizes neither correctness nor tractability, but speed and simplicity. === Uniform data access === Uniform data access means connectivity and controllability across numerous target data sources. Necessary to fields such as EII and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), it is most often used regarding analysis of disparate data types and data sources, which must be rendered into a uniform information representation, and generally must appear homogenous to the analysis tools—when the data being analyzed is typically heterogeneous and widely varying in size, type, and original representation. === Uniform information representation === Uniform information representation allows information from several realms or disciplines to be displayed and worked with as if it came from the same realm or discipline. It takes information from a number of sources, which may have used different methodologies and metrics in their data collection, and builds a single large collection of information, where some records may be more complete than others across all fields of data Uniform information representation is particularly important in EII and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), where different departments of a large organization may have collected information for different purposes, with different labels and units, until one department realized that data already collected by those other departments could be re-purposed for their own needs—saving the enterprise the effort and cost of re-collecting the same information. === Combining disparate data sets === Each data source is disparate and as such is not designed to support EII. Therefore, data virtualization as well as data federation depends upon accidental data commonality to support combining data and information from disparate data sets. Because of this lack of data value commonality across data sources, the return set may be inaccurate, incomplete, and impossible to validate. One solution is to recast disparate databases to integrate these databases without the need for ETL. The recast databases support commonality constraints where referential integrity may be enforced between databases. The recast databases provide designed data access paths with data value commonality across databases. === Simplicity of deployment === Even if recognized as a solution to a problem, EII as of 2009 currently takes time to apply and offers complexities in deployment. Proposed schema-less solutions include "Lean Middleware". === Handling higher-order information === Analysts experience difficulty—even with a functioning information integration system—in determining whether the sources in the database will satisfy a given application. Answering these kinds of questions about a set of repositories requires semantic information like metadata and/or ontologies. == Applications == EII products enable loose coupling between homogeneous-data consuming client applications and services and heterogeneous-data stores. Such client applications and services include Desktop Productivity Tools (spreadsheets, word processors, presentation software, etc.), development environments and frameworks (Java EE, .NET, Mono, SOAP or RESTful Web services, etc.), business intelligence (BI), business activity monitoring (BAM) software, enterprise resource planning (ERP), Customer relationship management (CRM), business process management (BPM and/or BPEL) Software, and web content management (CMS). == Data access technologies == Service Data Objects (SDO) for Java, C++ and .Net clients and any type of data source XQuery and XQuery API for Java
Token-based replay
Token-based replay technique is a conformance checking algorithm that checks how well a process conforms with its model by replaying each trace on the model (in Petri net notation ). Using the four counters produced tokens, consumed tokens, missing tokens, and remaining tokens, it records the situations where a transition is forced to fire and the remaining tokens after the replay ends. Based on the count at each counter, we can compute the fitness value between the trace and the model. == The algorithm == Source: The token-replay technique uses four counters to keep track of a trace during the replaying: p: Produced tokens c: Consumed tokens m: Missing tokens (consumed while not there) r: Remaining tokens (produced but not consumed) Invariants: At any time: p + m ≥ c ≥ m {\displaystyle p+m\geq c\geq m} At the end: r = p + m − c {\displaystyle r=p+m-c} At the beginning, a token is produced for the source place (p = 1) and at the end, a token is consumed from the sink place (c' = c + 1). When the replay ends, the fitness value can be computed as follows: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})} == Example == Suppose there is a process model in Petri net notation as follows: === Example 1: Replay the trace (a, b, c, d) on the model M === Step 1: A token is initiated. There is one produced token ( p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} ). Step 2: The activity a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } consumes 1 token to be fired and produces 2 tokens ( p = 1 + 2 = 3 {\displaystyle p=1+2=3} and c = 1 {\displaystyle c=1} ). Step 3: The activity b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 3 + 1 = 4 {\displaystyle p=3+1=4} and c = 1 + 1 = 2 {\displaystyle c=1+1=2} ). Step 4: The activity c {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle p=4+1=5} and c = 2 + 1 = 3 {\displaystyle c=2+1=3} ). Step 5: The activity d {\displaystyle \mathbf {d} } consumes 2 tokens and produces 1 token ( p = 5 + 1 = 6 {\displaystyle p=5+1=6} , c = 3 + 2 = 5 {\displaystyle c=3+2=5} ). Step 6: The token at the end place is consumed ( c = 5 + 1 = 6 {\displaystyle c=5+1=6} ). The trace is complete. The fitness of the trace ( a , b , c , d {\displaystyle \mathbf {a,b,c,d} } ) on the model M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) = 1 2 ( 1 − 0 6 ) + 1 2 ( 1 − 0 6 ) = 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})={\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {0}{6}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {0}{6}})=1} === Example 2: Replay the trace (a, b, d) on the model M === Step 1: A token is initiated. There is one produced token ( p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} ). Step 2: The activity a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } consumes 1 token to be fired and produces 2 tokens ( p = 1 + 2 = 3 {\displaystyle p=1+2=3} and c = 1 {\displaystyle c=1} ). Step 3: The activity b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 3 + 1 = 4 {\displaystyle p=3+1=4} and c = 1 + 1 = 2 {\displaystyle c=1+1=2} ). Step 4: The activity d {\displaystyle \mathbf {d} } needs to be fired but there are not enough tokens. One artificial token was produced and the missing token counter is increased by one ( m = 1 {\displaystyle m=1} ). The artificial token and the token at place [ b , d ] {\displaystyle [\mathbf {b,d} ]} are consumed ( c = 2 + 2 = 4 {\displaystyle c=2+2=4} ) and one token is produced at place end ( p = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle p=4+1=5} ). Step 5: The token in the end place is consumed ( c = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle c=4+1=5} ). The trace is complete. There is one remaining token at place [ a , c ] {\displaystyle [\mathbf {a,c} ]} ( r = 1 {\displaystyle r=1} ). The fitness of the trace ( a , b , d {\displaystyle \mathbf {a,b,d} } ) on the model M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) = 1 2 ( 1 − 1 5 ) + 1 2 ( 1 − 1 5 ) = 0.8 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})={\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {1}{5}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {1}{5}})=0.8}
Photo-consistency
In computer vision, photo-consistency determines whether a given voxel is occupied. A voxel is considered to be photo consistent when its color appears to be similar to all the cameras that can see it. Most voxel coloring or space carving techniques require using photo consistency as a check condition in Image-based modeling and rendering applications. == Usage == 3D Volumetric Reconstruction. Image registration. Multi-view reconstruction.
StoredIQ
StoredIQ was a company founded for information lifecycle management (ILM) of unstructured data. Founded in 2001 as Deepfile in Austin, Texas by Jeff Erramouspe, Jeff Bone, Russell Turpin, Rudy Rouhana, Laura Arbilla and Brett Funderburg, the company changed its name in 2005 to StoredIQ. It continued to operate successfully for over a decade until it was acquired in 2012 by IBM. It now serves as a platform for IBM's information life cycle governance, big data governance and enterprise content management technologies. StoredIQ was awarded five patents by the USPTO. The first, originally filed in 2003, enabled unstructured data in file systems to be manipulated in a similar way to information stored in databases. Subsequent patents built upon the patented actionable file system with further enhancements specific to Enterprise Policy Management and expanding the reach of StoredIQ's management capability all the way to individual desktops. In 2008 StoredIQ was recognized as "Best in Compliance" by Network Products Guide. At the same time, StoredIQ was being recognized as a "Top 5 Provider" by the prestigious Socha-Gelbmann eDiscovery survey. There were takeover negotiations with EMC Corporation, initially a strategic investor in StoredIQ, however, the company rejected the approach, leaving EMC to acquire a competitor. The company published a whitepaper titled The Truth About Big Data. This promotion combined with StoredIQ's patented technology led to IBM selecting StoredIQ as the basis for some products.