• structure and
• structure of royalties for Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),

and

Membership in the SOPR
The provision for the membership in the SOPR might be changed by

License Model (LM)
The correct answer to the strategy practiced by the entities of government, press, industry, science, and other elements of society would be to

• doubled fixed fees for a reproduction of the Ontologic System (OS), the Ontoscope (Os), and the other works of C.S., and
• doubled share for a performance of the OAOS,

and

• reproductions of our OS and our Os, and performances of our OAOS, or/and
• OAOS based on our OS or/and our Os,

the default licensing option and provide entities, that wish an exception for this labelling of their products, applications, and services, a related licensing option, which would ask for a

which by the way is common practice in handling an infringement of a copyright.
But honestly, in total contrast to a solution for the issue with the open source licensing we are not interested for that publicity, though we already feel that the increasing publicity is unavoidable.
Nevertheless, we think that a

are reasonable for the optional exception for this labelling of the related products, applications, and services.

We are also working out how the proposed differentiated structure of the License Model (LM) would look like if the royalties for basic OAOS are lower but for advanced OAOS are higher. This has to be balanced with the licensing option for the exception for labelling.
For this, we formed fields in accordance with the basic properties of our OS and with related percentages as share:

In all fields all combinations and integrations of items of the fields with a lower percentage are included.
In the following we give some very few examples what our LM expert system would provide:

0% - basic fields

• Reflective Operating System (ROS),
• Real-Time Operating Systems (RTOS),
• Capability-based Operating System (CapOS),
• Agent-Based Operating System (ABOS), and

• High Performance and High Productivity Computing System (HP²CS)
  • cluster computing,
• gird computing, cloud computing, and edge computing,
• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed System (FTRTDS)
  • blockchain-based system,
  • distributed ledger, and
  • cryptocurrency,
• mobile computing,
• as a Service (aaS) capability model, and
• ...

• Business Process Management (BPM) and
• Workflow Management (WfM),

• Total Quality Management (TQM) and
• International Organization for Standardization 9000 (ISO 9000),

• Systems Engineering (SE),
• Product and Portfolio Management (PPM),
• Computer-Aided technologies (CAx),
  • Computer-Aided Design (CAD),
  • Computer-Aided Industrial Design (CAID),
  • Computer Aided Engineering (CAE), and also
  • Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE), and
  • Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM)
    • 3D printing,

    as well as

  • Computer-Aided Production Engineering (CAPE) or Computer-Aided Production Planning (CAPP/CAP), and
  • Computer-Aided Quality (CAQ) assurance,
• Product Data Management (PDM),
• Manufacturing Process Management (MPM),
• Collaborative Product Development (CPD), and
• Maintenance, Repair and Operations Management (MRO)

• Augmented Reality Environment (ARE) and
• Augmented Virtuality Environment (AVE),

• Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW)
• Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Computer Vision (CV),
• Cognitive Agent System (CAS),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC),
• Evolutionary Computing (EC)
  • Evolutionary Strategies (ES),
  • Evolutionary Algorithms (EA),
  • ...,
  • Genetic Algorithms (GA), and
  • Genetic Programming (GP),
• Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW),
• ...

2% - improved basic fields

3% - significantly improved basic fields

4% - advanced combinations and integrations

5% - basic OAOS

• CPS 1.0, IoT 1.0, and NES 1.0, MedRE, and SWWW = Industry 4.0

• SWWW, generative design, and 3D manufacturing

6% - improved basic OAOS

7% - significantly improved basic OAOS

8% - advanced OAOS

9% - high OAOS

10% - pure OAOS (applications and services of the 21st century)

If pure OAOS will be available for licensing at all has not been decided.

See also the issue #123 of the 29th of June 2018.

License for investments
We think that we have found an easy way to handle investments in start-ups and other companies.
In the case of a start-up, which has been founded on the basis of our OS, Os, or/and OAOS, we already said that we view the sale of a business share as some kind of revenue generated with our OS, Os, or/and OAOS, and will account this sale as an OAOS in accordance with for example the LM structure discussed above.
To avoid double billing we only account the sale of a business share after the IPO respectively the first public trading at a stock market or a similar institution. This implies that the injection of fresh capital will not be viewed as some kind of a revenue.

In the case of a company the corresponding ratio between the old value of said company before an investment, which is related to our OS, Os, or/and OAOS, and the new value of said company after this investment has to be calculated. This ratio will be applied on the revenue made with a sale of a business share.
If we will find out that an investor, a start-up, or a company has tricked to keep the value and hence the revenue and our share of the revenue low, then we will take related measures. For example, we will exclude the company and also all responsible persons from collaboration with us respectively from the licensing process.

05.July.2018
Ontonics Further steps
We have started a new project in a relatively new market sector. This new project is combined with another project of us and most potentially will become a new business division.

SOPR #125
Potentially, we will decide for the balance between the

The maximal percentage of a share should not be more than 7% so that the maximal percentage would be 7% + 3.5% = 10.5%.
Pure OAOS are not available if they belong to the infrastructure of our OS, which is managed by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
The revised LM will be publicated in detail as soon as possible and will become effective on the 1st of January 2019.
Furthermore, we will begin with adjusting our LM by a medium inflation rate each year, which will become effective on the 1st of January 2019 as well and done the first time on the 1st of January 2020.

In addition, we are also thinking about making every member of our SOPR an owner of her/his own platform for legal reasons related to the revision of the copyright law in the European Union (EU). Luckily, our foundational Managed Peer-to-Peer (MP2P) computing paradigm already discussed related situations, includes alternatives, and provides the foundation for forming an overall platform out of all these individual platforms.
This approach also perfectly fits with

• High Performance and High Productivity Computing Systems (HP²CSs) and
• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs),

  specifically with our

• SoftBionic (SB) supercomputer and
• Ontologic supercomputer,

and

• attempt to introduce more data democracy and
• realization of a personal data safe based on a blockchain or a distributed ledger or both.

08.July.2018

Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM

*** Work in progress - better short comments, wording, incomplete epilog ***

"[...] is a distributed computing framework based on bulk synchronous parallel computing techniques for massive scientific computations e.g., matrix, graph and network algorithms. [...] (short for "Hadoop Matrix") and was inspired by Google's Pregel large-scale graph computing framework described in 2010." "The Bulk Synchronous Parallel (BSP) abstract computer is a bridging model for designing parallel algorithms. It serves a purpose similar to the Parallel Random Access Machine (PRAM) model. BSP differs from PRAM by not taking communication and synchronization for granted. [...] Communication typically takes the form of the one-sided put and get Direct Remote Memory Access (DRMA) calls [...]."
(looks OK when taken alone) OntoBot and OntoScope, Problem Solving Environment (PSE) and Scientific Computing Environment (SCE), A simple implication of our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and the referenced systems, like for example KLOS and SPACE, Apertos (Muse), and TUNES OS, is that we added to the BSP model the Multi-BSP model, fault tolerance, and (somehow) tail tolerance for large-scale parallel computations in SoftBionics (SB), analytics, and High Performance and High Productivity Computing Systems (HP²CSs) including supercomputing systems or supercomputers, and grid computing and cloud computing systems. The related documents titled "A bridging model for multi-core computing" and "A Bridging Model for High Performance Cloud Computing" do not present new matter and therefore seem to be plagiarisms that provide no legal loopholes. By the way: Latency tail tolerance was discussed by the company Google as well.

• fields of data stores, and grid computing and cloud computing, and
• projects of the Hadoop (eco)system, like for example Zookeeper with NoSQL, NewSQL, Ambari, and/or SoftBionics (SB), including Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computer Vision (CV), etc..

Also, some specific functions not included in e.g. Chubby but in our OS might be problematic, like for example the ephemeral nodes, which provide presence (information), fault-tolerant, reliable, and distributed operating system Apertos (Muse) and the Cognac system based on Apertos with (atomic) active object model and the actor model (inherent concurrency and thread safety), as well as the OS properties of (mostly) being validated and verified, and by the reflective property validating and verifying, and the Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocols and the Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method shown with the network of telescopes, OntoFS, Twister and Twibber based on Jabber respectively eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) server jabberd2 included in the former project Underware, All prior art describe only Distributed Lock Managers (DLMs) but not BFT based processing of data, like for example systems based on the techniques of the smart contract protocol and the blockchain, such as distributed legers, blockchain platforms with Virtual Machines (VM), and cryptocurrencies.

If a project does not infringe our copyright, then its combination and integration with another project or feature of our OS does so in virtually all cases.
It seems to be that the time of the MapReduce programming model is over and its substitute or successor is based on our OS, which has implications for every project that was based or related to Hadoop as well as the other systems.

The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) deliberately supports criminal entities despite very well knowing that they infringe our copyright and other rights.
changed from Message-Oriented Middleware (MOM), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB), Business Process Management (BPM) to cluster computing and cloud computing without or with fault tolerance, SQL, NoSQL, and NewSQL data stores and databases, and Machine Learning (ML) following our activities for another time, but this time in a much more methodical, aggressive, and most importantly even orchestrated and illegal way.

In fact, free source and open source was not chosen by the industries for ethical and social reasons but for pure strategical and eventually economical reasons, like it was done with the establishing of joint patent pools and organizations, specifically as a common weapon against us.
only a handful of key players that are the already known companies of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry sector and universities, and also some of the usual start-ups, which are supported by the industry because they have for example stolen our Intellectual Properties (IPs).

The strategy

• coming from cluster computing,
• going over
  • grid computing and cloud computing,
  • SQL, NoSQL, and NewSQL,
  • graph processing,
  • SoftBionics (SB),
    • Deep Learning frameworks,
  • Natural Language Processing (NLP),
  • etc.,

  and

• getting to ontologic computing,

and also

• we were already there in 2006, and
• related free source and open source projects infringe our copyright.

Obviously, our Ontologic System provides one single framework that is optimal for every application.

The responsible plagiarists behind the company Mesosphere have stolen parts of our Intellectual Properties (IPs) for a Data Center Operating System (DCOS), which includes also functionalities of our Cloud Operating System (COS) besides other features of our OS and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), and the cluster-computing framework Spark, and infringed other rights of us as well. We will also investigate that booth together with the other open source trolls, who are nothing else than pendants to patent trolls.

10.July.2018
SOPR #126
We summarized the two previews of this issue and also thought about the following topics:

AoA 2.0, ToS 2.0, and LM 2.0
The last weeks and especially the last findings in relation with unwanted and unpleasant activities of companies as well as research institutes showed once again that the revision of some sections of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is more than reasonable. But we have to note that external entities and even we are not completely happy with the resulting AoA 2.0, ToS 2.0, and LM 2.0.
While the overall height of the increased royalties surely is a general point of discussion on the one hand, we also have the related problem on the other hand that no other measure is appropriate as

As societies in states under the rule of law the latter should not be the final result, though even many governments and the media not only supported and still support those activities, but even were and still are accomplices, which eventually supports the view that the revision of the AoA, ToS, and LM was the right step.

Other alternatives and possibilities are to

• personal,
• social and governmental, and
• commercial

use.

Open source software
The complete strategy based on open source software collapsed in the last weeks, because we showed that

For example, combining the projects related to the field of Big Data Processing (BDP) with the projects related to the fields of Business Process Management (BPM) or Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) or both already infringes our copyright, because virtually all relevant elements and parts of BDP projects, BPM, SOA, and their combination or integration are included in our OS and makes systems, applications, and services in the fields of Cyber-Physical Systems of the second generation (CPS 2.0), Internet of Things of the second generation (IoT 2.0), and Networked Embedded Systems of the second generation (NES 2.0), including the field of the Industry 4.0, not possible in a legal way, whereby the latter additonally requires projects related to the field of the Semantic (World Wide) Web by the way.

Nevertheless, we already took a closer look at the subject matter of patents, free source and open source code, and free source and open source licensing. For example, from the lead counsel for patents & open source at the company Dropbox, Gideon Myles, we got the following interesting and valuable suggestions:
"For some strategic products we take a hybrid approach. We recognize the value in open sourcing the code and in preserving some [Intellectual Property (]IP[)] rights so we simultaneously open source an implementation and file for a patent, scoping the patent and the license terms so the open source community can use the software without making the patent worthless to us. Licenses like the Apache 2.0 license are one way to ensure this layered protection; licensees can use your code for the particular implementation you have open-sourced, without necessarily obtaining a license to a broader idea in the patent for other uses.
Customized open source licensing agreements are also possible. For example, adding a custom patent license to an existing open source license that is silent on patent rights. Or adding a defensive termination clause that allows the patent holder to terminate a license if the licensee sues. The breadth or strength of the defensive termination clause can also be customized. Ranging from the narrower termination provisions in the Apache 2.0 license to much broader provisions that allow for termination when the licensee sues the licensor for anything, even if the lawsuit isn't related to the open source project."

In fact, we would be fine with such a hybrid approach and already began to reformulate the Apache 2.0 license. But we stopped again after some few sections, because we are not sure how said scoping, layering, customizing, and extending truly works due to the following reasons:

• (the presentation of) our original and unique, iconic OS comprises
  • a sufficient amount of creativity,
  • the characteristic expression of the idea or concept,
  • several work techniques,
  • an architecture,
  • a model,
  • two exemplary implementations, and
  • several exemplary applications and services

  (see also the Clarification 15th of May 2017), and

• we have no doubt that the exploitation of the alleged or suposed loophole or leak will be tried by all industries and other entities, like a breach in a rampart of a fortified site.

Eventually, we concluded that

Therefore, an EULA of our SOPR is required and so we went straight to the EULA for the Java Standard Edition (SE).

We also sketched a solution for the transformation of free source and open source software into proprietary software, which can have

This disclosed software (including its one or more interfaces)

• explains its functionality, and
• is distributed and licensed separately from its related source code.

In this way, all benefits of free and open source software, like for example the

can be maintained. What works with free source and open source licensing also works with disclosed source licensing and therefore must not be at the other extreme end of the licensing spectrum defined by proprietary software.

Furthermore, systems, applications, and services based on our OS and our OAOS can be operated, distributed, and provided with disclosed source code and interfaces to proprietary software by for example cloud providers respectively providers of something as a Service (aaS), such as for example Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS).
In addition, the provision of the automatic renewal of the AoA of our SOPR every 5 years

• C.S. and our corporation on the one side and
• the members of our SOPR on the other side,

and

In the latter case we have at least two EULAs:

Infringing material
We are also demanding either to

• an infringing material, such as for example
  • free source and open source code, and
  • technical or scientific documents,

  and

• the copyright for said infringing material, if it is protected at all,

to avoid legal prosecution.

Further steps
Until the end of the year 2018 the

• transformed into legal activities or
• removed,

while we are working on the related legal materials.

In relation with the financing of the transition from FOSS to disclosed proprietary or disclosed source software with EULA at least the following two options exist:

We prefer to finance the implementation of the overall OS with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and publicate it under our SOPR EULA.

11.July.2018
SOPR #127
We thought about the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) once again and came to the conclusion that it should include the following royalty positions:

Furthermore, when we are able to show that a free and open source hardware or software is infringing our rights, then it should be transformed into a disclosed proprietary or disclosed source hardware or software, and licensed by an

advantageously without having an excessive discussion before.

This transformation can be financed by

• the SOPR,
• one or more members of the SOPR, or
• members and the SOPR together.

As we said before, the operating system Android of the Open Handset Alliance (OHA) or the programming language Java could be taken as a blueprint for the implementation, legal and regulatory treatment, and management of our OS, and for the legal and organizational reasons and also other reasons we prefer that the implementation of the overall OS with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) is financed by the SOPR and publicated under the SOPR EULA or DEULA, specifically in the case when a related hardware or software is a part of the basic infrastructure managed by the SOPR.

In the further steps we will continue with summarizing all publicated material, finalizing the AoA, ToS, and LM, and also the SOPR EULA, as well as adding additional information, and publicate them on the website of Ontonics.
The transformation of free and open source software into disclosed source software, and the implementation of disclosed source software can begin when the first outstanding royalties of the period, that began on the 1st of January 2015, are flowing in.

13.July.2018
Ontonics Superstructure #18
We worked on one of our High-Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) for our 3D infrastructure, which features a new component that increase its efficency or performance by around 75% in the beginning and potentially up to 140% in an advanced version (see also the issue Superstructure #12 of the 28th of July 2017).

14.July.2018
SOPR #128
We summarized three comments made in the last two days about the following topics:

to this issue SOPR #128.

Terms of Service (ToS)
We added new clauses to our ToS:

License Model (LM)
In fact, the due date of the 1st of January 2015 was more chosen in regard to the

But our investigations of the last week showed that in the fields of cloud computing and Big Data Processing (BDP)

• operating systems, such as for example
  • parallel operating systems,
  • Data Center Operating Systems (DCOSs),
  • Cloud Operating Systems (COSs), and
  • mobile operating systems,
• NoSQL and NewSQL databases in various variants, such as for example
  • NoSQL Relational DataBase Management System (RDBMS),
  • distributed NewSQL database,
  • NoSQL database, and grid and cloud computing,
  • NewSQL database, and grid and cloud computing,
  • NoSQL database, and Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocols and Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method, and
  • NewSQL database, and BFT protocol and BRR method,
• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs),
• SoftBionics (SB),
  • Artificial Intellignece (AI)
    • deductive, inductive (e.g. predictive), and abductive reasoning,
  • Machine Learning (ML),
    • Collaborative Filtering (CF)
  • Computer Vision (CV),
  • Evolutionary Computing (EC),

  and

• graph processing,
• Cloud Operating System (COS)
• Data Center Operating System (DCOS), and
• Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), such as for example
  • recommender systems,
  • Ontologic Web Services (OWS), and
  • Problem Solving Environments (PSEs) and Scientific Computing Environments (SCEs),

  based on them.

When taken all together then these facts suggests that we should demand compensation for the multiple incurred serious damages in these fields starting on the:

Benefit program
We also added to the list of projects, that provide more possibilities, advantages, and opportunities for all SOPR members,

15.July.2018
Ontonics Further steps
We adapted a manufacturing process for the production of a component. This adaption trades quality for quantity and affordability, and eventually for increasing the market penetration.

Style of Speed Further steps
Yes, we do know that it is a contradiction but we found elegant ways to add

We also got another confirmation of the flight quantities and qualities of our designs.

20.July.2018
Style of Speed Further steps
Style of Speed Further steps

We have developed a new propulsion system, including a series of advanced turbofan jet engines for subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic aircrafts, in the latter case as a Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator of the second generation (RTA 2.0).

In addition, we began to (re)design a Hypersonic AirLiner (HAL) and a Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV), that

We were also able to integrate this new propulsion system with thes

As we said before, we commit to meeting existing standards for new aircrafts in contrast to the competitors.
We are sure that our new systems will become the standards for subsonic and supersonic aircrafts at least, and also for hypersonic aircrafts if the related variant works as envisioned.

Quite, Clean and Green
Straight Superior Strong

21.July.2018
Style of Speed Further steps
More by happenstance, we developed a new forced induction technology and related new basic technologies for the construction of

by the adaption of one of our newer technologies.
According to our estimation and already gained insights this forced induction technology

By the way: It works with engines powered by diesel fuel as well. :D

22.July.2018
Clarification
"In 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."
Indeed, our Ontologic System (OS) include the

• reflective,
• validated and/or verified, and
• validating and/or verifying by the reflective property,

• operating systems,
• persistent data stores, and
• telescope networks,

• file systems,
• data stores, and
• databases,

including

• transaction mechanism,
• journaling mechanism,
• ACID properties, and
• cryptographic support (of the initial R4 file system plug-in),

and

• integrates all in one and also
• comprises our molecular or liquid system composition approach as part of our Ontologic(-Oriented) (OO 3) paradigm,

which simply implies that our OS also includes

• secure logs on the basis of cryptography, specifically
  • cryptographically chained or interlinked records (see also the blockchain technique),
• Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocols,
• Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method,
• smart contract protocol, and
• blockchain technique

on the other hand.
Eventually, it would be obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art that not only the blockchain technique but also systems, applications, and services, such as for example

are included in our OS as well since its official start in the year 2006 (see also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 5th of July 2017, the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps or Clarification of the 06.April.2018, and the Clarification of the 11th of May 2018).

We do apologize for not giving this much better and much more simpler and persuasive explicit proof about this specific matter in the last 12 months.

Btw.: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Co. as well as related service and trading platforms are illegal, because the author of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin merely extracted the very specific related part of our OS, deliberately, knowingly, unintentionally, or whatsoever does not matter, and therefore all those systems are nothing else than very rudimentary and highly specialized OS variants, and/or Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).

Website update
We added to the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps or Clarification of the 06.April.2018 and also the Investigations::Multimedia of the 7th of May 2018 the point related to a transaction log due to the reasons explained in the Clarification of today.

Blockchain fraud will come to an end #3
From a misleading report we got the following informations: "NeuroChain, the first Blockchain infrastructure based on Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), today announces - after the successful ICO in March/April 2018 - it will be listed, on July 17th, on HADAX/Huobi, the third largest cryptocurrency exchange worldwide, after Binance and OKEX.
NeuroChain, co-founded in Paris in 2017 by [...] a system architect expert, and [another criminal plagiarist], who holds a PhD in nuclear and particle physics [...].
NeuroChain is an ecosystem that represents an evolution of the blockchain using Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence to dramatically improve the capabilities and performance of blockchain distributed systems.
NeuroChain is also a technological platform designed to host Collective Artificial Intelligence applications. It is built on 4 key concepts to revolutionize the blockchain:

Existing blockchains are based on two protocols: the "Proof of Work" and the "Proof of Stake" - which leverage miners in the network. Because miners have energy and economic limitations, the NeuroChain protocol, called "Proof of Involvement and Integrity (PII)", replaces them with intelligent robots.
[...]
NeuroChain, Blockchain's first Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) based infrastructure, leverages the latest innovations in consensus, communication, analytics, distributed application, and security."

In relation with the copyright infringement conducted by the blockchain platform NeuroChain the short result of this short investigation is that we have found many basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS), such as

• Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Cognitive Software Agent System (CSAS), and
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),

Its system architecture is in parts only a bold copy of matter found on our websites of OntoLinux and OntomaX, as can also be seen easily by the substitution of the term platform with infrastructure and adding the consensus protoocol Proof of Involvement and Integrity (PIII) based on a MAS respectively our OntoLedger software component (see also for example the Ontologic Web Further steps of the 15th of October 2017), and we can already guess that its white paper is the same, too, as usual for those serious criminal fraudsters.

Said this, using of NeuroChain is not for free even if the responsible entity claims that.
As we said before, our OS is the only legal platform (see also the notes Blockchain fraud will come to an end #1 of the 8th of May 2018, Dump that island system of the 10th of May 2018, and Blockchain fraud will come to an end #2 of the 28th of May 2018, as well as the Clarification of the 11th of May 2018) and in accordance with the actual jurisprudence, we are allowed to

NeuroChain is a fraud anyway, that is even cheating the French minister of the economy. In fact, they are only stealing essential parts of our OS to make fast money and then immediately disappear again, as we have seen it before with EOS.IO, Tezos, and Universa for example, and the cases of Ethereum and all the similar Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs) are not much better. But in this case we can even see a new dimension of this kind of Intellectual Properties (IPs) and investment fraud: Instead of giving up the fraud has been intensified even more by stealing our latest explanations of related matter and imitating our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) proving the high level of criminal energy once again.

Attention: Fraud with our OS
Do not invest your money in the blockchain platform NeuroChain and do not build any applications and services on top of NeuroChain. In fact, it is a scam, because the responsible entity

Furthermore, such blockchain-based systems and similar distributed systems will not work without the broad consensus upon the public, especially the industries, that can only be provided by our SOPR.

Our business unit Ontonics and our SOPR will ban such platforms As Soon As Possible (ASAP), though we do not accept other digital currencies than the official digital currencies of sovereign states and the ones of our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) anyway, and if the responsible entities refuse to give in and give the money back, then we have to inform the prosecutors due to the conduction of an investment fraud, and the promotion and the funding of illegal activities.

Btw.:

23.July.2018
Clarification
Already on the 21st of July 2018, we noticed that we have made a mistake in a note of the 28th of June 2018 when we said that the project Apache Spark is based on the hypergraph data structure, because Spark is only used to implement a distributed framework in the field of Machine Learning (ML), which nevertheless is related to various infringements of our rights (see the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 8th of July 2018).

"Hypergraphs have been extensively used in machine learning tasks as the data model and classifier regularization (mathematics).[24 [Learning with hypergraphs: clustering, classification, and embedding[, 2006]]] The applications include recommender system (communities as hyperedges),[25 [Using rich social media information for music recommendation via hypergraph model[, 2013]]] image retrieval (correlations as hyperedges),[26 [Hypergraph with sampling for image retrieval[, 2013]]] and bioinformatics (biochemical interactions as hyperedges).[27 [Predicting protein interactions via parsimonious network history inference[, 2013]]] Representative hypergraph learning techniques include hypergraph spectral clustering that extends the spectral graph theory with hypergraph Laplacian,[28 [Visual-textual joint relevance learning for tag-based social image search[, 2013]]] and hypergraph semi-supervised learning that introduces extra hypergraph structural cost to restrict the learning results.[29 [A hypergraph-based learning algorithm for classifying gene expression and arrayCGH data with prior knowledge]] For large scale hypergraphs, a distributed framework built using Apache Spark is also available.[15 [Scalable Hypergraph Learning and Processing[, 2015]]]" and
For a short description of the project Spark see the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 8th of July 2017.
As we said before on the 28th of June 2018, we have here a relatively exotic integration of our Ontologic File System (OntoFS) (hypergraph), the fault-tolerant, reliable, and distributed operating system Apertos (Muse), and the parallel operating systems constructed following the approach of Systems Programming using Address-spaces and Capabilities for Extensibility (SPACE), which is already an essential part of our original and unique, iconic Ontologic System. But we have to add that our integration becomes even more exotic by the further integration of SoftBionics (SB) and its subfields, such as for example Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computer Vision (CV), and Evolutionary Computing (EC).
In fact, the initial and binding document titled "Learning with hypergraphs: clustering, classification, and embedding" does not name the Collaborative Filtering (CF) technique and EC, as it is the case with the other initial and binding document titled "Map-Reduce for Machine Learning on Multicore" and related to the ML project Mahout, which proves once again our claims in relation with CF, EC, and recommender systems (see also the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 8th of July 2017 once again).
Eventually, the authors of the documents published after the year 2006 have infringed our copyright, damaged our reputation, and infringed other rights of us, as usual.

Ontonics Further steps
For sure, when developing our Ontologic System (OS) we also had electronic government systems in mind. Accordingly, we have continued with the planned integration of an electronic government system on the basis of the related parts of our OS, specifically our

on the 19th of July 2018.

20:26 and 22:36 UTC+2
SOPR #129

*** Work in progress - better order or wording, maybe some informations missing ***

We made some notes about the following topics:

• transaction logs,
• blockchain-based systems, and
• distributed ledgers,

Open source
Open source hardware and software can be used in-house, for example in data centers and factories. But their

must comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
This implies that for example a further development of an already existing open source software

In this way, the members of the SOPR have more flexibility when changing to disclosed source hardware and software.

Network of telescopes
As we explained before (see the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 26th of October 2017 and 19th of April 2018, and the Clarification of the 11th of May 2018), each telescope of our network of telescopes provides captured data

to the network of telescopes, which constitutes some kind of a(n)

• source of truth and
• foundation of trust and consensus,

that is

• a real-time, auditable (transaction) log of ordered evidences of events, tokens, blocks, or records, which are cryptographically linked to arbitrary data, which again is replicated selectively among only those entities entitled to view or interact with it, specifically in accordance with the
  • rings of the management structure and
  • assigned ID spaces of the IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS)

  of our ON, OW, and OV,

• continuous data integrity,
• the foundation of the alpha blockchain platform,
• the ultimative physical and digital distributed ledger, universal ledger, or alpha ledger, and
• other systems, applications, and services, such as for example
  • linked data structures, including
    • blockchains,
    • Merkle trees, and
    • Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs),
  • derived ledgers,
  • specialized IDentity and Access Management Systems (IDAMSs) (see also the Ontonics Further steps of the 26th of March 2018),
  • biometric passports or electronic passports, and
  • cryptocurrencies,

  which are built on top this alpha consensus, alpha blockchain, and alpha ledger (see also the related part of the Clarification of the 11th of May 2018).

and

• an OS- and universe-wide, replicated distributed ledger log and
• partially replicated reference data,

so that users can create their subsections of the universal ledger as distributed ledgers derived from it with full confidence that these subsections are consistent with those of the other entities.

For its realization for example the

can be utilized, whereby the utilized hardware and software must comply with the AoA and the ToS of the SOPR.

Conceptually, every member of the SOPR has the right to

• one or more telescopes of the other members and
• connections of the one or more telescopes to the ON, OW, and OV.

Specifically, every country has the right to

• one or more connected telescopes of the other countries, which is already the common practice of multiple international research projects and joint operations of observatories, and
• connections of the one or more telescopes to the ON, OW, and OV.

If consensus can be reached for this arrangement, then the construction and installation costs could be cross-charged with the SOPR royalties on a national basis.

Cryptocurrencies
Unofficial cryptocurrencies should be prohibited and as much of the transactions conducted in the last years should be investigated for all kinds of fraud and not only for money laundering and terroristic activities. In cases of uncertainty, specifically in relation with a potential infringement of our rights, the SOPR can be contacted for support.

As we said in the Investigations::Multimedia of the 25th of April 2018

Official cryptocurrencies can be one of

Electronic government system
For sure, electronic government systems, like for example the ones established by the countries Estonia (see the e-Estonia movement) and Finland, that are

• Estonian public administration (X-tee) and
• Suomi.fi Data Exchange Layer (Suomi.fi-palveluväylä)

are realized as Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs). But when Estonia and Finland started their endeavours there were no

and not included

• Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Computer Vision (CV),
• Cognitive Software Agent System (CSAS),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• Evolutionary Computing (EC), and
• Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW),

• Augmented Reality (AR),
• Virtual Reality (VR), and
• Mixed Reality (MR),

Also already problematic is the e-Residency, which equals our concept and the related OS feature of the user ID starting with onto# and the ID spaces (see also the Ontonics Further steps of today).

Cyber sovereignty

We noticed that we have not addressed the cyber sovereignty of states in the issue SOPR #124 of the 4th of July 2018.
But we also noticed that in general the Ontologic System and the Ontoscope do not affect the cyber sovereignty of states at all.
In fact, the 5th and 6th rings and the assigned ID spaces of the IDentity Access and Management System (IDAMS) are including the common Internet, World Wide Web (WWW), Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), and Darknet (see the sketch given in the Ontonics Further steps of the 10th of July 2017), and technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods (e.g. applications), and services, that do not infringe our rights, such as for example distributed ledgers and electronic government systems, can be operated and are already operated in the 5th and 6th rings and the assigned ID spaces.

But there are overlapping areas due to new developments and first regulations have been discussed in the issues #109 of the 2nd of March 2018 and #110 of the 3rd of March 2018 already.
For further harmonizing the sovereignties and interests we suggest that every country introduces, installs, connects, or selects one or more

as parts of its official, local, and national safe and secure platform, whereby the utilized systems, applications, and services must comply with the AoA and the ToS of the SOPR (see also the issue SOPR #121 of the 29th of May 2018).

All features and functionalities of Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs), such as for example

• Iota,
• Universa,
• NeuroChain,

• P2P VM Askemos in combination with the blockchain technique,
• Ethereum,
• EOS.IO,
• Tezos,
• and so on,

• Bitcoin,
• Laser, and
• FTRTDSs with an own cryptocurrency,

• biometric passport or electronic passport (epassport),
• Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) system,
• Economic IDentity (EcoID) system, as well as
• similar and alternative IDAMSs,

are already included in our Ontologic System by design, which is also the only legal solution.

25.July.2018
Preliminary investigation of Digital Asset Holdings started
We are sure that it helps to avoid any misconceptions by giving the following recommendation: Do not fall into any illusions at Digital Asset Holdings and its partners. We have our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) with its Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs), Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT), smart contract transaction, and proof protocols, including Proof of Work (PoW), Proof of Stake (PoS), and for sure our agent-based Proof of Involvement and Integrity (PoII) and telescope-based, or better said, universe-based Proof of Existence (PoE) protocols, ultimative physical and digital distributed consensus and ledger, SoftBionics (SB), Ontologic Financial System (OFinS), and much more, as well as our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

Furthermore, we have shown that Blockchain as a Service (BaaS) is an Ontologic Application and Ontologic Service (OAOS).
Also relevant, even critical, and potentially infringing is the Domain Specific Language (DSL) for smart contracts, which "safely and securely model[s] and execute[s] complex financial agreements with certainty and finality, while preserving data confidentiality[, ...] enforces consistent interpretation and application of business logic, and provides a real-time, auditable log of ordered evidences of events".

Last but not least, we simply repeat once again to keep away from the infrastructure of our OS, which includes the infrastructure of our OFinS, and replace illegal open source hardware and software.

27.July.2018
Clarification
We would like to explain our exception-less system call mechanism one more time in another and perhaps shorter way:
We have an Ontologic System, which has the

• operating systems, specifically
  • Kernel-Less Operating Systems (KLOSs),

• is based on our (smart) molecular or liquid system composition approach as part of our Ontologic(-Oriented) (OO 3) paradigm at design time and also at run time with on-the-fly reconfiguration and so on,
• has synchronous and asynchronous modules, and
• integrates all in one, so to say on an artistical, philosophical, science fictional, scientifical, and also technical level, specifically
  • KLOSs with O#.

The functionalities of the operating system part of our Ontologic System comprise our

• with a context switch or down call from the unprivileged level or user mode, where application and system processes execute, to the privileged level or kernel mode, where the kernel resides, or
• even without respectively by avoiding a context switch,

and

This asynchronous (kernel service) functionality (executed in user space) without a context switch and the exception-less system call are

• included in our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA),
• based on the integration of KLOSs with O#,
• realized by the implementation of O# with KLOSs, and
• independent of a specific realization or implementation.

Especially the feature of the Zero Ontology O# proves that our publications about the Ontologic System have not to be viewed as scientifical or technical descriptions, but as parts of an overall work of art. In fact, the KLOS approach is used as a means of realization or implementation of the O# concept, but by the integration of the KLOS approach and O# every realization or implementation of the related (asynchronous) operating system part of our Ontologic System is a reproduction of our Ontologic System in part, which must be allowed by the creator or otherwise constitutes at least a copyright infringement.
Another aspect that we already discussed in the past is to "[u]tilize the integrated kernel-less operating system for monolithic operating systems respectively mix them and their abstractions to construct hybrids" (see the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 18th of May 2018 and also the Clarification of the 18th of May 2018).

After studying around 70 operating systems for The Proposal (see also the related material of the TUNES project) and getting in touch with around 20 more operating systems in the following years, we could work out the following four basic cases at least with regard to the so-called kernel services of operating systems:

But even if our technical and legal knowledge might be incomplete, the asnychronous (kernel service) functionality executed in user space and avoiding a context switch is an evidence that provides the causal link with our Ontologic System.

28.July.2018

03:19, 25:xy, and 26:19 UTC+2
Blockchain fraud will come to an end #4

*** Work in progress - platform vs. infrastructure ***
We already noticed the company AIKON when we read about some other defrauding blockchain-based systems because of its name, which includes AI. And we have not disappointed ourselves once again, because in the last weeks that company took down its mask.
From a first report published on the 8th of March 2018 we got the following informations: "AIKON, an [Research and Development (]R&D[)] technology company serving the decentralized economy, has unveiled a new [blockchain] protocol, the Open Rights Exchange (ORE) Protocol, that will enable a global API marketplace on the blockchain, creating a new "economic OS" for developers. [...] has signed the following platform partners for private alpha testing: [Artificial Intelligence (]AI[)] computing solution provider, HADRON.cloud [] Food identification and nutritional info AI solution, Tasty Time [...] Commercializing APIs is currently a time-consuming and high-touch process, typically requiring legally negotiated licensing contracts and imprecise and delayed payment schemes given the volume of micro-transactions APIs execute on a daily or even hourly basis. AIKON's ORE Protocol will enable platform partners to enter into API rights management contracts via a blockchain ledger, with a payment layer being processed almost instantaneously based on the pricing terms of the contract (e.g. pay-per-call, time used, etc.). [...] As part of its plan to build a decentralized global marketplace for APIs, AIKON's ORE Protocol includes its own stable payment system to protect developers from the volatility of cryptocurrency and ensure they can get paid no matter where they are with no banks or credit cards required for the transaction. [...] There are a number of critical components to achieving a truly decentralized global economy. In the past 20 years, the following four have become available:
A decentralized ledger, via blockchain technology.
Decentralized storage, with companies like Filecoin, Storj, and the SAFE Network providing alternatives to monoliths like Amazon AWS or Google Cloud.
Decentralized currencies, which cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have popularized.
Decentralized computing with Ethereum.
AIKON believes that there are two remaining requirements that have yet to be solved:
A trusted, decentralized digital rights management platform to manage access rights and ownership - addressed by the ORE Protocol.
A stable payment system that is highly fungible yet reliably protects developers from the volatility of decentralized currencies and ensures they can be paid no matter where they are, regardless of whether or not they have easy access to a bank account or credit card. [...]
"We've signed on with AIKON because we believe their technology has the potential to change how we do business and make it much more feasible for companies to work together. AIKON will allow us to monetize our APIs with new audiences," said Cliff Szu, CEO at distributed AI computation startup HADRON.cloud. "AIKON will also serve as a critical bridge for us to work with our larger, more traditional customers that want to leverage our AI and compute capabilities quickly, in a trusted, secure manner, without requiring enterprise-level bureaucracy." [...] Stefan Roever, founder and CEO at AIKON. "What excites me about AIKON is that we're offering the missing pieces in the existing blockchain environment to create an economic operating system that allows individuals, enterprises, and developers to fully participate." "We're trying to create a system where equal treatment is built into the fabric of the digital economy. That's the promise of blockchain - that everyone from the smallest teams to the biggest companies get access to the same data, which means they have the same opportunity to build something amazing," said AIKON Co-founder and Chief Product Officer Marc Blinder. "We designed the ORE Protocol to foster a truly fair and transparent decentralized economy that anyone can contribute to and profit from, no matter who they are or where they live." [...] AIKON's vision is to build technology products that decentralize and catalyze the global digital economy. AIKON believes that the world must become a decentralized global economy to facilitate worldwide collaboration and equal opportunity regardless of location, background, or easy access to banks or credit cards."

From a second report published on the 26th of July 2018 (the day before yesterday) we got the following slightly confuse information: "AIKON and Hadron Start Ups Using Blockchain For Hubble Data Processing
AIKON and Hadron blockchain projects are testing a blockchain network for processing the vast amounts of Hubble data produced.
AIKON has provided [the] Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) [located on the Johns Hopkins University Homewood Campus and operated for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA)] with an interface for receiving photos from Hubble and researchers are using Hadron blockchain for processing and visualizing the data.
Josh Peek, an associate astronomer with STScI, stated other space telescopes, requires "millions upon millions" of hours of computing power to process data, which can become expensive. Blockchain solution may provide a more efficient use of resources by allowing researchers to tap into a larger network than might be available via a traditional server farm. [...]
The computing time paid for with AIKON's "CPU" tokens. The coin price is pegged to the average cost of computing power charged by cloud hosting services.
The system is currently being tested by STScI astronomers using a supply of free tokens."

In this respect, we do not know

Obviously, the argument of cost reduction is only a false pretences of fraud.

But we do know that

• SoftBionics (SB) with the subfields
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI),
  • Machine Learning (ML), and
  • Computer Vision (CV),
• Problem Solving Environments (PSEs) and Scientific Computing Environments (SCEs),
• High Performance and High Productivity Computing Systems (HP²CSs),
• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs) based on for example a
  • Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocols,
  • Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method,
  • smart contract protocol, or
  • blockchain technique,
• network of telescopes with the
  • Hubble Space Telescope,
• IDentiy and Access Management System (IDAMS), and
• Digital Rights Management (DRM), which is a set of Access Control (AC) technologies,
• Electronic Payment System (EPS), as well as
• their various integrations by our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA),

• steal others' Intellectual Properties (IPs),
• cheat investors to get their money, and
• mislead the public about others' achievements

deliberately. Is not it?

In relation with the copyright infringement conducted by the blockchain platform AIKON, the cloud provider Hadron.cloud, and the astronomer Josh Peek the short result of this short investigation is that there is not the slightest doubt that each entity has copied our Intellectual Property (IP), and both companies together with the scientist have copied even more of our IP in collaboration, which even worsens their individual frauds:

• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs), such as the listed decentralized respectively distributed ledgers, distributed data stores, distributed computing platforms, and digital currencies based on distributed computing, specifically distributed ledgers, as well as
• a platform with IDAMS, DRM, AC, and EPS (see for example the Ontologic Net Further steps and Ontologic Web Further steps of the 5th of July 2017),

and promoted it as its own creation around 3 months ago together with the collaboration with other plagiarists such as Hadron.cloud.

In fact, "any reproduction of the Ontologic Net (ON), the Ontologic Web (OW), and the Ontologic uniVerse (OV) has been explicitly excluded from licensing" by the formalized regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) (see the issue SOPR #121 of the 29th of May 2018), like the related distributed ledgers and other FTRTDSs, and platform parts of our ON, OW, and OV, which are a(n)

But the actings of both companies and that scientist taken alone and in collaboration are bold and deliberately conducted

of our formalized SOPR.

As we said before, our OS is the only legal platform (see also the notes Blockchain fraud will come to an end #1 of the 8th of May 2018, Dump that island system of the 10th of May 2018, Blockchain fraud will come to an end #2 of the 28th of May 2018, Blockchain fraud will come to an end #3 of the , as well as the Clarification of the 11th of May 2018) and in accordance with the actual jurisprudence, we are allowed to

AIKON and Hadron.cloud are frauds anyway. In fact, they are only stealing essential parts of our OS to make fast money and then immediately disappear again, as we have seen it before with EOS.IO, Tezos, Universa, and NeuroChain for example, and the cases of Ethereum and all the similar Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs) are not much better. But in this case we can even see a new dimension of this kind of Intellectual Property (IP) and investment fraud: Instead of giving up their frauds have been intensified even more by stealing our latest explanations of related matter, collaborating with the plagiarist and fraudster Josh Peek, and combining their platforms for processing data of the Hubble space telescope, and imitating our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) proving the high level of criminal energy once again.

Only unserious and/or incompetent media reports about such fraudsters.

03:19 and 09:02 UTC+2
Attention: Fraud with our OS

*** Work in progress - platform vs. infrastructure ***
Do not invest your money in the blockchain platform Aikon and do not build any applications and services on top of AIKON. In fact, it is a scam, because the responsible entity

Furthermore, such blockchain-based systems and similar distributed systems will not work without the broad consensus upon the public, especially the industries, that can only be provided by our SOPR.

Our business unit Ontonics and our SOPR will ban such platforms As Soon As Possible (ASAP), though we do not accept other digital currencies than the official digital currencies of sovereign states and the ones of our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) anyway, and if the responsible entities refuse to give in and give the money back, then we have to inform the prosecutors due to the conduction of an investment fraud, and the promotion and the funding of illegal activities.

At the end, we would like to make clear once again the following points:

29.July.2018
Comment of the Day
"Living the fake", [C.S., Today]

The original versions are "Living the American Fake" and "Living the Media Fake", but it is neither only an U.S.American problem nor only an issue with the media.

10:09, 18:35, 20:48, and 23:00 UTC+2
SOPR #130

*** Work in progress - crypto not ready ***
We have continued with thinking and discussing about the matters related to the following topics:

AoA 3.0, ToS 3.0, LM 3.0
Because

• our OS integrates all in one and eventually no loophole on the artistical and technical sides (e.g. smart contract protocols, blockchain technique, Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocols, Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method, and distributed ledger technologies) does exist,
• opening our Ontologic System (OS) and allowing them access to our OS for ridiculously low royalties is a incredible gesture and huge voluntary concession of us,
• non-membership in our SOPR is not an option when using our IPs, and
• they have to change their attitude and instead
  • show a convincing support for us and not for plagiarists and other fraudsters,
  • fulfill our recommendations and wishes As Soon As Possible (ASAP), and
  • work with us directly and officially where reasonable

  in return for our goodwill,

and

we are considering to

• the contract between a member of the SOPR and the SOPR is valid for 5 years between the dates of year ending with 1 and 5 (1st of January xyz1 to 31st of December xyz5), and automatically extended if not decided otherwise by the SOPR many years before (e.g. 10 years announcement period)

  with

• the contract between a member of the SOPR and the SOPR is valid for 3 months between the quarters 1st of January to 31st of March, 1st of April to 30th of June, 1st of July to 30th of September, and 1st of October to 31st of December, and automatically extended if not decided otherwise by the SOPR some months before (e.g. 3 months announcement period),

whereby the change from the Steering Committees to the Consulting Committees (see issue SOPR #124 of the 4th of July 2018) would take place simultaneously, so that we decide alone in the course of the common way instead of having only a veto.

Cryptocurrencies
Fraud on the basis of distributed ledgers and cryptocurrencies or similar value tokens is rising enormously. For example, in Australia the fraud with blockchain-based systems in the field of commodities has risen by 50% in the last year, in P.R.China wealthy owners of cryptocurrencies are buying real estate to circumvent government measures, and we have shown massive infringements of our rights and properties by providers of blockchain platforms with an own cryptocurrency or value token as well.
But the governments and central bank governors of the G20 or Group of Twenty explained that the trading volume with cryptocurrencies has not reached such a critical level, that would require to begin with regulation, and hence they merely started to act against the laundery of money and the financing of terroristic acts.
Furthermore, responsible federal institutions of some sovereign states have begun to give companies in the field of cryptocurrencies an official status as a bank or a trading platform for cryptocurrencies for example.
Because

We already prohibited all Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs), such as

or being more precise, we explicitly excluded any reproduction of the Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) from licensing in the issue SOPR #121 of the 29th of May 2018, as discussed in the note Blockchain fraud will come to an end #2 of the 28th of May 2018.
But this even prohibits to provide a Blockchain as a Service (BaaS) and refers once again to the problem of differentiating a platform from an infrastructure in relation with our ON, OW, and OV.
An alternative solution could be to only prohibit all combinations or integrations of a FTRTDS, that is not managed by the SOPR, with a digital currency, that is not issued by a sovereign state and our OntoBank, or accredited by the SOPR.
In practice, such a regulation would mean that a member of the SOPR is allowed to either

In this way, all legal and reasonable interestes can be fulfilled, at least for the first moment.
Banks, other financial institutes, insurance companies, and similar companies would have to separate their businesses in independent companies accordingly, which is unavoidable for other legal reasons so or so.

Violations, disturbances, and threats
As not expected otherwise, we observed precisely planned and executed

of our SOPR.
As announced, this triggers legal actions by us. For example, we are considering to file our first complaints against some of the script kiddies of the Teletubbies generation, blockheads, and crypto kiddies, as well as those entities supporting them at the related prosecutors. It should not be too difficult to guess who we mean.

False cleverness and stupidity must be punished.

30.July.2018
Website update
We have updated the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 26th of January 2018 and the Clarification of the 8th of March 2018 due to the reasons explained in the Clarification of the 22nd of July 2018, which addresses also the combination or integration of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing systems with the blockchain technique, as we have

We also continued with the correction of misleading and wrong content on this website of OntomaX in this relation.
For example, in the messages Ontologic Net Further steps and Ontologic Web Further steps of the 5th of July 2017 we said at first: "Please note that the blockchain technique has been added for users and applications that really need it on the one hand, though we are not sure if this is truly the case, but also for legal reasons on the other hand." But obviously, even we cannot add a feature to our Ontologic System (OS), that is already included in it just right from its start in the end of the year 2006.
Another example is the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 26th of October 2017, where we said: "But we felt that something is missing between the stars and our Trusted Computing Base (TCB), but only from the point of view of implementation. In a similar way, we also felt directly, when we heard about the blockchain technique once again, that it could fill the gap and provide a more harmonious transition." Obviously, a more correct formulation based on the facts is: "But we saw that something is missing between the stars and our Trusted Computing Base (TCB), but only from the point of view of implementation. In a similar way, we also saw recently, when we remembered once again, that the functionalities of the blockchain technique and distributed ledgers are already included in the software components of our OS and integrated by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), that they could fill the gap and provide a more harmonious transition."

As we already said, we remembered and even showed that we read the works of Nick Szabo and other safety and security enthusiasts and crypto freaks, so to say, before the year 2006 and then thought at that time that everything related to Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs) is already included in our OS anyway, specifically by the basic properties of (mostly) being reflective, and validated and verified. Coming back now to the subject matter and the details when resolving and showing that this is truly the case, seems to be a little more difficult but is possible, obviously.

Ontonics Further steps
We developed a specialized version of a device, which is demanded by the whole world due to its general way of functioning and also its specialized areas of utilization.

21:52 UTC+2
Investigations::Multimedia

*** Work in progress - better order, epilog not ready ***

We quote some passages from said report: "A couple of weeks earlier, an Android developer had discovered a test feature hidden in the Facebook app that introduced Avatars - cartoonish lookalikes that can be used "to communicate with your friends and express yourself across Facebook". [We use the complete range of representations as custom avatars in 2D and 3D, and for the reflection, self-expression, and communication of the users, and other applications many years before all of them, ranging from Lego minifigures at first to 3D scans of the users. See also the section Snow Crash and the Metaverse of the webpage Overview and the webpage Caliber/Calibre of the website of OntoLinux, and also the Pictures of the Day of the 15th of December 2012.]",
""I can remember being in a roomful of investors, in one of these pitch sessions six years ago and telling this roomful of people it was inevitable that everyone on the internet would have an avatar - and we're going to make them." [For us it is inevitable to prove the copyright infringement in relation with this original and unique feature of our OS and the subsidiary's cheating of the investors.]",
"The app was born in 2007 as a website called Bitstrips, with a rather different goal: letting users without an artistic background easily create short comic strips. [First of all, we have to make clear that an app is not a website. Furthermore, the original Bitstrips service was publicly unveiled at South by Southwest 2008. Therefore, the facts are that there was no app in 2007 at all, the app Bitmoji was not born in 2007 but several years later, and the initial goal was not to create and provide an avatar or some other kind of self-imaging, self-representation, or self-expression of a user.],
"The pivot to Bitmoji came the following year [2014], as the company focused directly on a use case that had always been popular among Bitstrips users: self-representation. The free-form comic strip feature was replaced with a more guided selection of sticker packs, letting users insert themselves into easily meme-able images to send to friends and family. That switch also took Bitmoji from the internet on to phones directly, setting the stage for its acquisition by Snap(chat) in 2016. [When the website or service of Bitstrips was used as a medium for self-expression and for creating a self-representation of a user for the first time is not known, though it is very plausible that it must have been after it was publicly unveiled in the year 2008. But this detail does not matter at all, because we presented our Ontologic System (OS) before the year 2007, which is the further development of the Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) presented in the The Proposal in the end of the year 1999, which again was also the first step of creating C.S.' self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, and cybernetic reflection, augmentation, and extension as part of the self-expressive works of art listed in the section History of the webpage Overview and the webpage Caliber/Calibre of the website of OntoLinux.]",
""We've seen Bitmoji gets integrated more and more [...]. [We have not seen and we even could not see the integration of such avatars before because we created the emotional and the emotional animated avatars. See once again the webpage Overview, specifically its section Integrating Architecture, and note the usage of the term integrate.]",
"The service, [the founder of Bitstrips] says, carries a couple of big ideas. "One of them is communicating with cartoons. That was the obvious first point of integration: seamlessly integrating the Bitmoji library into the chat experience in Snap, and then expanding to the camera experience so you can add Bitmoji to your photos." But it's the other aspect that's where the competition comes from: Bitmoji as a "visual identity". On Snapchat, all users are represented by their Bitmoji, in icons, on the "Snap Map", and increasingly in augmented reality (AR) features as well, inserting a virtual avatar into the real world. [In September 2017, animated, 3D rendered Bitmoji were introduced to Snapchat's Augmented Reality (AR) feature called World Lenses, which is based on our OS as well. See the webpages Overview and Caliber/Calibre once again, and the sections Semantic (World Wide) Web, Geography, and Earth Simulation/Virtual Globe, and also Visualization, Mixed Reality, Collaborative Virtual Environment, and Human Simulation/Holomer of the webpage Links to Software of the website of OntoLinux. Last but not least, there is no competition but only those copies and the resulting liability to pay royalties, because we own the original and unique OS, where this visual identity comes from. specifically the Virtual Object System (VOS) and the Virtual Reality Chat (VRC) included in Mekensleep Underware software library set, including for example the skeletal animation based 3D character animation library Cal3D, which is originally designed to be used in a 3D client of a Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG), supports combining animations and actions, and integrates morph targets used for facial expression easily into the system, and also used for the avatars in the game Poker3D]",
"Earlier this month, Snap released Bitmoji Kit, a simple tool that lets other app developers incorporate the avatars into their own software. Initial integrations are simple [...] but it's not hard to see how they could grow, particularly with the growth in AR and VR worlds, which require the use of avatars to represent people. [See once again the comment made to the quote before and the other related comments.]",
"Enter Apple and Facebook. "It definitely feels somewhat validating - and a bit of an honour - to be copied by the largest companies in the world," [the serious criminal plagiarist] Blackstock laughs. [Go away with Confucius and that totally scewed self-presentation. We do not feel such an utter nonsense but only see those infringements of our copyright and other rights.]",
"He sees the appeal to those large companies of owning the visual identity of the future. [They only own the specific graphics in this respect but definitely not a visual identity (of the future). Eventually, we own the original and unique OS, which includes all relevant elements, and they infringe our copyright with the integrations and utilizations.]",
""An avatar, literally, is an incarnation. It enables you to put a version of yourself into another realm. This goes all the way back to Hinduism, where the word came from," Blackstock says. [Here we have the relation to the Ontological argument. See also the Investigations::Multimedia of the Clarification of the 20th of February 2018.]",
""Now, with what's happening with technology, and how it has been becoming such an integral part of society, it's like we're all living in a video game [or simulation]. [See the sections Visualization, Mixed Reality, Collaborative Virtual Environment, and Human Simulation/Holomer of the webpage Links to Software once again. This subject matter is also discussed under the topic of the simulated reality hypothesis, and the related topics of the simulation argument and simulation hypothesis, and also computationalism and mathematical universe hypothesis, and dreaming argument. A version of the simulation hypothesis was first theorised as a part of a philosophical argument on the part of René Descartes, and later by Hans Moravec. Our OS is also discussed in relation with the question "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" but this comes too short due to our integration of Synthetic Reality (SR) and other original and unique features in the OS. Furthermore, we were the ones who saw a smartphone, or being more precise, our Ontoscope as an extension of the user or as the personality of the user (see for example the Clarification #2 of the 13th of January 2017), and the overall OS as a cybernetic self-image, augmentation, and extension of a user and a user's identity (see the section History of the webpage Overview once again).]",
"So it's a no-brainer: you're living in this world, you need to have a presence in this world. [See once again the related comments made to the quotes before.]",
""So when I see Apple and Facebook making these moves, it's representative of the impact we've had proving the importance of this idea. Competition is a fact of life in any business. I've seen the Apple thing but I haven't seen what Facebook's doing - presumably it will be as close as possible clones of Bitmojis, that's what they try to do." [That plagiarist is even so bold and claims that Apple and Facebook are copying his copy of the related part of our OS besides claiming to be the creator of our big ideas. By the way: Infringement of the copyright and other rights is not competition but fraud, and there is no competition in this field, because we own the original and unique OS.]",
"Even if [Augmented Reality (]AR[)] and [Virtual Reality [(]VR[)] technology never reaches the heights that its supporters suggest, Blackstock still sees a universal need for online avatars. "For us, the way we look at Bitmoji is: it's not just about the avatar, it's what you do with it. How is this useful to you in your life?" [What a blah blah blah. Nevertheless, we simply call what you do with it Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).], and
""Using it for communication, that's been the game changer. In real life, you are the medium of your expression and your identity is a key layer in that expression. And that's what Bitmoji's bringing to the table." [See once again the related comments made to the quotes before and also note the usage of the term layer and see the section Integrating Architecture of the webpage Overview once again.]".
Also note the terms proving, validating, universal, and so on copied from the website of our OS OntoLinux as well to confuse the public even more about the true origin of our works and achievements.

Indeed, we have taken Lego minifigures as custom avatars in 2D and 3D as well, while the subsidiary Bitstrips of Snap and the other companies have taken comic-style figures as custom avatars or cartoonish lookalikes of users.
But

In addition, they called their Bitmoji, memoji and so on, that are derived from the designation of the visual language called emoji meaning picture character or pictograph. Emoji are ideograms and smileys and exist in various genres, including facial expressions, common objects, places and types of weather, and animals. They are similar to emoticons, though emoji are pictures instead of typographics and the resemblance to the English words emotion and emoticon is purely coincidental. Nevertheless, they include facial expressions, which "[are] one or more motions or positions of the muscles beneath the skin of the face, convey the emotional state of an individual to observers, and are a form of nonverbal communication, and are similar to emoticons, which are pictorial representations of facial expressions using characters, and therefore the syntactial resemblance to the English words emotion and emoticon is coincidential but not the universal semantical resemblance. again comes from emotion and expressing emotions, as we already explained in the Clarification of the 1st of November 2017 and 2nd of November 2017, and the Website update of the 6th of November 2017 (see also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 10th of July 2016).
Eventually, this implies that the emotional avatar is another original and unique part of the expression of C.S. created with the artwork Ontologic System, as is the case with the animated emoji (animoji).
Our avatars are also integrated in the Virtual Reality Chat (VRC) included in the Mekensleep Underware software library set besides a game engine and the 3D modeler Blender.

In short, we have an integrating system architecture

Q.E.D.