We quote its whitepaper:
"[...] cryptographic ledger "blockchain" technology [...] The second major iteration on this novel concept yielded Ethereum, a platform and virtual machine far beyond just a currency, supporting complex Smart Contract logic and a new frontier of distributed applications [...] [See the ...]",
"Blockchains have already begun to disrupt the transmission of monies and the execution of software logic, but the ways they will change business logic and governmental process remain almost completely unexplored. [For sure, our Ontologic System is one of the few exceptions.]",
"Universa Platform is a new generation of blockchain technology. It uses a contract execution machine and distributed state ledger designed to improve on Bitcoin and Ethereum technologies by delivering improvements [...] [We would not call it blockchain technology anymore, because it is a reduced variant of our Ontologic System (OS), as shown in this investigation.]",
"Where traditional blockchains transact primarily in currencies, Universa is designed to support token representation of everything [...] []",
"[...] Universa improves speed and usability by maintaining an directed graph of the verifiable hashes of the output of all actions ("tiny protocol, fat logic"). In other words, instead of stacking blocks to make a single full ledger, each set of changes to a contract is applied by the clients in a separate contract chain ("C-Chains") to the previous state, and the outcome is vectorized and hashed - only a signed signature of the state of each side-chain gets updated as the new status of the blockchain, discarding the old state and storing the new one. [In the following we will see that it is very similar to what we do with the related part of our OS.]",
"Still, each chain keeps it's own history, and any node with a copy of the transactions can attempt to replay them and verify that the outcome is the same, which ensures validity and fairness in a trusted environment. [See the section Basic Properties of the webpage Overview for the OS properties of (mostly) being reflective, and validated and verified, and by the reflective property validatable and verifiable, and validating and verifying.]",
"Nodes in the Universa system are owned and operated by our partners; they must be licensed and authorized by Universa Corporation. [This is reflecting our SOPR somehow.]",
"Rather than mining for incentive [...] instead all nodes are rewarded via transaction fees for their participation in the validation and execution of contracts. [This reminds us of cloud computing and as a Service (aaS).]",
"The only "work" being done on the machines in the Universa cloud is mission-critical data handling and contract execution [...] [Here we have cloud computing in general and trustworthy cloud computing in particular, eventually.]",
"Universa Platform is powered by the Universa Network - a swarm of Universa Core nodes composing the Universa Blockchain, and supporting the Universa Secure Signed Document Service (codenamed "Notary Cloud"). The Blockchain is only responsible for enforcing the validity of the state of transactions, while Notary Cloud acts as a verifiable warehouse for signatures of the original contracts. [Here we have the field of Swarm Computing (SC), which is a subfield of our field of Softbionics (SB) (see also the section Exotic Operating System of the webpage Links to Software). At this point we already have the evidence for the required showing of a causal link with our original and unique OS. see also the Clarification #1 of the 20th of December 2017; Managed Peer-to-Peer (MP2P) approach]",
"For example, if a contract is executed that defines a "token" asset and distributes 1 token to each of 10,000 parties, only the hash-of-the-state of the final balances would be stored and saved onto the full blockchain (about 90 bytes), rather than a full accounting of all ten-thousand transactions and the balances of all user accounts, as is the case in Bitcoin or Ethereum; therefore, any future node connecting to the network would then benefit from over 99.99% size reduction in synchronizing this particular execution from blockchain, and it need only to retain the short hash of the current state at this block height to verify it. [This reflects our criticism of well-known blockchain-based systems on the one hand and explanations advantages of our approach on the other hand.]",
"Furthermore, since the hashes from each contract are summarized into the master Universa chain via directed acyclical graph (DAG), rather than a naive synchronously-ordered blockchain, it's possible for asynchronous actions from different contracts and replays to occur out-of-order and still yield the same final hashes of global state. [Firstly, the Structured Entity-Relationship Model (SERM), the Structured Object-Relationship Model (SORM), and the Structured Relational Petri net-based Object-oriented Model (SRPOM) are existential, multi-rooted DAGs as well and used together with our OntoFS software component. Secondly, see the section Integrating Architecture of the webpage Overview to find out more about the special abstraction, that includes synchronous and also asynchronous modules.]",
"The network is designed in this way, around contracts and their executions - "a transaction" - and each time an action is to be performed, all nodes are transmitted both the current state of the contract and the source of the operation to be performed. The state and the source are verified by hash-sum to be identical to the stored current state of the contract's side-chain ("C-Chains"), the operation is applied, and then the new state is hashed and agreed upon by 90% consensus; after a short period of time (10 days currently), the nodes are free to discard both the contract and the state - their hash sum signatures are stored in the Notary Cloud so later, the original contract can be supplied to the nodes and proven authentic - and only the hashes need be retained by nodes in the swarm. []",
"To verify a particular C-Chain, such as in triple-ledger accounting of the validity in a currency-like contract's balances, any actor may retain the contract source and transaction history (requesting, if necessary, that it be verified by Notary Cloud) and replay the actions, comparing the hash to the current value at the present state in the ledger. [Note the triple which reminds us of the RDF and triple store, as well as once again the verify and validity.]",
"The Universa blockchain is a cooperative ledger of state changes, performed by licensed and trusted nodes [...] []",
"The blockchain doesn't need to store a full history of all transactions, as these can be kept in the side-chains by each actor responsible for executing them. [Note the actor of a swarm ...; OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 18th of October 2017; we mentioned in the Clarification #1 of the 20th of December 2017 that it should not be too difficult to find an agent system with consensus]",
"The Universa Nodes primary function is to execute contracts and verify state. [See once again the basic properties validated and verified; see the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 29th of August 2017 section 9.2 Contract-Based Channel (CBC) also on the webpage of our OntoCore software component and the related Ontonics Further steps of the 07.October.2017, where we mentioned a verified state machine once again. See also the last section of the OntoLix and OntoLinux Website update of the 8th of March 2017, where we explain that we do not introduce new features and functionalities but merely explain the OS in more detail.]",
"[...] a state change can occur at any time, verified by a trusted actor, and often approved by consensus [...] [See once again the Clarification #1 of the 20th of December 2017.]",
"Each separate contract maintains its own chain of state, so a contract can perform actions asynchronously without blocking or affecting other contracts, and the combined changes of state collectively form a directed acyclical graph ("DAG") that makes up the blockchain itself. []",
"Actors [] 1. Nodes, which together produce Universa Notary Cloud and Universa C-Chains Ledger 2. Clients - For PC, Mac, Android and iOS 3. Additional services, like Universa crypto-cloud, and side entities, which will provide services via Universa []",
"In general, a Smart Contract in Universa is just executable script data stored in tree structures. It stores any information in the "key-value" format; each key is represented as a globally unique address, and a value can be fixed values, binary executable logic, dynamically executing scripts, or even references to other trees, addresses, and so on, allowing virtually any structure of complex nesting representations. [Firstly, a key-value database or key-value store; data structure used for associative array in particular and Associative Memory (AM) in general; see OntoBase once again. Secondly, the globally unique address sounds like the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) and the Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI), as used with the Resource Description Framework (RDF) as well. Thirdly, the binary executable logic sounds like a Binary Decison Diagram (BDD). Fourthly, allowing virtually any structure of complex nesting representations sounds again like the RDF; see the section beginning with "In the section Logics", specifically "Boolean functions are canonically represented by a multi-rooted Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). [and so on]." in the OntoLix and OntoLinux Website update of the 27th of May 2016; see the Clarification #1 of the 20th of December 2017 once again; see also the Clarification #1 of the 14th of June 2016, specifically the list point about the Well-Structured Transition System (WSTS)]",
"Scripts in Smart Contracts in Universa are Turing-complete; put simply, that means that scripts can execute other scripts, and contain programmable logic of significant complexity. []",
"While it's almost impossible to include provisions for every possible scenario of this kind in the contract specifications, this could easily be achieved by an executable script stored within a [smart] contract. []",
"The script is a signed, non-changeable part of the contract that can perform any complex and intelligent logic to check complex conditions, enabling certain triggers and perform further respective actions as needed. [Doubtlessly, this is Logic Programming (LP) and with the proven causal link with our orignal and unique works we have here a part of our ontologic respectively multilingual multimodal multiparadigmatic multidimensional multimedia rule-based and inference engine of the OntoBot software component.]",
"So, in whole, a tree of smart contracts creates a Smart Contract Chain. It represents a set of smart contracts that reference and confirm each other. [Did we mention Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) and hypergraph? Keep in mind that "[o]ne possible generalization of a hypergraph is to allow edges to point at other edges. There are two variations of this generalization. In one, the edges consist not only of a set of vertices, but may also contain subsets of vertices, subsets of subsets of vertices and so on ad infinitum. In essence, every edge is just an internal node of a tree or directed acyclic graph, and vertices are the leaf nodes. A hypergraph is then just a collection of trees with common, shared nodes (that is, a given internal node or leaf may occur in several different trees). Conversely, every collection of trees can be understood as this generalized hypergraph. Since trees are widely used throughout computer science and many other branches of mathematics, one could say that hypergraphs appear naturally as well. So, for example, this generalization arises naturally as a model of term algebra; edges correspond to terms and vertices correspond to constants or variables. For such a hypergraph, set membership then provides an ordering, but the ordering is neither a partial order nor a preorder, since it is not transitive. The graph corresponding to the Levi graph of this generalization is a directed acyclic graph."]",
"But, once again, the blockchain does not store the contracts themselves, just their current status, the body of the contract is stored in other entities, for example - your flash card, or a crypto-cloud. [This leads us once again to Content-Addressable Storage (CAS) systems as discussed with the cases of the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 19th of March 2018 and 24th of March 2018.]",
"Smart contracts could include ownership of a real-world object, such as an intellectual property (IP) item included as an attachment, or a contract to purchase some property (usually, another smart contract). Any files can be added inside a contract themselves, or as a signed-verified link (which prevents changing of the file) for large files. [See the comment made to the quote before.]",
"The Universa ecosystem is funded by "UTN" tokens, digital assets that is itself represented as a Universa SmartContract. []",
"Tokens to sell []",
"Our ICO is capped at $99 million USD because we aim to disrupt many legal and political frameworks entrenched around the globe and build Universa's Foundation. [We do not think so.]",
"Service providers can register as a regular server, with active Universa smart contracts. There is nothing special from "Universa" point of view, as the nodes will behave like typical blockchain participants, but they can provide custom interactions to extend the functionality of the network and deliver advanced capabilities. For example, a contract could incorporate a set of API calls to external services to allow and/or perform actions and to generate results. []",
"The most basic example use of SmartContracts will be in the generation of a common Token asset. Such assets can be divisible, tradable, and are fungible; the contract will define actions to check the balance of a wallet, and to transfer tokens to another wallet; in this way, Universa Platform can host a wide variety of tradable assets for powering other platforms and trades. []",
"Because SmartContracts are fully Turing-complete and can interact with external APIs, it is possible to define a Common Token Contract that includes extra provisions for handling transfers to-and-from an externally defined asset class, including but not limited to Bitcoin, Ethereum, or even fiat currencies. [Too bad that it is only allowed in the 5th ring and 6th ring of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV).]", and
"[...] the smart contract is an element of digital workflow infrastructure [...] [See the section Basic Properties once again.]",
"Universa will continue to lean into blockchain adoption and leverage distributed innovations to serve the reliability and security demands of corporations. [Computer says No.]"

From a report published on the 28th of August 2017 by an online magazine specialized on cryptocurrencies we got the following additional information:
"Designed to replace paper documents and streamline business workflow, the new blockchain platform offers some major benefits if compared to ethereum and bitcoin. []",
"[The founder] who compares the creation of Universa to the introduction of Internet [...] [Obviously, his comparison addresses our Ontologic Net (ON).]",
"Unlike bitcoin and ethereum blockchains, Universa is much faster, cheaper, and safer platform, allowing users to create smart contracts and apps via its system. []",
"Universa was initially designed as a distributed system for running smart contracts, not as a digital currency provider. Unlike other blockchains, the platform doesn't depend on mining process, what significantly reduces the cost of transactions and accelerates their speed. []",
"All transactions and smart contracts submitted onto the network are authorized by Universa nodes. The absence of mining, as well as its architecture with a highly developed language of smart contracts has tremendously increased the performance of the system. []",
"Smart contracts in the Universa protocol can be used for developing all types of apps that can be applied in transportation, IoT, smart home, hotel, gas stations and other areas. [see the Clarification of the 17th of October 2017 and the Ontonics Further steps of the 20th of October 2017]",
"The technology associates the acquired item with the customer and can be used as an electronic key. The system enables smart items to work together and offers a tool for managing users' rights without Internet. [sounds like RDF, as we mentioned before]",
"Customers can use their smartphones as a transmitter [...] []",
"While bitcoin blockchain is limited by wallets and ethereum smart contracts operate with a limited set of metadata, Universa allows to create and send any of the existing currencies, including new ones, via its smart contracts. []",
"The platform can benefit services that accept input electronic documents, such as electronic money, intellectual property, obligations, excises, bids on auctions, id or electronic passports. []", and
"Blockchain apps and smart contracts on the Universa platform can be used to easily automatize almost any operations and processes. []".

The whitepaper has been dated 8th of September 2017, created on the 14th of November 2017, and updated on the 22nd of December 2017. When compared with the dates of others' and our publications it is relatively easy to see what has been added after the initial date.
The text of the document is also styled with black and red colour for increasing more confusion of the public.

What makes us wonder in relation to all these so-called next generation blockchain platforms is the fact that they came up with their solutions at the same time, when we discussed the advantages of our original and unique OS, but not all the years before.

Clever but not clever enough. McAffee and big marketing will not help here. Our investigation has shown evidences and proven causal links, and therefore a copyright infringement. In fact, a validated and verified Swarm Intelligence (SI) is already sufficient but we have here even some kind of a Virtual Machine (VM) (see also for example the Investigations::Multimedia of the 20th of October 2017), some kind of a Content-Addressable Storage (CAS) (see also for example the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 19th of March 2018 and 24th of March 2018), and some kind of an actor system.
Obviously, its goal is to take a significantly large part of the OS respectively to realize a rudimentary OS, as could be seen with other blockchain platforms as well.

"The proof-of-state system and the licensed nodes can be perceived as moving away from decentralization. This mechanism is meant to develop a convenient business solution in a broad sense, which can "break the very philosophy of the blockchain."

The company is not legitimized to license our Intellectual Properties (IP) to other entities worldwide. Only our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is allowed to license the original and unqiue works of art created by C.S. in whole or in part.

05.April.2018
Comment of the Day
"The smart contract and blockchain fun is over.", [C.S., Today]
This does not mean that nobody should do it but our SOPR will do it as well where appropriated and demanded. And much more.

Clarification
What we have seen once again with the latest developments in the field of blockchain platforms is the learning, research and development of others that we already conducted around the years 2002 and 2003, and led us to the conclusion that systems, like for example the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) Askemos based on the smart contract protocol and systems based on the blockchain technique, are not convincing as a general foundation for something like the successors of the internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), which eventually resulted in our OS, as we explained the subject matter all the time (see the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 18th of October 2017 and the Clarification of the 21st of March 2018, specifically its last section).

But there is no cherry picking, as we have also seen and made clear multiple times in the past in relation to our Ontologic File System (OntoFS), OntoBot, and OntoCore software components of our Ontologic Systems OntoLix and OntoLinux, and IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS), specifically in relation to

• validated and verified, and validating and verifying distributed computing in general and also related services (e.g. Ethereum (partial copy of OS) discussed in the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 13th of October 2017, the Clarification of the 16th of October 2017, the Ontonics Further steps of 20th of October 2017, and the Clarification of the 21st of March 2018),
• validated and verified, and validating and verifying distributed computing, databases, and also related services (e.g. Syscoin (combination of Ethereum and others), and
• validated and verified, and validating and verifying distributed reflective computing, databases, and also related services (e.g. Tezos (partial copy of OS) discussed in the Investigations::Multimedia of the 20th of October 2017),

Obviously, the

as we are observing with the developments of the blockchain platforms listed above.
Therefore,

Also keep in mind that

• Ontologic System Components (OSC),
• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW),
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and
• Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),

and

• has the rights for licensing our OS,
• has its own uniting and unifying systems, such as the
  • IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS),
  • Geographic Information System (GIS),
  • social networking platform, and
  • Ontologic Financial System (OFinS),
• was created in accordance with the
  • principle of neutrality,
  • avoidance of abuse of market power, and
  • allowance for entities, like for example the companies Microsoft, Intel and Tencent, IBM, Robert Bosch, Volkswagen, and others, to use their blockchain-based systems,

  and

• has introduced regulations addressing for example the
  • cyber sovereignty of states and
  • financial transactions between ID spaces over our OFinS.

Indeed, it is that plain and simple. :)

06.April.2018
OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps or Clarification
*** Work in progress - better explanation, wording, and text flow ***
In the past, we already explained why the early attempts respectively platforms and systems based on the techniques of the smart contract protocol and the blockchain have not convinced us (see the related publications of October 2017 and the Clarification 5th of April 2018 (yesterday)).
(see also below)

We also called blockchain-based systems old and retrograde (see for example the Clarification of the 16th of October 2017 and 21st of March 2018).
(see also below).
In addition, we also found more statements that support our view about the blockchain technique and blockchain-based systems expressed for example in the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 5th of July 2017, like for example the following ones:

Now we can also show that we were right all the time. Here are some references to the subject matter we are talking about:

Indeed, C.S. had exactly these secure logs in (subconsciousness) mind all the time when looking at the blockchain technique. Furthermore, "[i]n the field of databases in computer science, a transaction log (also transaction journal, database log, binary log or audit trail) is a history of actions executed by a database management system used to guarantee [Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability (]ACID[)] properties over crashes or hardware failures. Physically, a log is a file listing changes to the database, stored in a stable storage format." Our Ontologic File System (OntoFS) also provides validated and/or verified and by the reflective property validatable and/or verifiable, and validating and/or verifying transaction logs as part of Distributed Systems (DSs), including fault-tolerant, reliable, and trustworthy distributed systems, such as distributed data stores.

We also mentioned in the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 21st of January 2018:

But as we said in the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 5th of July 2017, every feature is already included in our OS.
Even more important are the facts that we

Doubtlessly, these OS elements and their combination are different than a log file and exactly at this point we always start to draw the white, yellow, or red line, and to look at the exceptions of the copyright law.

In other words, if the blockchain technique is younger than we thought and said at first and because a distributed ledger based on a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) is a generalization of the blockchain technique (a chain of blocks is a special case of a DAG) in this context and belongs to the foundational properties of our OS, then it is an essential part of our OS in general when viewed from the points of the technology and the original and unique, characteristic expression, which implies that such cryptocurrencies and also payment systems, digital wallets, and so on are Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), and most potentially a copyright infringement in general and we can keep the related discussions much shorter in general.
In this respect, the larger ICT companies have seen this on the one hand and on the other hand adding for example a Turing complete Virtual Machine (VM) or a more advanced data store on top of a blockchain-based system, and combining an IDAMS or the field of IoT emphasizes our opinion.

09.April.2018
iRaiment Further steps
We have developed a new device, which solves a huge problem of the initial version.

11.April.2018
Website update
Some might have seen it already, many images are not available on our websites actually. One reason is that we are trying to solve the issue with unlicensed images since a couple of years already. The other reason is that we are trying to clean up, renovate, and update our websites for general and particular reasons. For example, we still have a table-based layout and no responsive or/and adaptive web design on the on hand and on the other hand our business Style of Speed is not acting in the field of common surface vehicles anymore with the exception of some few spare time projects, like e.g. the 9x9 series.
Accordingly, we have simply begun to proceed with the following steps:
1. The attributes of all images have been set to 0000.
2. The attributes of all images which belong to us or can be used for free, so to say (e.g. Public Domain (PD) or Creative Commons (CC)), have been reset to 0644 again.
3. In the medium term either we will try to find out if and how we are allowed to use the other images, or alternatively, we will replace them in such a way that the informations given with their contents as well as their presentations in relation to specific contexts are not lost.
4. In the future, our design team might recreate them in the course of the next renovation of our websites.

Said this, the heartbreaking situation will only last for a limited period of time.
In this relation we also have to make clear that in this way no freedom for conducting any illegal activities has been created, because on the one hand the items have been published by us and on the other the informations and any of our related expressions are coming back.

Ontonics Further steps
We have started a new project, which is related to a more and more upcoming scientific field and supported by our Ontologic System (OS).

12.April.2018
Ontonics Further steps
Since around two weeks we are thinking about an extension of the management structure of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which is also related to other decisions to be made.
Most potentially, many of our fans and readers have forgotten the message of the OntoLinux Website update of the 23rd of April 2007 respectively the Project Status webpage, where we listed the point "Replacing 'Integration of some kind of a Roboverse into CoVE' with 'Integration of some kind of a Multiverse into CoVE'".
This means we have as structuring elements rings, ID spaces, and multiple universes, also called parallel universes, other universes, or alternative universes. The latter would allow the introduction of an individual universe for any philosophy of life, so to say, which could be for example a

But some of these universes would have to be completely separated from each other or connected with each other by precisely defined portals.
Furthermore, we are not sure at this time if universes are the same as ID spaces.

In this context, all participants of the recent discussion about data privacy, self-sovereignty, self-sovereign digital identity, digital sovereignty, data democracy, and so on have forgotten the fact that our Ontologic System (OS) is multidimensional. Said this, we can define dimensions or scales as we want to. For example, we can define a dimension for

Along these dimensions a user should be allowed to freely adjust what she or he wants to use but also what she or he wants to give in return (e.g. money, data, time, etc.) if required. The same can be done on the basis of the rings, ID spaces, and universes.

But for sure, practice showed that the free services are most wanted by the majority.
In this relation, we would like to give the following additional information:

SOPR #114
In the Ontonics Further steps of today we explaind that along potential dimensions related to data privacy, fee-based contents and services, and advertisement a user should be allowed to freely adjust what she or he wants to use but also what she or he wants to give in return (e.g. money, data, time, etc.) if required.

Furthermore, as economic foundations of the Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) we have the

• IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS) and
• Ontologic Financial System (OFinS),

SOPR members

in accordance with the rings, ID spaces, and universes they want to access and enjoy, or products and services they want to use.

Basically, this suggestion would affect only the 1st to 4th ring, but could or even should also be applied for the 5th ring, while the 6th ring is actually unregulated. But with the introduction of ID spaces and universes the concept could be extended in a much more flexible way.

With this addition we also have the basic framework respectively the AoA and the ToS of the SOPR so far. All the rest are details about its

Indeed, it is very huge, highly complex, and much more fascinating.

OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps
We extended the Multilingual Multimodal Multiparadigmatic Multidimensional Multimedia User Interface (M⁵UI) of the OntoScope software component to establish compatibility with the Web Authentication (WebAuth) Application Programming Interface (API) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

In this respect, we have to give the reminder that when using WebAuth for other applications than an online authentication system then most potentially it is an Ontologic Applications, which has to be licensed. Indeed, this might already be the case if one of the utilized biometric methods is used together with a QR code-based system for example.

14.April.2018
SOPR #115
We have a new member of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR):

• Ontologic System
  • OntoBot
    • SoftBionics (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computer Vision (CV), etc.),
  • OntoScope,
  • Ontologic eMotion (OntoMotion), and
  • [OntoNet] distributed computing (Peer-to-Peer (P2P), grid, cloud, edge, etc. computing)

  and

• Ontoscope
  • robot of Roboticle
    • Lift-E

have been shown to be the Ontologic System (OS) in part, Ontologic Applications (OA) and Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) Services (OAOOOS), and the Ontoscope (Os) in part as well.

At first, we could not show the required causal link between its AI based toy race track and our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., because the autonomous cars, AI functionality, and related app seemed not to be sufficient. But with the combination of the techniques of SoftBionics (SB) and the emotion engine, specifically the graph-based deep learning and emotion processing, and also the special distributed computing technique, as used with our pad computers, we have more than sufficient evidences to prove the causal link even without having General Artificial Intelligence (GAI), and therefore it is now doubtlessly clear that the company is copying our Ontologic System and in this case the specific robot platform of Roboticle called Lift•E.

We will also take a look at all other start-ups funded by Andreessen Horowitz, aka. a16z. This could even become more expensive because of the orchestration with other entities and other more serious legal issues. If they have so much money to spend then they should also give it to C.S. as the original creator.
The empire strikes back. :)

Style of Speed Further steps
We continued the work on the design of one of our Speeders, which integrates our new 0 Gravity 1.0 and 0 Gravity 2.0 configurations mentioned in the Ontonics Further steps of the 24th of February 2018.

18.April.2018
OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps or Clarification
*** Work in progress - wording and text flow ***

In relation to the Further steps or Clarification of the 6th of April 2018 we looked one more time at the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) Askemos on the 15th to 18th of April 2018 (see also the Further steps of the 13th of October 2017), saw once again elementary and especially interesting features of it in its whitepaper published in the year 2002, such as that it

remembered and concluded once again that

worked out various aspects related to such fault-tolerant, reliable, and trustworthy distributed systems,
recalled more and more thoughts we had in relation to the fields of fault-tolerant computer systems, safety-critical systems, and security-critical systems at around the year 2003,
remembered the reading of two or one more documents, that somehow opened us the eyes on the one hand, but also confirmed our system architecture already devleoped at that time on the other hand, and it could be very well that the whitepaper of Askemos belongs to them, but there is a point, when all the other properties and components of our Ontologic System (OS) become missing in the prior art,
found again the bottom and our thoughts we had about the field of fault-tolerant, reliable, and trustworthy distributed systems, specifically distributed ledger architectures, around 15 years ago,
had the impression once again that something is odd with Askemos and distributed ledgers, as it is the case with the latest developments in the field of deep learning, and
got support and even proofs for our allegations, claims, and views.

In short, our Ontologic System (OS) is designed on a lower and more foundational level respectively on a higher metalevel but also comprises features of the higher respectively lower level depending on the point of view. On the level of fault-tolerant computing systems, specifically fault-tolerant, reliable, and trustworthy distributed systems, we apply what? Exactly, the basic properties and components of our OS, which are based on SoftBionics (SB) (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Cognitive Multi-Agent System (CMAS), etc.) in combination with all the many techniques developed for such fault-tolerant, reliable, and trustworthy distributed systems.
This can be seen for example with the formal modeling, including the Petri net model, formal validation and verification, and so on also mentioned in relation to Askemos. In contrast to specific approaches, like for example the smart contract protocol, the blockchain technique, and the various Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocols, our OS simply creates a suitable way by utilizing its related basic properties, specifically of (mostly) being reflective, validated and verified, self-adaptive, self-organizing, self-regenerative, and intelligent or smart, and components, specifically the OntoBot and OntoCore software components, for example by

which

• efficient Byzantine-resilient tuple spaces,
• shared distributed file systems and databases, and
• Wide Area Networks (WANs), such as the Ontologic Net (ON).

In addition, we noted that the actor model and programmed agents are also mentioned in relation to Askemos. Here again we have our Ontologic Paradigm (OP) or Ontologic Computing Model (OCM), and holon OntoBot, that can do all of this (see also for example the Clarification of the 17th of January 2018).

This leads us to our

• based on and denoted or named by the Zero Ontology O#,
• represented by our Caliber/Calibre, and
• handled and used with
  • our Ontologic System Components, e.g.
    • OntoCore.
  • the connected and integrated software libraries and applications, and
  • our hardware devices,
• etc..

At this point it can also be understood once again, why we have the network of telescopes, because with our belief system OS we need an unforgeable foundation of trust and consensus on the metalevel. On the other end we have our Zero Ontology O#.

In summary, as it is the cases with the blockchain technique (see the Further steps of the 5th of July 2017), other types of distributed ledger, and similar data stores and databases, we also remembered that the features of a P2P VM, specifically of Askemos, are all included in the Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) (see the Further steps of the 13th of October 2017 once again).
For sure, the same holds for a distributed ledger based on a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) in combination with a P2P VM (see once again the Further steps or Clarification of the 6th of April 2018), which is the case with Iota and Universa.

Some more keywords, thoughts, and informations to be added at suitable positions:

19.April.2018
Comment of the Day
Sterntaler™
Star taler™
Star money™
Star coin™

Picture of the Day
Victor Paul Mohn, Die Sterntaler (1882)

PD

This image is an illustration to the fairy tale "Die Sterntaler==The Star Money" published in the book "Kinder- und Hausmärchen= =Children's and Home's Fairy Tales or Stories" of the Brothers Grimm since the 2nd edition of 1819 at the position 153. Before it was titled "Das arme Mädchen==The Poor Girl" and published at the position 83.

Pictures of the Day
Deutsche Bundesbank, Deutsche Banknote, Tausend Deutsche Mark (1991)
Central Bank of the B.R.D., German Banknote, Thousand German Mark

PD

Also take a closer look at the lower right corner of the backside.
By the way: The open book is the first volume of the Deutsches Wörterbuch==German Dictionary written by the Brothers Grimm and accordingly also called Der Grimm==The Grimm, and the text is the first eight rows of the manuscript about the keyword Freiheit==freedom.

OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps
In the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 26th of October 2017 we discussed a combination of the observation of the stars by the network of telescopes and the distributed ledger technology, specifically the technique of the blockchain, and also said in the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 24th of March 2018, a comment of the 27th of March 2018, and the Further steps or Clarification of the 6th of April 2018 that the network of telescopes constitutes some kind of a physical and ultimative distributed ledger. Later, this statement has been corrected by using the designation of an ultimative distributed consensus because the essential part of a distributed ledger was missing. This deficit could be remedied with the following procedure:

• as some kind of a pulse, lifeline, or beacon, and
• for a reserve currency, base currency, or anchor currency, that we called accordingly Sterntaler or Star Money, like in the fairy tale of the Brothers Grimm, or alternatively StarTaler or StarCoin.

This system can be

• rate of created tokens,
• number of forked and introduced blockchains, and
• number of derived distributed ledgers,

• Ontologic System Components (OSC),
• Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) (e.g. Blockchain as a Service (BaaS)), as well as
• Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) platforms.

At this point, we have not decided if the

of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) equals the StarTaler. ©

24.April.2018
OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps or Clarification
In relation to the Further steps or Clarification of the 13th of October 2017 and 18th of April 2018 we worked through the document titled "Secure Intrusion-tolerant Replication on the Internet", which is about an asynchronous point-to-point network infrastructure (e.g. a Wide Area Network (WAN), such as the Internet) called Secure INtrusion-Tolerant Replication Architecture (SINTRA) and referenced in the whitepaper of the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) Askemos, which was developed for the execution of the smart contract transaction protocol as rules of Logic Programming (LP), is implemented on the basis of Functional Programming (FP), and is based on cryptographic hash chains and Byzantine fault-tolerant replication (see also the smart contract concept of Nick Szabo).

The document explains that the SINTRA is based on "[a]tomic broadcast [which] immediately provides secure state machine replication" and a "cryptographic common coin", and "uses the sender's identity and a separate sequence number for each sender for identifying the payload messages", "coin-tossing", and "multi-signature", and also discusses the differences to related systems:
"Comparing SINTRA to other work is difficult because no previous approach provided its strong properties in such a hostile environment. No existing group communication system like ISIS, Horus, or Rampart maintains liveness and safety in an asynchronous network with Byzantine faults. The reader is referred to [2 [Distributing trust on the Internet]] for a detailed comparison with these systems.
The BFT prototype of Castro and Liskov [5 [Practical Byzantine fault tolerance [(PBFT)]]] is perhaps the closest in spirit to SINTRA. It provides atomic broadcast using an elegant, deterministic protocol, which depends on certain timing assumptions. It is therefore not fully asynchronous, but also requires no public-key operations. Its implementation (in C on Unix) on a LAN performs several orders of magnitude faster than SINTRA, taking only a few milliseconds for each atomic broadcast.
The broadcast protocols of Malkhi, Merritt, and Rodeh [10 [Secure reliable multicast protocols in a WAN]] work in a similar model as SINTRA, but implement only consistent broadcast (akin to SINTRA's consistent channel). The authors report no performance evaluation for their protocols.
SecureRing [8 [The SecureRing protocols for securing group communication]] and the protocols of Doudou, Garbinato, Guerraoui, and Schiper [6 [Muteness failure detectors: Specification and implementation]] are examples of protocols that implement atomic broadcast in asynchronous networks augmented with failure detectors for the Byzantine model. But their use of timeouts means they do not qualify as fully asynchronous algorithms, and no performance data has been reported for them.
The only system for which an Internet deployment has been reported in the literature is COCA [17], a secure distributed on-line certification authority. It does not build upon state replication and atomic broadcast, however, and instead uses an application-specific method to impose a partial order on those requests that pertain to the same public key. The average performance of COCA on the Internet (with 1024-bit RSA keys) is reported as 2.3s for a query and 3.7s for an update operation."
It also references the document titled "Implementing fault-tolerant services using the state machine approach: A tutorial".
Also note that the performance evaluations were done in the 1990s until the year 2002.

As can be seen with this comparison, there exist many possibilities to implement a fault-tolerant, reliable, and distributed system, which have their specific advantages and disadvantages, and as we already said in the past (see once again the Further steps or Clarification of the 18th of April 2018), one of the basic concepts of our OS is to

• basic properties of (mostly) being
  • reflective,
  • validated and verified, and by the reflective property validatable and verifiable, and validating and verifying, and
  • self-adaptive,

  and

• integrating architecture with modules, which are
  • homogeneous,
  • heterogeneous,
  • synchronous, and also
  • asynchronous,

At this time we are not sure if basic elements, like the ones listed in the documents, should be added to the OntoLedger and if the OntoLedger has to be renamed after such an update of its description.

Also very interesting is the point that SINTRA is about a network infrastructure and Askemos is about a P2P VM, which was also called later "an autonomous, distributed operating system on top of peer to peer networks". But

• formally validated and verified, validatable and verifiable, and validating and verifying operating system (kernel),
• field of agent-based system,
• grid and cloud computing paradigms,
• field of SoftBionics (SB), specifically our original and unique deep learning techniques or subfield of Deep Neural Network (DNN) and the Semantic (World Wide) Web,
• and so many other things copied by several industries as well

were added and also integrated by our Ontologic System (OS).

See also the Comment of the Day of the 5th of April 2018.

25.April.2018
Investigations::Multimedia
*** Work in progress - reduction, comments and better wording and text flow ***
At the 22nd of April 2018 we began the investigation of two companies acting in the field of blockchain-based systems.

From its website we got the following informations:
"Blockchain without borders
The strength of smart contracts and service nodes, powered by global consensus.
[...]

About Us
Cryptocurrencies have grown substantially - and we can all agree on one thing ... this is only the beginning. However, as cryptocurrencies grow, it becomes obvious that there are certain limitations, when it comes to how big a coin's user base can be. For example - Bitcoin is big, Ethereum is big, and Litecoin is big, but it isn't exactly possible for any one of those coins to become "the" cryptocurrency that the world uses.

Main Features
Laser offers several dimensions of functionality that will take cryptocurrencies to the next level. Here are some of Laser's defining features:
Transaction speed
Laser's overlay protocol provides a psuedo confirmation of transactions in just seconds.
Inter-chain operability
Laser's service layer is blockchain-agnostic, and can seamlessly facilitate transactions from one blockchain to another (e.g. Bitcoin to Ethereum).
Anonymity
Using a joining service, coins and tokens become "shuffled" to obfuscate their ownership history, thereby ensuring anonymity.

Initial Distribution
Airdropped to ETH & ETH Classis Holders 25%
Pre-minded For Servicenode Crowdsale 15%
Pre-minded For The Company 30%
Mining Rewards 30%

FAQ
So, what does exactly does Laser do?
Laser is a service layer model that operates on top of a blockchain network. It provides services that may not be native to a given blockchain, such as near-instant transfers, and anonymous transactions. It also has the capability of interacting with other blockchains that also have this service layer, effectively enabling separate blockchains to seamlessly interact with each other.
Is Laser a cryptocurrency?
No. Laser is not a cryptocurrency by itself. However, Laser will have its own crypto coin called a Photon. All holders of Ethereum currency before the hard fork will receive the equal number of Photons on upgrading their software. Please refer to the whitepaper for more information on the Photon cryptocurrency.
How can transactions be done near-instantly?
Using an overlay protocol, nodes are able to perform verification checks in a matter of milliseconds in order to "pseudo confirm" transactions, without having to wait a matter of minutes or longer. Please see our whitepaper for a detailed explanation of this functionality.
How can transactions be made anonymous?
With a joining technology, same-currency transactions are bundled together and sent to a "ghost" wallet that is pre-programmed to redistribute the lump sum according to the amounts specified by the original senders, to the recipients specified by the original senders. This optional service will obscure details of previous ownership of a given token, preventing transactions from being traceable on the blockchain. Please see our whitepaper for a detailed explanation of this functionality.
How can transactions take place across blockchains?
By creating a "generic" address code, users can deal with one another across blockchains under a single username system. Since blockchains with the Laser service layer can now "speak the same language", these two blockchains can interact with one another enabling cross-blockchain trading. Please see our whitepaper for a detailed explanation of this functionality.
How will Laser differ from existing blockchain solutions?
The primary difference is in accountability. The true backbone of blockchains is the supply of full nodes to verify transactions (not the supply of miners, which process transactions). Since these full nodes generally do not get rewarded like miners do, there is little incentive to operate them. Laser's model provides for compensation of full nodes, while also requiring them to put up collateral in order to operate. With incentives to provide stable computing resources, and do so honestly, Laser will ensure a reliable, trustworthy, and sustainable blockchain environment.
What type of technology is Laser built on?
Laser is built on a fork of the Ethereum blockchain."

From its executive summary dated 22nd of March 2018 we got the following informations:
"It will operate as a software fork of Ethereum (not a hard-fork of the Ethereum blockchain) [...]" and
Laser has a proprietary consensus mechanism that provides "pseudo confirmation" for transactions, enabling confirmation in a matter of seconds."

From its whitepaper dated 12th of April 2018 we got the following informations:
"A Blockchain-Agnostic Service Layer for Improved Speed, Anonymity, and Interoperability
[...]
These topics have been widely researched, in pursuit of a solution for each of these shortcomings.
In this paper, we propose a mechanism called the Laser Network to address these issues with a blockchain-agnostic design that we call a service layer. This service layer will enable secure transfers across different blockchains while also providing mechanisms to achieve near-instant transactions, and improved anonymity of users.
[...]
Laser will be built on a hard-fork of the Ethereum blockchain.
[...]
A "service layer" solution is proposed that will unify these blockchains and ultimately enable them to operate more efficiently both in and of themselves, and between one another.
[...]
Just as standardized banking systems such as SWIFT were able to bridge the gaps between different banking systems, a similar solution can do the same with blockchains, creating harmony across multiple cryptocurrencies. Just as standardized banking systems such as SWIFT were able to bridge the gaps between different banking systems, a similar solution can do the same with blockchains, creating harmony across multiple cryptocurrencies. The proposed solution will also optimize transaction speeds and improve anonymity. Further, it will capitalize on this harmony to create a decentralized exchange for cryptocurrencies (alleviating the inefficiencies of centralized exchanges).
[...]
It is a solution that operates as a layer of functionality on top of an existing blockchain, in such a way that it can communicate with other blockchains seamlessly. It will operate as a hard fork of Ethereum [...].
[...]
Laser will introduce a protocol where common elements of each blockchain are standardized as such so that they can effectively "speak the same language" to each other. [...] (such as wallet numbers) [...]
[...]
As a direct result of interoperability, different cryptocurrencies can be traded without the use of a centralized exchange.
[...]
Laser will offer a DEX (distributed exchange) platform where these inter-blockchain exchanges can happen without ever giving up control of one's capital, and without the other drawbacks of fees and processing times.
[...]
Laser introduces an overlay protocol that provides "pseudo-confirmation" for transactions, enabling confirmation in a matter of seconds.
[...]
By addressing the interoperability, scalability, and anonymity issues currently faced by blockchains - in addition to reducing energy usage and trust concerns by using PoS, Laser brings groundbreaking optimization to blockchains, and unforeseen dimensions of value.
[...]
One very interesting after-effect of cryptocurrencies' initial surge of popularity was the application of blockchain technology in areas other than cryptocurrencies, with the main idea of harnessing it as a platform for enabling decentralization while retaining trust.
Blockchain has expanded the areas of distributed ledger technology (DLT) applications, finding its way into non-financial domains as well - such as commodities, supply chains, and data management.
[...]
3.1 Lack of Scalability [...] 3.2 Incomplete Privacy [...] 3.3 Incomplete Fungibility [...] 3.4 Lack of Interoperability [...] 3.5 No Incentive for Full Node Setups
[...]
Unlike other solutions such as Dash[28], which are specific implementations of blockchain, Laser is geared to work with any blockchain, without any need for changes in the underlying protocol. Additionally, the functionality enhancement to utilize the added services of Laser is limited to the full nodes or the validator nodes - not the other parts of the network. This allows multiple blockchains to interoperate parallel to one another while retaining each blockchain's built-in security properties.
[...]
Most of the current solutions for interoperability across blockchains are either limited to inter-chain transactions of native currency across the participating blockchains (such as Metronome[26]), or they are limited by compliance requirements of the participating blockchain. For instance, AION[27] needs a participating blockchain to implement the 'locktime' feature, which is not present in IOTA.
[...]
With our current approach, the only compliance requirement for the participating blockchains is to have the multi-signature capability, which is present in almost all blockchains.
[...]
We introduce a service layer that is made up of full nodes.
This layer, termed the servicenode layer, will help in achieving a more secure and robust blockchain network.
[...]
The central idea of Laser revolves around operating the servicenode layer on top of an existing blockchain as shown in Figure 1. It runs in parallel to the existing blockchain, sharing computing resources between both blockchains to perform functions as needed.
[...]
Collateral: [...] The value of the collateral can be decided based on the market value of the cryptocurrency of the underlying blockchain.
[...]
The introduction of a servicenode layer enables a multi-tiered architecture of the blockchain.
[...]
Figure 3 shows the transaction confirmation time plotted on the Y-axis (in minutes) on the Bitcoin network for the 30 days leading up to April 16.
[...]
In our proposed solution, we utilize the servicenode layer to reduce the confirmation time from several minutes to a few seconds. The service pool will be used to verify the transactions and send a pseudo confirmation to the clients, based on the consensus achieved among the servicenodes in the service pool.
The mechanism used to achieve this consensus involves the following steps:
- Each of the servicenodes in the service pool verifies the transaction and broadcasts a signed positive or negative confirmation.
- Servicenodes which are not part of the service pool act as observers. If they find a transaction to be invalid, they broadcast a self-signed negative confirmation to object to the transaction.
- At the ends of the sender and recipient, if all the 'n' confirmation messages from the 'n' service pool members are positive, and no negative confirmation from any other servicenode has been received yet, the sender and recipient will each choose a servicenode randomly from the non-service pool and have the transaction verified by the chosen servicenode.
- If either the sender or recipient finds the transaction verification failed, it will broadcast a negative confirmation message. Otherwise, the transaction is pseudo confirmed.
[...]
A primary requirement for inter-chain transactions is that both parties involved in the transaction should be able to uniquely identify each other.
[...]
Further, we can have heterogenous blockchains which use completely different cryptography and different address spaces (as is the case with IOTA and Bitcoin).
In our approach, we introduce an inter-chain address (ICA) which is unique across blockchains. Hence, it can be used in inter-chain transactions because each user on any blockchain can be uniquely identified on the same system of ICA addresses.
[...]
As detailed in Section 5.4, a client latches on to a servicenode, which provides the client with connectivity to the servicenode layer. Each client would then be assigned an ICA (inter-chain address) of the format X.Y.Z, which is filled with the following data:
X is the servicenode layer ID,
Y is ID of the servicenode to which the client is connected, and
Z is the unique ID of client, among a group of clients connected to servicenode Y.
When transacting across blockchains, the ICA is the address that would be used in the ICP (inter-chain protocol) messages between the connector nodes.
[...]
In this section, we present an approach to accomplish near-instant inter-chain transactions. The idea is to match pairs of equal-value transactions across the blockchains; but execute the transactions locally (i.e. without actually leaving the original blockchain).
[...]
Assume that Alice (residing in Dallas) wants to send $100 to Bob (residing in Chicago). Similarly, Ted in Chicago wants to send $100 to Carol in Dallas. [...] Since the amount to be transferred is equal in both cases, the mechanism is devised so that Alice pays $100 to Carol, and Ted pays $100 to Bob. This achieves the same result as originally intended, but without the complexity or expense of additional sub-transactions to move coins or tokens between blockchains.
Using the same principles, we can pair transactions on participating blockchains and execute the inter-chain transactions locally, in a transparent and seamless fashion. Overall, the transactions are routed and confirmed with the help of the service pool - as well as connector nodes, participating clients, and their respective servicenodes. This allows the transactions to be executed in a trustworthy, decentralized manner.
[...]
7. S1 and S4 communicate to exchange the destination addresses among themselves. This communication can happen over a secure channel (which prevents a man-in-the-middle attack). Note that the addresses exchanged are ICA addresses, which need to be converted to local addresses. [We have a capability-based system and it is common practice with such systems to utilize cryptographically secure channel protocols for the communication between isolated and protected memory areas, and between trusted and untrusted processes.]
[...]
10. S1 broadcasts the local destination address (based on the ICA) procured in Step 7. The servicenode that assigned this ICA address (which in this case is S2), will query the client to obtain a local blockchain address (the address of C/Carol, on the Dallas blockchain) and pass it to S1. The service pool creates a transaction from the multi-signature address X to C (Carol), on the request of S1.
[...]
The servicenode layer also provides an exchange platform, referred to as the DEX (decentralized exchange) for instant inter-chain transactions, which has several advantages over regular exchanges, by virtue of being decentralized.
[...]
For a node to become part of the servicenode layer, it must obtain approval from the existing servicenodes, after which it must make a collateral deposit. This collateral will be held in the network by a smart contract. The collateral serves as a 'stake' in the network, by each of the servicenodes. Any full node which is approved to become a servicenode uses Photons as collateral to join the servicenode layer.
The approval will be sought through a voting process. The votes from existing servicenodes will be weighted by the amount of collateral deposited by a given servicenode. Thus, a node with a significant collateral will have more say in selecting new servicenodes through voting.
[...]
A user who is attempting to operate multiple rogue servicenodes will not be a significant threat to the servicenode layer, as the security of the blockchain is dependent on the underlying blockchain network. As such, the Laser servicenode layer is only acting as a facilitator. As long as the mining and validation done by the underlying blockchain network is secure, the deployment of multiple rogue servicenodes will not jeopardize the network as a whole.
Additionally, the collateral requirement will deter any possible rogue servicenode operators, since there will be an automatic monetary loss once their collateral is confiscated. This reduces, or even eliminates any possible gain from jeopardizing the servicenode layer.
[...]
All servicenodes also act as observers. As such, if they find a transaction to be invalid, they can object to this transaction by broadcasting a self-signed negative confirmation, along with the transaction ID, address of the forwarding servicenode (the one which forwarded the transaction), and a contract address for voting. The remaining servicenodes will verify the transaction in question and will give a positive or negative vote on the voting contract.
[...]
[...] 'reserve pool' [...]
[...]
The revolution of cryptocurrencies has disrupted markets across the globe - and will continue to do so as it gains adoption, acceptance, and traction in new industries and verticals.
Laser helps blockchains as a collective force to reach their fullest potential, so that their combined capabilities working together can bring change, improvement, and optimization to the worlds of business, finance, and beyond.
By making blockchains more efficient, more secure - and most importantly, interoperable, Laser will take blockchain technologies to the next level at which they can work and grow together."]

From a related news release of the company we got the following informations:
"[The company] is very pleased to announce that it is launching a service layer technology [... It] works by operating on top of any existing blockchain network and optimizes its functions - which includes the ability to operate with other blockchains. [The service layer technology] with these new and unique features seeks to play a central role in the growth of all Blockchains by for the first time allowing interoperability between Blockchains.
As cryptocurrencies have grown, it is clear that [...] there is a strong upward momentum for this groundbreaking innovation in fintech. [...] However - as this growth has occurred, it has become clear that some limitations exist for individual cryptocurrencies with respect to how much market share each currency can possibly acquire. In spite of the fact that cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin are each major players, no single one of them can become the world's primary cryptocurrency.
This does not have any negative implications for cryptocurrencies, as this same reality is shared with fiat currencies.
[...]
No such "SWIFT" solution existed for cryptocurrencies until now. [The service layer technology] has been developed to offer this exact function of interoperability between blockchains. By standardizing properties such as wallet numbers, it will be possible for users of one blockchain to make transactions with users of another blockchain without the use of a third-party exchange. This effectively does away with the borders of the blockchain ecosystem and opens up a vast realm of new possibilities.
[...]
The first feature is the use of an overlay protocol that provides "pseudo confirmation" of transactions, enabling any two cryptocurrencies to be transacted in a matter of seconds. This is a significant improvement over the processing times of other blockchains, which can take minutes, or even hours to be finalized.
The second feature is the optional "joining" service to make transactions anonymous in any cryptocurrency. This is accomplished by bundling multiple transactions together - where coins are "shuffled" and predetermined amounts are disbursed to predetermined recipients. This will obfuscate the ownership history of a given unit of a cryptocurrency, preventing it from being tracked through the blockchain.
[...]
On a broader scale, the full nodes that will comprise the [service layer technology] blockchain will be incentivized through transaction fees [...]. More importantly, these nodes will be required to provide collateral in order to operate - which disincentivizes dishonest behavior from rogue operators, giving integrity to the blockchain's backbone.
[...]
Finally, [the service layer technology] will introduce a more efficient derivative of the greatly-anticipated Casper protocol - even before Ethereum adds it to their blockchain. Casper is unique in the fact that it is based on PoS (proof of stake) as opposed to PoW (proof of work)."

Its executive summary has been dated 22nd of March 2018, and its whitepaper has been dated 12th of April 2018, updated until 18th of April 2018, and potentially published on the 20th of April 2018. Our issue SOPR #113 has been published on the 18th of March 2018 so there were 4 days for the executive summary and 25 days for the whitepaper, which would be sufficient time for their creations for such a large team.
The documents seem to be written with a hot needle, as can be seen with some differences and inconsistencies. For example, the executive summary of the 22nd of March 2018 says:
"It will operate as a software fork of Ethereum (not a hard-fork of the Ethereum blockchain) [...]." and
"Laser has a proprietary consensus mechanism that provides "pseudo confirmation" for transactions, enabling confirmation in a matter of seconds."
But the executive summary included in the whitepaper of the 12th of April 2018 says:
"Laser will be built on a hard-fork of the Ethereum blockchain." and
"Laser introduces an overlay protocol that provides "pseudo-confirmation" for transactions, enabling confirmation in a matter of seconds."
Another inconsistency is shown with the following image caption:
"Figure 3: Bitcoin network confirmation times for 30 days up to April 16, 2018"
But the whitepaper is dated 12th of April 2018.
We also have two sections with the same number:
"5.5.3.2 Atomic Inter-Chain Transactions" and
"5.5.3.2 DEX (Decentralized Exchange) Based Transactions".
And also:
"[...] near-instant transactions [...]" and
"[...] instant transactions [...]", and
At another place a step has a number and at another place the same step has no number (14.):
"15. Once both L1 and M1 are confirmed, transactions L2 and M2 are broadcasted on their respective blockchains, thus completing the transactions." and
"Once both L1 and M1 are confirmed, transactions L2 and M2 are broadcasted on their respective blockchains, thus completing the transactions."
Furthermore, the whitepaper references the blockchain platforms Bitcoin, Dash (formerly called XCoin, near-instant transactions), Ethereum, Aion (interoperability network for blockchains, also got smart contract protocol and VM for distributed applications), Iota, and Tezos (see also the Clarification of the 21st of March 2018), and also references some other sources of information. But not all references are discussed in the text at all.
In this relation, referencing Tezos is specifically suspicious, because the partial copy of our OS is also relatively new and its case has been discussed in the Investigations::Multimedia of the 20th of October 2017.

Conceptually, it comprises an asset exchange meta system based on a service layer that functions like a metacurrency of a related service platform of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS), as we call it and as can be seen with our statement that SOPR members solely using our OFinS

which for sure can only be done in a legal and technical way with a metacurrency, metalayer, service layer, or whatsoever one wants to call our original and unique foundational concept where tokens representing an asset

respectively where approaches only

in accordance with a related business process transaction.
Technologically, its solutions is merely a special overlay with dedicated service nodes and some kind of a Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) algorithm with multi-signature and (atomic) broadcasting (see e.g. SINTRA also referenced by Askemos) utilized for the so-called pseudo confirmation of a transaction, which functions similar to the solution of Dash and reminds us of an overlay file system in relation to our view about blockchain-based systems expressed for example in the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 5th of July 2017, and an intermediate structure, which reminds us of a transaction log, a query plan (e.g. join ordering), or any similar usual optimization technique of a file system or a database management system utilized for the joining service for transactions. The overlay network is already given with Peer-to-Peer (P2P).
Economically, the company is a classic cryptocurrency start-up with Initial Coin Offering (ICO) so to say.
Therefore, its service remains in 5th ring, as it the case with all the other blockchain platforms.

Obviously, the company

• as can be seen on the one hand with the
  • interoperability based on Ontologic System Components (OSC),
  • metacurrencies,
  • tasks, duties, and services,
  • electronic asset transfer, specifically Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT),
  • asset exchange, specifically currency exchange,
  • foundation for alternative systems for exchanging assetts, goods, and services and asset exchange meta system,
  • financial service platforms of our ON, OW, and OV providing associated Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), such as
    • asset exchange meta system and
    • OntoPay,
  • holding of reserves equal to a fraction of the deposit liabilities,
  • exemplary business processes,
  • etc.

  and

• as not expected otherwise on the other hand.

In addition,

• basic properties,
• integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), and
• Ontologic System Components (OSC)

of our OS with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and therefore constitutes an original and unique Ontologic Application and Ontologic Service (OAOS) platform respectively Ontologic SubSystem (OSubS) eventually (see also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 18th of April 2018 once again), and

As a matter of fact, this implies that our OFinS extends the scope of our copyright in relation to the OS, specifically by providing interoperability and other functions based on the combination of blockchain technique and PBFT on the one hand and the metalevel respectively in relation to a multi-tier architecture on the other hand among other properties of our OS.

Besides the obvious speech act stealing (e.g. to be invited), which proves that the company has reacted on our publications, the term homogeneous multichain is a synonym for multi-rooted Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) in this context. The Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) provides high-performance Byzantine state machine replication, which is closely related to for example the Secure INtrusion-Tolerant Replication Architecture (SINTRA) refrenced in the whitepaper of the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) Askemos and leads directly to our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System (OS) and created by C.S. once again. This combination of DAG, BFT, and blockchain technique is already sufficient as an evidence but we also got the additional evidences with the further combination comprising the concurrent computing or concurrent programming paradigm, the support of smart contracts, a Turing complete distributed VM, and the cloud computing paradigm, and in this way the required showing of a causal link with our OS and eventually the proof of a copyright infringement (see also for example the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 13th of October 2017, 18th of October 2017, and 18th of April 2018, the Ontologic Web Further steps of the 16th of October 2017, and the related comment made to a quote in the Investigations::Multimedia of the 20th of October 2017).

Highly suspicious is the note about the Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT), because it was developed in the year 1999 and provides Byzantine state machine replication, which is also a basic technique in the related document referenced in the whitepaper of Askemos, and the observation that the press release is very short, which suggests that the company has simply reproduced our related publications, such as the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps 18th of April 2018.

We would also like to say the following in relation to both cases:
In accordance with the regulation given in the Ontonics Further steps of the 20th of October 2017 and today such a blockchain platform is only allowed in the 5th ring and assigned ID spaces of the IDentity Access and Management System (IDAMS) structure of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) (see once again the Ontonics Further steps 10th of July 2017). Especially, this regulation prohibits OAOS that are

wherever identification of a person and data privacy are relevant, as it is the case in the

• healthcare,
• education,
• controlled or managed finance, and
• many public sectors

respectively this regulation allows only anonymous systems, applications, and services based on a blockchain and a cryptocurrency of an entity other than the SOPR, though this has to be decided individually from case to case.

In accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) we are allowed to

if a member of our SOPR might be

• disturbing the goals or
• even threatening the integrity

of our SOPR comprehensively, substantially, profoundly, seriously, and existentially.

In accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR the following royalties will be due or are already due:

It should be obvious that we also have the combination of all these distributed systems and much more included in our OS.

Our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) is The Standard, the related Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) platforms are The Service Platforms, and our SternTaler, StarCoin, StarTaler, Star Money, OntoCoin, and OntoTaler are The Digital Currencies.

The membership in our SOPR is already mandatory, as can be seen with our global OFinS for example, which taken alone is mandatory as well now.

Obviously, the companies observed our activities or/and got information from an entity related to Ethereum. Nevertheless, all those blockchain-based system came too late to the party, which does not mean only some few days too late but months and years.

Let us stop the discussion about blockchain platforms and distributed ledgers here, because

28.April.2018
Ontonics Further steps
We reviewed two works in relation to an interesting technology, which confirmed the viability of our research and development as well as our unequivocal leadership in this field on the one hand, and even showed us a potential way for further improvement and new ways of realization on the other hand. The final projected results are hard to believe even for us.

29.April.2018
Ontonics Further steps
In relation to the regulation given in the Ontonics Further steps of the 20th of October 2017 we have decided for tightening the regulation by substituting

In detail, the following is the updated regulation:

• blockchain(-based distributed computing) platforms and
• Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)(-based distributed computing) platforms,

as well as

of external entities remain in the 5th ring and assigned ID spaces of the management structure of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) conceptually sketched in the Ontonics Further steps of the 10th of July 2017.
Our Ontologic System (OS) already includes all kinds of Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed System (FTRTDS) and the OntoLedger software component of our OS has a part that is compatible with the Hyperledger project for blockchains and distributed ledgers. In this way, every entity can seamlessly change to the Cyber-Physical Systems of the second generation (CPS 2.0), Internet of Things of the second generation (IoT 2.0), and Networked Embedded System of the second generation (NES 2.0) by using the OntoLedger together with the Ontologic Net of Things (ONoT) included in our ON and including the fields of CPS, IoT, and NES (see the Ontologic Net Further steps of the 5th of January 2017 and also the Ontonics Further steps of the 20.October.2017).
For sure, in both cases the related legal and technical provisions are mandatory.

Please keep in mind that an FTRTDS constitutes an illegal plagiarism of our OS when a causal link can be proven by showing that it

The reasons why we have made this decision are that

• proved our claims once again, specifically that distributed systems based on validated and verified, validatable and verifiable, and validating and verifying DAGs and cryptographically chained or interlinked blocks or records are included in our OS and that the other distributed ledgers are already linked with respectively included in our OS more or less somehow, and
• showed that these FTRTDSs are all island systems and a combination with other functions and systems will result directly in a part of our OS or even equal a part of our OS, which has become unavoidable already.

From time to time we spent some time with other interesting technologies, which also show some sort of art. In the course of this we improved a device, which might work for the first time or if it already worked might perform much better.

30.April.2018
Ontonics Further steps
We worked on the interesting technologies mentioned in the Further steps of the 28th and 29th of April 2018 and somehow combined them in a first step, integrated them in a second step, and created a new material in a third step.

Even better, we combined one of these technologies with another interesting technology, which resulted in a new technology, which again might be very fascinating.