BearPunks on Base Meet the BearPunks: Sweet pixel art bears coming to you as PFP art collection. For sure, you will love them, they are CC0 and inspired by Larva Labs CryptoPunks. BearPunks will join the CryptoTeddies ecosystem, both created by numo (@numo_0).

BearPunks - Collection | OpenSea

When the fate of Base is at stake, the only chance of survival are the Based Apes. A collection of 5,000 Futuristic Apes on Base, aiming to push the boundaries of Base for the better!

Based Apes - Collection | OpenSea

OpenSea is the world&#x27;s first and largest web3 marketplace for NFTs and crypto collectibles. Browse, create, buy, sell, and auction NFTs using OpenSea today.

BANGERS - Collection | OpenSea

OpenSeed provides tech-powered meditation pods that facilitate moments of tranquility, especially in stressful environments

OpenSeed

After a 3-month interval following the Pre-Series A funding, Lumoz receives another good news! On May 29th, Lumoz, the modular compute layer and ZK-RaaS platform, officially announced the completion of a new strategic funding round. Participating investors include IDG Blockchain, Blockchain Coinvestors, Gate Ventures, Summer Capital, EVG, SevenUpDAO, Sweep Ventures, among others. The specific amount of funding has not been disclosed. Prior to this, in March 2024, Lumoz raised a Pre-Series A funding round with a valuation of $120 million. Participating institutions included Hashkey Capital, OKX Venture, Kucoin Ventures, Polygon, Comma3, Waterdrip, YBB, Kernel Ventures, D11-Labs, MH Ventures, Kronos Research and Fermion Capital. The Lumoz team revealed that the new funds will be used to further expand the Lumoz team, develop the modular computing power layer, and advance the construction and technological innovation of the ZK-RaaS platform. "After the announcement of the previous funding round, many venture capitalists eagerly approached Lumoz, prompting us to initiate another strategic funding round within a short timeframe. In this round, we have once again attracted a group of exceptional investors and partners who have full confidence in Lumoz's vision, products, and team. They are enthusiastic about providing multi-faceted support, including funding, expertise, and resources, which will undoubtedly have a positive impact on Lumoz's future," Lumoz CEO & Co-founder Nanfeng said. Over the past six months, Lumoz has entered a new phase of development. The successful launch of the ETH Layer 2 network, ZKFair, and the BTC Layer 2 network, Merlin Chain, has made Lumoz's "one-click chain deployment" a focal point of market attention. Currently, Lumoz is receiving an increasing number of customer demands, and it is anticipated that dozens of ZK-Rollups will be generated through Lumoz's RaaS platform and supported by its underlying computing power in the latter half of this year. For a ZK-Rollup, the computational cost of ZKP far exceeds that of data availability (DA), even accounting for more than 50% of the total cost. Therefore, the computational gap in this area and the immense market potential are significant. In response, Lumoz has taken the lead in introducing the Modular Compute Layer, which effectively utilizes idle computing power in the market to provide modularized computing support for ZK-Rollups. In terms of implementation, Lumoz's unique ZK-PoW algorithm efficiently combines miners' computational resources with various Rollups, enabling the provision of distributed computing power for various ZK-Rollups and the generation of ZKPs. At the same time, Lumoz continues to make continuous improvements in ZKP computation and submission. Recently, Lumoz introduced support for Op Stack + ZK Fraud Proof, pioneering a new mode for L2 architecture. Following this, they launched zkProver and zkVerifier based on EigenLayer, significantly enhancing computational and verification efficiency. These advancements ensure the security and profitability of the entire process. The latest roadmap reveals that Lumoz will soon release a new AI + PoW Chain, multiple ETH Layer 2 chains, Layer 3 chains, and BTC Layer 2 chains. Additionally, Lumoz will open the decentralized node registration globally to ensure network security after the Mainnet launch. Stay tuned for more updates! After a 3-month interval following the Pre-Series A funding, Lumoz receives another good news! On May 29th, Lumoz , the modular compute layer and ZK-RaaS platform, officially announced the completion of a new strategic funding round. Participating investors include IDG Blockchain, Blockchain Coinvestors, Gate Ventures, Summer Capital, EVG, SevenUpDAO, Sweep Ventures, among others. The specific amount of funding has not been disclosed. Lumoz Lumoz Prior to this, in March 2024, Lumoz raised a Pre-Series A funding round with a valuation of $120 million. Participating institutions included Hashkey Capital, OKX Venture, Kucoin Ventures, Polygon, Comma3, Waterdrip, YBB, Kernel Ventures, D11-Labs, MH Ventures, Kronos Research and Fermion Capital. raised raised The Lumoz team revealed that the new funds will be used to further expand the Lumoz team, develop the modular computing power layer, and advance the construction and technological innovation of the ZK-RaaS platform. The Lumoz team revealed that the new funds will be used to further expand the Lumoz team, develop the modular computing power layer, and advance the construction and technological innovation of the ZK-RaaS platform. "After the announcement of the previous funding round, many venture capitalists eagerly approached Lumoz, prompting us to initiate another strategic funding round within a short timeframe. In this round, we have once again attracted a group of exceptional investors and partners who have full confidence in Lumoz's vision, products, and team. They are enthusiastic about providing multi-faceted support, including funding, expertise, and resources, which will undoubtedly have a positive impact on Lumoz's future," Lumoz CEO & Co-founder Nanfeng said. Over the past six months, Lumoz has entered a new phase of development. The successful launch of the ETH Layer 2 network, ZKFair, and the BTC Layer 2 network, Merlin Chain, has made Lumoz's "one-click chain deployment" a focal point of market attention. Currently, Lumoz is receiving an increasing number of customer demands, and it is anticipated that dozens of ZK-Rollups will be generated through Lumoz's RaaS platform and supported by its underlying computing power in the latter half of this year. For a ZK-Rollup, the computational cost of ZKP far exceeds that of data availability (DA), even accounting for more than 50% of the total cost. Therefore, the computational gap in this area and the immense market potential are significant. In response, Lumoz has taken the lead in introducing the Modular Compute Layer, which effectively utilizes idle computing power in the market to provide modularized computing support for ZK-Rollups. In terms of implementation, Lumoz's unique ZK-PoW algorithm efficiently combines miners' computational resources with various Rollups, enabling the provision of distributed computing power for various ZK-Rollups and the generation of ZKPs. At the same time, Lumoz continues to make continuous improvements in ZKP computation and submission. Recently, Lumoz introduced support for Op Stack + ZK Fraud Proof, pioneering a new mode for L2 architecture. Following this, they launched zkProver and zkVerifier based on EigenLayer, significantly enhancing computational and verification efficiency. These advancements ensure the security and profitability of the entire process. support support launched launched The latest roadmap reveals that Lumoz will soon release a new AI + PoW Chain, multiple ETH Layer 2 chains, Layer 3 chains, and BTC Layer 2 chains. Additionally, Lumoz will open the decentralized node registration globally to ensure network security after the Mainnet launch. Stay tuned for more updates!

Lumoz Successfully Concludes Strategic Round - Registration of Decentralized Nodes Will be Opened 

লুমোজ সফলভাবে কৌশলগত রাউন্ড শেষ করেছে, বিকেন্দ্রীভূত নোডগুলির নিবন্ধন খোলা হবে 

Lumoz schließt strategische Runde erfolgreich ab, Registrierung dezentraler Knoten wird eröffnet

Lumoz concluye con éxito la ronda estratégica y se abrirá el registro de nodos descentralizados 

Lumoz conclut avec succès le cycle stratégique et l'enregistrement des nœuds décentralisés sera ouvert 

लुमोज़ ने रणनीतिक दौर का सफलतापूर्वक समापन किया, विकेंद्रीकृत नोड्स का पंजीकरण खोला जाएगा

Lumozが戦略ラウンドを成功裏に終了、分散ノードの登録が開始される

Lumoz는 전략적 라운드를 성공적으로 마치고 분산형 노드 등록이 시작됩니다 

Lumoz conclui rodada estratégica com sucesso, registro de nós descentralizados será aberto 

Lumoz успешно завершает стратегический раунд, будет открыта регистрация децентрализованных нод 

Lumoz Stratejik Turu Başarıyla Tamamladı, Merkezi Olmayan Düğümlerin Kayıtları Açılacak 

Lumoz kết thúc thành công vòng chiến lược, đăng ký các nút phi tập trung sẽ được mở 

Lumoz 成功完成战略轮融资，将开放去中心化节点注册

In this session of our "Behind the Startup" series, we sit down with Zad, the visionary founder of OpenCred, to explore the revolutionary concept of tokenizing trust in the Web3 environment. As a Stanford-certified expert in blockchain and cryptography, Zad discusses the inception of OpenCred, its unique approach to digital identity through eSFT tokens, and its ambitious mission to reshape social and economic interactions online. Ishan Pandey: Hi Zad, great to have you here for our "Innovators in Web3" series. Can you tell us about your background and what led you to create OpenCred? Zad: As a postgraduate in Blockchain Strategy and Stanford-certified cryptography expert, I have spent years conducting cutting-edge research in asset tokenization, DID, and cybersecurity. Trust is actually one of the most difficult things to measure and quantify, no matter “IRL” or online. Now with blockchain and tokens we finally have the tools to tackle this problem in a novel way. I founded OpenCred to bring tokenized trust to the Web3 industry, unleash the hidden potential that lies in social relationships, and eventually enable the establishment of a decentralized society. Ishan Pandey: Could you start by explaining what OpenCred is and what specific gap in the Web3 space it aims to fill? Zad: OpenCred is a decentralized Web3 credit protocol that applies a new token standard called “eSFT” to tokenize trust relationships into tangible and quantifiable economic assets. Our vision is to empower users to monetize their online activity while guaranteeing data privacy and ownership. By providing a blockchain-based solution for establishing and measuring trust relationships, OpenCred fills a crucial gap in the Web3 ecosystem: enabling trustworthy interactions and collaboration without relying on centralized intermediaries or KYC. Ishan Pandey: In the deck, you mention that OpenCred introduces a groundbreaking trust value (credit) quantification for Web3. Can you elaborate on how this works and why it's important? Zad: OpenCred aggregates both on-chain (e.g., DeFi TVL, smart contract interactions) and off-chain data (e.g., social media followers and interactions) to tokenize trust in the form of CRED tokens. This means users can increase their personal trust value by increasing their online activity and footprint. Each CRED is unique to the user and contains a number of fungible Score Tokens (ST) that determine the value of a user’s CRED. By thus providing a measurable and objective way to assess trustworthiness, OpenCred enables secure, traceable, and efficient trust-based interactions in various Web3 applications, such as social media, e-commerce, DeFi, and gaming. This groundbreaking mechanism is crucial for fostering a trustworthy environment in the digital space and enabling countless new use cases in many areas from B2B to B2C to C2B to C2C. Ishan Pandey: The CRED token seems to be a key component of the OpenCred ecosystem. Can you explain its dual nature as a semi-fungible token and how it represents both identity and trustworthiness? And how does this design benefit users of your platform? Zad: CRED tokens are a groundbreaking innovation of OpenCred, creating a new token standard we call embedded semi-fungible token (eSFT) that combines both non-fungible (unique) and fungible (interchangeable) properties. The non-fungible part of the token represents a user's unique identity within the OpenCred protocol, ensuring that each user has a distinct and verifiable presence. On the other hand, the fungible part of the token quantifies the user's trustworthiness, which is determined by their interactions (on-chain & off-chain) and the amount of CRED tokens they receive from others. This design benefits users by empowering them to monetize their online activity and social relationships. Moreover, by tokenizing trust and making it quantifiable and tangible, we are creating a new kind of asset that simply has not existed before, thereby creating huge value. Ishan Pandey: How does sending CRED between users facilitate the building of a trustable and quantifiable social graph in Web3? Zad: When a user sends CRED tokens to another user, they are essentially establishing a trust relationship that is recorded on the blockchain. This transaction signifies that the sender trusts the recipient to a certain degree, based on their interactions, reputation, or other factors. As users continue to interact and send CRED tokens to each other, a dynamic, evolving on-chain social graph emerges. The social graph is quantifiable and traceable. This quantification of trust enables users to make informed decisions when interacting with others, as they can assess the trustworthiness of potential collaborators, partners, or service providers based on their position in the social graph. Ishan Pandey: With OpenCred positioning itself as a provider of "Trust as a Service," how do you ensure the reliability and security of the trust metrics generated by your protocol? Zad: There is a clear friction between incentivizing users on the one hand and ensuring the authenticity of trust relationships on the other hand. We are aware of this and will tackle this problem in multiple ways. First of all, we will connect the sending of CRED with some actions such as “follow”, “like”, etc., so that the transfer of CRED corresponds with the establishment of a meaningful trust relationship. Secondly, we will implement punishments for sybil attackers and other malicious behavior. Additionally, OpenCred implements a multi-layered governance model that involves community participation and decentralized decision-making. This approach helps to maintain the integrity and fairness of the trust metrics, as the community can collectively monitor and flag any suspicious activities or attempts to manipulate trust scores. To further enhance the reliability of trust metrics, OpenCred incorporates a reputation staking mechanism, where users are required to stake a portion of our governance tokens to participate in trust-building activities. OpenCred places a strong emphasis on user education and awareness. By providing clear guidelines, tutorials, and best practices for using the trust protocol. Ishan Pandey: How do you plan to drive adoption and grow the OpenCred ecosystem, particularly in terms of attracting both users and developers? Zad: OpenCred actively seeks partnerships and collaborations with established Web3 projects across various sectors, such as social media, e-commerce, gaming, and decentralized finance (DeFi). We currently have established partnerships with over 10 Web3 projects with close to 1 million daily active users ready to onboard our protocol once it is live. To attract developers, OpenCred will provide a range of tools, SDKs, and documentation to facilitate the integration of its trust protocol into various applications. The protocol will offer developer grants, hackathons, and bounty programs to incentivize the creation of innovative trust-based solutions. By fostering a vibrant developer community and providing the necessary resources and support, OpenCred aims to accelerate the development of a diverse range of dApps that leverage its trust infrastructure. OpenCred's tokenomics model is designed to incentivize user participation and ecosystem growth. The governance token serves as the primary means of interaction within the OpenCred ecosystem, used for establishing trust relationships, staking, and accessing trust-based services. The protocol will implement a reward system that incentivizes users to actively participate in trust-building activities, such as providing accurate trust assessments, staking tokens, and contributing to the network's security. These incentives will drive user adoption and encourage long-term engagement with the OpenCred ecosystem. Don’t forget to like and share the story! Vested Interest Disclosure: This author is an independent contributor publishing via our business blogging program. HackerNoon has reviewed the report for quality, but the claims herein belong to the author. #DYOR. In this session of our "Behind the Startup" series, we sit down with Zad, the visionary founder of OpenCred, to explore the revolutionary concept of tokenizing trust in the Web3 environment. As a Stanford-certified expert in blockchain and cryptography, Zad discusses the inception of OpenCred, its unique approach to digital identity through eSFT tokens, and its ambitious mission to reshape social and economic interactions online. Ishan Pandey: Hi Zad, great to have you here for our "Innovators in Web3" series. Can you tell us about your background and what led you to create OpenCred? Ishan Pandey: Zad: As a postgraduate in Blockchain Strategy and Stanford-certified cryptography expert, I have spent years conducting cutting-edge research in asset tokenization, DID, and cybersecurity. Trust is actually one of the most difficult things to measure and quantify, no matter “IRL” or online. Now with blockchain and tokens we finally have the tools to tackle this problem in a novel way. I founded OpenCred to bring tokenized trust to the Web3 industry, unleash the hidden potential that lies in social relationships, and eventually enable the establishment of a decentralized society. Zad: Ishan Pandey: Could you start by explaining what OpenCred is and what specific gap in the Web3 space it aims to fill? Ishan Pandey: Zad: OpenCred is a decentralized Web3 credit protocol that applies a new token standard called “eSFT” to tokenize trust relationships into tangible and quantifiable economic assets. Our vision is to empower users to monetize their online activity while guaranteeing data privacy and ownership. By providing a blockchain-based solution for establishing and measuring trust relationships, OpenCred fills a crucial gap in the Web3 ecosystem: enabling trustworthy interactions and collaboration without relying on centralized intermediaries or KYC. Zad: Ishan Pandey: In the deck, you mention that OpenCred introduces a groundbreaking trust value (credit) quantification for Web3. Can you elaborate on how this works and why it's important? Ishan Pandey: Zad: OpenCred aggregates both on-chain (e.g., DeFi TVL, smart contract interactions) and off-chain data (e.g., social media followers and interactions) to tokenize trust in the form of CRED tokens. This means users can increase their personal trust value by increasing their online activity and footprint. Each CRED is unique to the user and contains a number of fungible Score Tokens (ST) that determine the value of a user’s CRED. By thus providing a measurable and objective way to assess trustworthiness, OpenCred enables secure, traceable, and efficient trust-based interactions in various Web3 applications, such as social media, e-commerce, DeFi, and gaming. This groundbreaking mechanism is crucial for fostering a trustworthy environment in the digital space and enabling countless new use cases in many areas from B2B to B2C to C2B to C2C. Zad: Ishan Pandey: The CRED token seems to be a key component of the OpenCred ecosystem. Can you explain its dual nature as a semi-fungible token and how it represents both identity and trustworthiness? And how does this design benefit users of your platform? Ishan Pandey: Zad: CRED tokens are a groundbreaking innovation of OpenCred, creating a new token standard we call embedded semi-fungible token (eSFT) that combines both non-fungible (unique) and fungible (interchangeable) properties. The non-fungible part of the token represents a user's unique identity within the OpenCred protocol, ensuring that each user has a distinct and verifiable presence. On the other hand, the fungible part of the token quantifies the user's trustworthiness, which is determined by their interactions (on-chain & off-chain) and the amount of CRED tokens they receive from others. This design benefits users by empowering them to monetize their online activity and social relationships. Moreover, by tokenizing trust and making it quantifiable and tangible, we are creating a new kind of asset that simply has not existed before, thereby creating huge value. Zad: Ishan Pandey: How does sending CRED between users facilitate the building of a trustable and quantifiable social graph in Web3? Ishan Pandey: Zad: When a user sends CRED tokens to another user, they are essentially establishing a trust relationship that is recorded on the blockchain. This transaction signifies that the sender trusts the recipient to a certain degree, based on their interactions, reputation, or other factors. As users continue to interact and send CRED tokens to each other, a dynamic, evolving on-chain social graph emerges. The social graph is quantifiable and traceable. This quantification of trust enables users to make informed decisions when interacting with others, as they can assess the trustworthiness of potential collaborators, partners, or service providers based on their position in the social graph. Zad: Ishan Pandey: With OpenCred positioning itself as a provider of "Trust as a Service," how do you ensure the reliability and security of the trust metrics generated by your protocol? Ishan Pandey: Zad: There is a clear friction between incentivizing users on the one hand and ensuring the authenticity of trust relationships on the other hand. We are aware of this and will tackle this problem in multiple ways. First of all, we will connect the sending of CRED with some actions such as “follow”, “like”, etc., so that the transfer of CRED corresponds with the establishment of a meaningful trust relationship. Secondly, we will implement punishments for sybil attackers and other malicious behavior. Additionally, OpenCred implements a multi-layered governance model that involves community participation and decentralized decision-making. This approach helps to maintain the integrity and fairness of the trust metrics, as the community can collectively monitor and flag any suspicious activities or attempts to manipulate trust scores. To further enhance the reliability of trust metrics, OpenCred incorporates a reputation staking mechanism, where users are required to stake a portion of our governance tokens to participate in trust-building activities. OpenCred places a strong emphasis on user education and awareness. By providing clear guidelines, tutorials, and best practices for using the trust protocol. Zad: Ishan Pandey: How do you plan to drive adoption and grow the OpenCred ecosystem, particularly in terms of attracting both users and developers? Ishan Pandey: Zad: OpenCred actively seeks partnerships and collaborations with established Web3 projects across various sectors, such as social media, e-commerce, gaming, and decentralized finance (DeFi). We currently have established partnerships with over 10 Web3 projects with close to 1 million daily active users ready to onboard our protocol once it is live. To attract developers, OpenCred will provide a range of tools, SDKs, and documentation to facilitate the integration of its trust protocol into various applications. The protocol will offer developer grants, hackathons, and bounty programs to incentivize the creation of innovative trust-based solutions. Zad: By fostering a vibrant developer community and providing the necessary resources and support, OpenCred aims to accelerate the development of a diverse range of dApps that leverage its trust infrastructure. OpenCred's tokenomics model is designed to incentivize user participation and ecosystem growth. The governance token serves as the primary means of interaction within the OpenCred ecosystem, used for establishing trust relationships, staking, and accessing trust-based services. The protocol will implement a reward system that incentivizes users to actively participate in trust-building activities, such as providing accurate trust assessments, staking tokens, and contributing to the network's security. These incentives will drive user adoption and encourage long-term engagement with the OpenCred ecosystem. Don’t forget to like and share the story! Vested Interest Disclosure: This author is an independent contributor publishing via our business blogging program. HackerNoon has reviewed the report for quality, but the claims herein belong to the author. #DYOR. Vested Interest Disclosure: This author is an independent contributor publishing via our business blogging program . HackerNoon has reviewed the report for quality, but the claims herein belong to the author. #DYOR. Vested Interest Disclosure: business blogging program business blogging program

How OpenCred Makes Trust Tangible via Tokenization

কিভাবে ওপেনক্রেড অনলাইনে বিশ্বাস তৈরি করতে টোকেনাইজেশন ব্যবহার করে

Wie OpenCred Tokenisierung nutzt, um Online-Vertrauen aufzubauen

Cómo OpenCred utiliza la tokenización para generar confianza en línea

Comment OpenCred utilise la tokenisation pour renforcer la confiance en ligne

ओपनक्रेड ऑनलाइन विश्वास बनाने के लिए टोकनाइजेशन का उपयोग कैसे करता है

OpenCred がトークン化を利用してオンラインで信頼を築く方法

OpenCred가 토큰화를 사용하여 온라인 신뢰를 구축하는 방법

Como o OpenCred usa tokenização para construir confiança online

Как OpenCred использует токенизацию для укрепления доверия в Интернете

OpenCred Çevrimiçi Güven Oluşturmak İçin Tokenizasyonu Nasıl Kullanıyor?

Cách OpenCred sử dụng mã thông báo để xây dựng niềm tin trực tuyến

OpenCred 如何使用代币化在线建立信任

What are we talking about here? As part of my job, I advise a lot of customers who use AWS. Many of them build complex systems on top of services. AWS OpenSearch is typically included in the system landscape to cover a wide range of different business cases, some of which require an Internet-accessible cluster with HTTP basic authentication. AWS does not give this capability out of the box; thus, in this article, I will demonstrate how to leverage AWS native services to publish your OpenSearch cluster to the Internet. AWS The current limitations OpenSearch cluster can be deployed in two modes with the following features VPC based Public domain Only private endpoint in the following format https://vpc-domain-name Public endpoint in the following format https://search-domain-name Cluster health tab does not include shard information, and the Indices tab isn't present. All information about cluster health and indexes are available Security is based on AWS security groups Security is based on IP-based access policies Dashboards are available only from VPC and requires VPN or something else for being accessible Dashboards are available publicly for IP range that’s configured via IP-based access policies AWS currently does not provide any out-of-the-box way for publishing an OpenSearch cluster with basic HTTP authentication to the Internet for any IP range (e.g.: ). It is possible to configure an AWS IAM Policy to allow a certain IP range or to utilize a publicly open cluster with SAML authorization; however, this is not suitable for cases such as mobile clients or TV set-top boxes, where the client can have any unpredictable IP address and dev team does not have the capacity for SAML implementation. 0.0.0.0/0 Maybe in the future, there will be something like an RDS proxy, but so far, AWS has no public plans for this feature. Solutions The official AWS proposal based on Nginx The AWS documentation recommends using a reverse proxy based on a highly available EC2 Nginx cluster. It's a good approach, but it requires a lot of extra effort for Nginx maintenance, which would be inconvenient in the case of a large number of clusters. In addition, as AWS does not provide highly available Nginx as a service, you will be unable to configure your infrastructure using a single tool such as Terraform, Pulumi, or CloudFormation. OpenSearch The solution based on AWS native services My approach, which I recommend for use in production environments, is based on AWS Application load balancer (ALB). Nginx can be skipped because ALB provides the same functionality as Nginx for all basic scenarios and requires no additional configuration or automation work. AWS ALB points to an IP address target group that contains a set of private OpenSearch IP addresses, and the OpenSearch cluster should be configured in VPC mode. It is also important to configure HTTP redirects at the ALB level in this configuration, as seen in the image below. ALB targets should also require the configuration of health checks because without them, OpenSearch IP addresses will be removed from IP pools. Keep in mind that the http code must be added to the list of successful health check codes when you are using basic HTTP authentication. 401 Configuring the ALB target group once is insufficient. Any OpenSearch cluster change can cause the IP address to change, so to ensure that the target groups contain all OpenSearch IPs at all times, the IP addresses pool should be maintained by a simple Lambda function that runs once per hour and verifies that all OpenSearch IPs are present and actual. The complete AWS function code is provided below. import boto3
import socket

def lambda_handler(event, context):
    # Initialize AWS clients
    elasticsearch = boto3.client('es')
    elbv2 = boto3.client('elbv2')

    # Retrieve target group ARN and OpenSearch domain name from event
    target_group_arn = event.get('targetGroupARN')
    open_search_domain_name = event.get('openSearchDomainName')

    # Describe OpenSearch cluster to retrieve DNS endpoint
    response = elasticsearch.describe_elasticsearch_domain(DomainName=open_search_domain_name)
    opensearch_dns = response['DomainStatus']['Endpoints']['vpc']

    # Resolve DNS to get IP addresses
    opensearch_ips = socket.gethostbyname_ex(opensearch_dns)[2]
    print(f"OpenSearch IPs are: {opensearch_ips}")

    # Describe existing IPs in the EC2 target group
    target_group_info = elbv2.describe_target_health(TargetGroupArn=target_group_arn)
    existing_ips = [target['Target']['Id'] for target in target_group_info['TargetHealthDescriptions']]

    # Compare IPs to determine new ones and remove old ones
    ips_to_add = list(set(opensearch_ips) - set(existing_ips))
    ips_to_remove = list(set(existing_ips) - set(opensearch_ips))

    # Update the target group
    if ips_to_add:
        elbv2.register_targets(TargetGroupArn=target_group_arn, Targets=[{'Id': ip} for ip in ips_to_add])
    if ips_to_remove:
        elbv2.deregister_targets(TargetGroupArn=target_group_arn, Targets=[{'Id': ip} for ip in ips_to_remove])

    return {
        'statusCode': 200,
        'body': 'Updated EC2 target group with OpenSearch IPs.'
    } The lambda function can be deployed in VPC mode. It’s more secure but not mandatory. In the beginning, you may provide only permissions for your Lambda’s IAM role, as shown in the code snippet below. es:* {
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Principal": {
        "AWS": [
          "arn:aws:iam::123456789012:user/test-user"
        ]
      },
      "Action": [
        "es:*"
      ],
      "Resource": "arn:aws:es:us-west-1:987654321098:domain/test-domain/*"
    }
  ]
} For a variety of reasons, connecting to an OpenSearch cluster with a floating IP address is inconvenient. All modern architectures use DNS to hide a pure IP address. We'll do the same via AWS Route53. Unfortunately, the Route53 DNS record is insufficient because ALB would display problems linked to HTTP certificate mismatches. We must generate a valid TLS certificate and attach it to an ALB listener to avoid HTTPS connection issues while using DNS. can be used to issue a purchased certificate, but I prefer free Let's Encrypt certificates. AWS does not natively support Let's Encrypt and Certificate Manager integration, so I created an AWS Lambda that automatically issues and renews TLS certificates a long time ago and proposes using it in the suggested design. This Lambda's sources may be found at AWS Certificate Manager https://github.com/kvendingoldo/aws-letsencrypt-lambda. Security highlights Security is not covered in this article, but I can not highlight two critical points: Don't forget to configure your AWS security groups correctly; you only need to allow the required port (443 in our example). Use AWS Trust Advisor to ensure that all useless ports are blocked. It would be a good idea to have different users with different types of rights when using OpenSearch HTTP basic authentication. Do not use an admin user with full cluster access. It would be preferable to have multiple users, each with access to a subset of OpenSearch indexes. You can keep all password information in AWS Secret Manager for simplified password management. Summary It is possible to avoid using a High Availability Nginx cluster in your architecture. It will save you money and configuration time. Instead of using tools like Terraform or Pulumi, use the lambda function to keep your ALB's target group up to date. It is critical to check the target pool's validity on a regular basis. Don't forget about security when it comes to implementation. Take note of AWS subnets, security groups, and OpenSearch users. Use as many AWS native components as possible. All of them can be configured using IaC tools like Terraform, Pulumi, or CloudFormation. Although EC2 instances can be configured using IaC tools, the provisioning, configuration, and launch times are substantially longer than with pure AWS ALB. Useful links AWS OpenSearch access proxy AWS Let’s encrypt lambda

How to Make AWS OpenSearch Publicly Accessible Without nginx Proxy

Greetings Comrades! One of the strangest logging setups I ever had - AWS ALB controller logs. Really, look at the scheme: 1. S3 Bucket for ALB Logs I assume that you already have an ALB Controller in your EKS Cluster. So, we should create an S3 bucket and enable the SQS trigger with Terraform: ###
# ALB Controller Logs S3 Bucket
###

resource "aws_s3_bucket" "alb_logs" {
  bucket = "alb-logs"
}

resource "aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration" "alb_logs" {
  bucket = aws_s3_bucket.alb_logs.id

  rule {
    id = "log"

    expiration {
      days = 3
    }

    status = "Enabled"
  }
}

resource "aws_s3_bucket_policy" "alb_logs" {
  bucket = aws_s3_bucket.alb_logs.id
  policy = data.aws_iam_policy_document.alb_logs_bucket_policy.json
}

data "aws_iam_policy_document" "alb_logs_bucket_policy" {
  statement {
    principals {
      type        = "AWS"
      identifiers = ["arn:aws:iam::127311923021:root"] <--- it should be like this!!!
    }
    actions   = ["s3:*"]   <--- I`m so lazy
    resources = ["${aws_s3_bucket.alb_logs.arn}/*", ]
  }
} 2. S3 Trigger to SQS Queue ###
# ALB Logs SQS Queue
###

resource "aws_sqs_queue" "alb_logs" {
  name                    = "alb-logs"
  sqs_managed_sse_enabled = false
}

data "aws_iam_policy_document" "alb_logs_policy" {
  statement {
    effect = "Allow"

    principals {
      type        = "*"   <--- Wow again!!!
      identifiers = ["*"]   <--- And again!!!
    }

    actions   = ["sqs:SendMessage"]
    resources = [aws_sqs_queue.alb_logs.arn]

    condition {
      test     = "ArnEquals"
      variable = "aws:SourceArn"
      values   = [aws_s3_bucket.alb_logs.arn]
    }
  }
}

resource "aws_sqs_queue_policy" "alb_logs" {
  queue_url = aws_sqs_queue.alb_logs.id
  policy    = data.aws_iam_policy_document.alb_logs_policy.json
}

resource "aws_s3_bucket_notification" "alb_logs" {
  bucket = aws_s3_bucket.alb_logs.id

  queue {
    id        = "alb-logs"
    queue_arn = aws_sqs_queue.alb_logs.arn
    events    = ["s3:ObjectCreated:*"]
  }
} 3.  Installing and Configuring Vector I always use ArgoCD for installing something in the Kubernetes cluster, so here is a manifest: apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: Application
metadata:
  name: vector
  namespace: argocd
spec:
  project: default
  syncPolicy:
    automated:
      prune: true
      selfHeal: true
    syncOptions:
      - CreateNamespace=true
    retry:
      limit: 2
      backoff:
        duration: 2s
        factor: 2
        maxDuration: 1m
  destination:
    namespace: logging
    server: 'https://kubernetes.default.svc'
  source:
    repoURL: https://helm.vector.dev
    chart: vector
    targetRevision: 0.25.0
    helm:
      values: |
        service:
          enabled: false
        serviceAccount:
          annotations:
            eks.amazonaws.com/role-arn: arn:aws:iam::YOUR_ID:role/eks-alb-ingress-controller
        customConfig:
          transforms:
            alb:
              type: remap
              inputs:
                - s3
              source: >-
                structured =
                  parse_regex!(.message, r'^(?P<Type>[^ ]*) (?P<Time>[^ ]*) (?P<Alb>[^ ]*) (?P<ClientIP>[^ ]*):(?P<ClientPort>[0-9]*) (?P<TargetIP>[^ ]*)[:-](?P<TargetPort>[0-9]*) (?P<RequestProcessingTime>[-.0-9]*) (?P<TargetProcessingTime>[-.0-9]*) (?P<ResponseProcessingTime>[-.0-9]*) (?P<StatusCode>|[-0-9]*) (?P<TargetStatusCode>-|[-0-9]*) (?P<ReceivedBytes>[-0-9]*) (?P<SentBytes>[-0-9]*) \"(?P<RequestVerb>[^ ]*) (?P<RequestUrl>.*) (?P<RequestProto>- |[^ ]*)\" \"(?P<UserAgent>[^\"]*)\" (?P<SslCipher>[A-Z0-9-_]+) (?P<SslProtocol>[A-Za-z0-9.-]*) (?P<TargetGroupArn>[^ ]*) \"(?P<TraceId>[^\"]*)\" \"(?P<DomainName>[^\"]*)\" \"(?P<CertArn>[^\"]*)\" (?P<MatchedRulePriority>[-.0-9]*) (?P<RequestCreationTime>[^ ]*) \"(?P<ActionExecuted>[^\"]*)\" \"(?P<RedirectUrl>[^\"]*)\" \"(?P<LambdaErrorReason>[^ ]*)\" \"(?P<TargetPortList>[^\s]+?)\" \"(?P<TargetStatusCodeList>[^\s]+)\" \"(?P<Classification>[^ ]*)\" \"(?P<Classificationreason>[^ ]*)\"')
                . = merge(., structured)
          sources:
            s3:
              type: aws_s3
              compression: auto
              strategy: sqs
              region: "us-east-1"
              sqs:
                delete_message: true
                poll_secs: 5
                visibility_timeout_secs: 300
                queue_url: "https://sqs.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/YOUR_ID/alb-logs"
          sinks:
            opensearch:
              type: elasticsearch
              endpoints:
                - "https://YOUR_OPENSEARCH_URL.us-east-1.es.amazonaws.com"
              inputs:
                - alb 4. Enabling Our Logs There are three ways you can enable logging: Old-fashioned documentation from AWS - link With Terraform aws_lb resource - link And the easiest way is - Kubernetes Ingress annotation (our way): alb.ingress.kubernetes.io/load-balancer-attributes: access_logs.s3.enabled=true,access_logs.s3.bucket=alb-logs Now, you should be able to see logs in your OpenSearch console! That`s all!

ALB Controller Logs With Vector and OpenSearch: A Guide

How Bitcoin Merges Religion, Philosophy, and Innovation to Unlock Financial Prosperity

আর্থিক সমৃদ্ধি আনলক করতে বিটকয়েন কীভাবে ধর্ম, দর্শন এবং উদ্ভাবনকে একত্রিত করে

Wie Bitcoin Religion, Philosophie und Innovation vereint, um finanziellen Wohlstand freizusetzen

Cómo Bitcoin fusiona religión, filosofía e innovación para desbloquear la prosperidad financiera

Comment Bitcoin fusionne la religion, la philosophie et l'innovation pour débloquer la prospérité financière

बिटकॉइन किस तरह धर्म, दर्शन और नवाचार को मिलाकर वित्तीय समृद्धि लाता है

ビットコインは宗教、哲学、イノベーションを融合して経済的繁栄を実現する

비트코인이 종교, 철학, 혁신을 결합하여 금융 번영을 이루는 방법

Como o Bitcoin combina religião, filosofia e inovação para desbloquear a prosperidade financeira

Как Биткойн объединяет религию, философию и инновации для достижения финансового процветания

Bitcoin, Finansal Refahın Kilidini Açmak İçin Din, Felsefe ve Yeniliği Nasıl Birleştiriyor?

Cách Bitcoin kết hợp tôn giáo, triết học và đổi mới để mở ra sự thịnh vượng tài chính

比特币如何融合宗教、哲学和创新以释放金融繁荣

Craig Wright's Bitcoin White Paper Document Questioned for Forgery

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 30 of 42. 28. Economics of BitCoin Nodes (Reliance Document) {ID_000227} / {L3/219/1} 523. The document purports to contain notes relating to “The Economics of central core BitCoin Nodes” and is dated as if it was created in the period September-October 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 524. The document has been backdated. Within the document are several hidden embedded zip files containing references to Microsoft Schema dating from 2014-2015 which did not exist in 2008. These references are not visible to someone editing the document or reviewing its internal content without forensic analysis. [PM26 [16-17]]. 525. Equations within {ID_000227} were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 [32, 42]]. 526. The document contains redundant hidden content of previous edits which do not appear on the face of the document. [PM26 [19-20]]. 527. The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 [21]]. 528. The reference to the 11 April 2019 URL has been deleted from the face of the document and replaced with a footnote which appears to be a “note to self” about what would need to be added in a future draft (“Note: I will need to link to laws such as the CFAA (USA) – see LLM[…]”). Other footnotes have been introduced or edited to refer to Bitcoin in the future tense. The misleading effect of these edits is to make the document appear as if it was created at a time before Bitcoin was created. In fact, the document was created later, after 11 April 2019, and the anachronistic content was obscured by editing. [PM26 [19-24]]. 529. The document was created from a precursor document after 11 April 2019. No precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM26 [23]]. 530. The document {ID_000227} has an implausible edit time of 20 days 19 hours and 22 minutes consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM26 [6-10]]. 531. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003937}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 532. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in September / October 2008 which looked ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 533. Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 11 April 2019, and a copy later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright primarily relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [{ID_003927}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. 534. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account. 535. The content introduced into the document, having the effect of making it appear to date from earlier than its true date, is phrased in the first person as a note from Dr Wright to himself. 536. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. 537. Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author. 538. Dr Wright has not disclosed the precursor documents [PM26 [23]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 539. Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of anachronistic references to Mathtype software and Microsoft schemas by referring to the effects of his computing environment in supposedly causing such elements to be inserted into documents merely through a document being opened (without any user interaction): Wright11 Appendix B, [6.3 to 6.4]{CSW/2/20}. 540. Dr Wright sought to explain the presence of remnant text, including the URL in the footnote dating from 2019, by saying that text from another document had become merged with the text of this document as a result of features of his computing environment: Wright11 Appendix B, [6.5 to 6.6] {CSW/2/20}. He also suggested that the article at the URL had limited relevance to the material content of his document. 541. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 541.1. Dr Wright’s explanation is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that the Mathtype references and schema references could not be inserted without the document being interacted with by a user, which would in turn result in updating of the metadata timestamps of the document. The fact that the metadata timestamps for this document were dated to 2008 but the raw data contained the elements set out above shows that the document has been forged by backdating. See Madden4, [158]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]; {Day16/35:19} to {Day16/38:11}; {Day16/125:7} to {Day16/125:18}. 541.2. It is wildly implausible that the features of a shared computing environment would cause two documents to become merged, and to do so in a way which resulted in the document not being corrupted and appearing normal on its face. See Madden4, [159]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]. 541.3. In his evidence, Dr Wright tried to justify his position by going so far as to claim implausibly that any digital document more than a few years’ old could be expected to have anomalous features in its raw data. He claimed never to have seen a file older than five years which was pristine in metadata, before being compelled to accept that the Bitcoin White Paper is pristine {Day3/20:5} to {Day3/20:25}. 541.4. In his evidence, Dr Wright attempted to explain that the footnote in the edited version of the document was obviously more apt to the text than the footnote in the remnant text. In doing so, he put forward a bizarre interpretation of the Bitcoin system in which the availability of injunctive relief is supposedly essential to preventing subversion of the system: {Day3/7:18} to {Day3/15:16}. (d) Conclusion 542. The points on this document gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing repeat a number of points I have already found to be unconvincing in relation to {ID_000217} above and they are equally unconvincing here. Furthermore, the argument that this document is the result of text from another document becoming merged into the document is particularly absurd. The argument presupposes disk read errors such that a disk sector containing a portion of another document is merged into the saved version of this document but without any trace of corruption or discontinuity. 543. In short, I found Dr Wright’s explanations wholly unconvincing, especially in the light of the detailed specific points made by Mr Madden. This document was plainly forged, and forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 30 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 30 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 28. Economics of BitCoin Nodes (Reliance Document) {ID_000227} / {L3/219/1} 523. The document purports to contain notes relating to “The Economics of central core BitCoin Nodes” and is dated as if it was created in the period September-October 2008. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 524. The document has been backdated. Within the document are several hidden embedded zip files containing references to Microsoft Schema dating from 2014-2015 which did not exist in 2008. These references are not visible to someone editing the document or reviewing its internal content without forensic analysis. [PM26 [16-17]]. 525. Equations within {ID_000227} were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 [32, 42]]. 526. The document contains redundant hidden content of previous edits which do not appear on the face of the document. [PM26 [19-20]]. 527. The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 [21]]. 528. The reference to the 11 April 2019 URL has been deleted from the face of the document and replaced with a footnote which appears to be a “note to self” about what would need to be added in a future draft (“Note: I will need to link to laws such as the CFAA (USA) – see LLM[…]”). Other footnotes have been introduced or edited to refer to Bitcoin in the future tense. The misleading effect of these edits is to make the document appear as if it was created at a time before Bitcoin was created. In fact, the document was created later, after 11 April 2019, and the anachronistic content was obscured by editing. [PM26 [19-24]]. 529. The document was created from a precursor document after 11 April 2019. No precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM26 [23]]. 530. The document {ID_000227} has an implausible edit time of 20 days 19 hours and 22 minutes consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM26 [6-10]]. 531. The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [{ID_003937}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 532. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in September / October 2008 which looked ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact. 533. Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 11 April 2019, and a copy later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright primarily relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [{ID_003927}, PM26 [1, 25-38]]. 534. Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account. 535. The content introduced into the document, having the effect of making it appear to date from earlier than its true date, is phrased in the first person as a note from Dr Wright to himself. 536. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. 537. Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author. 538. Dr Wright has not disclosed the precursor documents [PM26 [23]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 539. Dr Wright sought to explain away the presence of anachronistic references to Mathtype software and Microsoft schemas by referring to the effects of his computing environment in supposedly causing such elements to be inserted into documents merely through a document being opened (without any user interaction): Wright11 Appendix B, [6.3 to 6.4]{CSW/2/20}. 540. Dr Wright sought to explain the presence of remnant text, including the URL in the footnote dating from 2019, by saying that text from another document had become merged with the text of this document as a result of features of his computing environment: Wright11 Appendix B, [6.5 to 6.6] {CSW/2/20}. He also suggested that the article at the URL had limited relevance to the material content of his document. 541. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 541.1. Dr Wright’s explanation is contradicted by the clear expert evidence of Mr Madden, which is that the Mathtype references and schema references could not be inserted without the document being interacted with by a user, which would in turn result in updating of the metadata timestamps of the document. The fact that the metadata timestamps for this document were dated to 2008 but the raw data contained the elements set out above shows that the document has been forged by backdating. See Madden4, [158]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]; {Day16/35:19} to {Day16/38:11}; {Day16/125:7} to {Day16/125:18}. 541.2. It is wildly implausible that the features of a shared computing environment would cause two documents to become merged, and to do so in a way which resulted in the document not being corrupted and appearing normal on its face. See Madden4, [159]; Madden / Placks joint statement2 at [8]. 541.3. In his evidence, Dr Wright tried to justify his position by going so far as to claim implausibly that any digital document more than a few years’ old could be expected to have anomalous features in its raw data. He claimed never to have seen a file older than five years which was pristine in metadata, before being compelled to accept that the Bitcoin White Paper is pristine {Day3/20:5} to {Day3/20:25}. 541.4. In his evidence, Dr Wright attempted to explain that the footnote in the edited version of the document was obviously more apt to the text than the footnote in the remnant text. In doing so, he put forward a bizarre interpretation of the Bitcoin system in which the availability of injunctive relief is supposedly essential to preventing subversion of the system: {Day3/7:18} to {Day3/15:16}. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 542. The points on this document gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing repeat a number of points I have already found to be unconvincing in relation to {ID_000217} above and they are equally unconvincing here. Furthermore, the argument that this document is the result of text from another document becoming merged into the document is particularly absurd. The argument presupposes disk read errors such that a disk sector containing a portion of another document is merged into the saved version of this document but without any trace of corruption or discontinuity. 543. In short, I found Dr Wright’s explanations wholly unconvincing, especially in the light of the detailed specific points made by Mr Madden. This document was plainly forged, and forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Forensic Analysis Reveals Backdating in Craig Wright’s Bitcoin Node Economics Paper

COPA Presents Evidence of Bitcoin White Paper Fabrication by Craig Wright 

OPENSEED

openseed.co

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

OPENSEED

EVERGREEN INDEX #7871

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

OpenSeed WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

OPENSEED

openseed.co

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

OPENSEED

EVERGREEN INDEX #7871

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT OPENSEED

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

OpenSeed WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!