• other concepts such as augmented reality (which is a special case of mediated reality), virtual reality, mixed reality, etc.[, and]
• Feiner's distinction of virtual reality and augmented reality as follows: "whereas virtual reality brashly aims to replace the real world, augmented reality respectfully supplements it" [Feiner 02] whereas mediated reality modifies it",

and also

• the Reality-Virtuality Continuum (RVC) but
• in addition to additive effects (mixing) also multiplicative effects (modulation) of (sometimes deliberately) Modulated Reality (ModR or ModuR), which in turn is said to consist of Modified Reality (ModR or ModiR), Diminished Reality (DimR), etc..

See the document titled "Mediated Reality with implementations for everyday life" and publicated in 2002 but note that its author was inconsistent or simply made a mistake somehow when he

Furthermore, AR is characterized by see-through devices either optical see-through devices or video see-through devices.

Most of what is said about the field of X Reality (XR) or Cross Reality (CR) is merely marketing nonsense and blah blah blah of self-exposers, plagiarists, and other fraudulent entities.
For example, any attempt of an entity to define XR or CR as immersive computing is completely wrong and only shows the incompetence, as is the case with the nonsense term real reality. There is no real reality but reality and no immersion into reality.
The discussion also proves once again that Google Tango is a copy of the related parts of our Ontologic System and our Ontoscope.
In the same sense the term "immersive computing" is effectively synonymous with mixed reality as a user interface is nonsense as is the case with the related statement that "The next great computer interface is emerging - but it doesn't have a name yet". In fact it is called OntoScope, which is a software component of our Ontologic System (OS) and relates to our Ontoscope, which is a hardware component of our OS.
Nevertheless, there exists an area that can be called XR or CR, but it is not definied as publicated.

"XR is a new way to consider the reality continuum". Exactly, this is the ontological view and this consideration and the corresponding creation have been done by C.S. before following the tradition of Descartes and Co., and the result has been officially publicated with the OS in the year 2006 already and constitutes the related part of the original and unique expression, that is directly connected with the creator or artist C.S. and therefore constitutes a part of the foundation of the copyright protection of our works of art (see also the images on the webpage of our Caliber/Calibre on the website of our OS OntoLinux).
C.S. added

as further dimensions and eventually all imagineable dimensions to the Reality-Virtuality Continuum (RVC) and Reality-Virtuality-Mediality Continuum (RVMC), finally resulting in a new universe, New Reality (NR), etc. called Ontologic uniVerse (OntoVerse or OV) and Ontologic Reality (OR) (see for example the related sections of the Investigations::Multimedia of the 13th of February 2011 and 14th of January 2018, the Clarification of the 1st and 6th of May 2016 once again, and the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 23rd of October 2017).
One interesting aspect is that the X of the abbrevation XR is not related to one dimension respectively the X axis of the RVMC but with a variable also designated as n and eventually with an infinity number of dimensions, which again was created with the OS by C.S., also called an n-Dimensional Operating System (nDOS) sometimes.

In the meantime, discussing a specific reality or continuum has become obsolete. In this relation,

• Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI),
• Multi-Agent Systems (MASs), and
• other Agent-Oriented (AO) paradigms or architectures and frameworks of agent systems,

though the presented systems are so very rudimentary focusing merely on relatively simple agents depicted as avatars on the virtual side, and basic input and output devices as well as robots on the real side so that the designation of a singular MR must be called misleading and not describing, because these systems are far away from an all-encompassing and unifying conception of virtuality and reality, and

But OR is not XR or CR because it also includes the fields of

• immobotics,

• SoftBionics (SB), including
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI),
  • Machine Learning (ML),
  • Computer Vision (CV),
  • Cognitive Vision (CogV),
  • Cognitive Software Agent System (CSAS),
  • Cognitive Computing (CogC),
  • Multi-Agent System (MAS),
  • Swarm Computing (SC),
  • etc.,

besides the

We also thought about the designation Semantic Reality (SR or SemR) but concluded that Semantic Reality is only the part of the Ontologic System and the Ontologic uniVerse, which comprises the integration of the

but does not comprise

At this point, even the designation Ontologic Reality (OR) is still not quite correct, because we are already talking about the Ontologic System in general and the Ontologic uniVerse in particular, which constitutes a New Reality (NR).

How this New Reality (NR) respectively Ontologic uniVerse (OV) and Ontologic Reality (OR) have to be viewed, understood, interpreted, differentiated, definied, and so on is solely up to the original creator, who still is C.S., and every intepretation, differentiation, definition, expression, and so on, that has a causal link with our works of art, as described and explained in the

is considered by us as an infringement of our copyright and other rights, which is given with the whole subject matter of X Reality or Cross Reality already, and any related works have to be licensed by our SOPR.

The question if C.S. created or established a new genre with the Ontologic System has already been discussed in the Clarification of the 14th of December 2016, the note API free or not free? of the 16th of December 2016, and the Clarification #1 of the 8th and 13th of January 2017 but has to be discussed once again in view of the field of XR or CR, NR respectively OV, and OR.
Also the idea or concept, and its expression respectively the various levels of the expression or various expressions (idea, concept, architecture, model, realization or implementation) in these cases of the Ontologic System and the Ontoscope have been discussed as well for example in the Clarification of the 15th of May 2017.
Furthermore, the terms "XR" and "X-Reality" have been trademarked by Sony Corporation in the usage fields of smartphones, computer graphics, software applications, and display technologies, but Sony is not allowed to use the terms in any way that confuses the public with our works of art. If Sony is intending such a usage all the time, then the terms have to be deleted from the trademark register.
For the same and other reasons, every entity has to make clear at least that the public is not mislead about the true origin of our works of art and companies even have to name C.S. and our corporation in addition if no other agreements have been made with C.S. and our corporation, specifically with our SOPR.

Btw.: The behaviour of Steve Mann in general and his attempt to jump on the bandwagon again, that he jumped off more than 2 decades ago like all the other scientists of the Masschusetts Institute of Technology, and to reclaim the privilege and sovereignty over the interpretation in this field in particular are totally unexceptable and disappointing.
The same holds for companies, like for example Google, Samsung, Facebook→Oculus, Unity with Intel, Valve, Epic, and so on. Besides that, they do not get it right and are creating confusion once again, as can be seen with our explanations given above, specifically by attempts to manipulate the public with redefinitions of others' and our works.
Furthermore, Virtual reality (VR) has not begun its climb back into the social consciousness in 2013 with the launch of the well-documented crowdsourcing campaign for the Oculus Rift but in the 2006 with the well-documented start of our Ontologic System, as is the case with Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computer Vision (CV), voice-based systems, and virtual assistants, lifelogging, touchscreen, and for sure Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality (MR), and so on.

SOPR #139
We continued our detail work in relation with the following topics:

System, application, and service vs. infrastructure
When investigating the business strategies and activities of some companies, we were able to work out that an important distinguishing matter in relation with the consideration about system, application, and service vs. infrastructure is the guarantee of interoperability of systems, applications, and services offered and provided by different entities. In this sense, if a provider uses its system, application, or service based on the Ontologic System Components (OSC) to connect external systems, applications, and services, then we are talking about a part of the infrastructure and not a platform anymore.
For example, if said provider operates a

then it would be reasonable to demand the sharing of the reality anchors used as reference frames (reality reference frames) of said platforms for the inclusion with the common data, that is managed and controlled by the SOPR.

At this point we would like to recall that

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), which is also meant to include a

• single operating system based on one or more OSC in whole or in part, and
• single application

which limits the scope of a business anyway.
As implications, a SOPR member is

• operating an own system, platform, application, and service, or
• providing an own system, platform, application, and service to a single legal person, or
• both,

but

• implementing a part of the infrastructure of our
  • Ontologic Net (ON), for example by linking (external) systems, platforms, applications, and services (e.g. cloud computing services), or
  • Ontologic Web (OW), for example by linking (external) systems, platforms, applications, and services (e.g. web services), or
  • both

    in an own

  • system, platform, application, and service, or
  • reproduction of our OSC and performance of our OAOS, or
  • both,

  and

• providing (the reproduction of) our OSC as Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS).

AR operating system service vs. AR application library
From the conceptual point of view, we do not differentiate between

Furthermore, OntoScope (Reality) Lenses or World Lenses are directly connected with reality reference frames and spatial servers.

07.September.2018
Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation and Scylladb continued
On the 14th of August 2018 we said that "[i]t seems to be that the responsible entities have not copied our exception-less system call mechanism, but used a capability-based mechanism in relation with an asynchronous system process."
Today, we noted that they have not related or combined but even integrated both functionalities in an operating system service of the Linux kernel. Because the other circumstances also count for us, in fact it is also uitlized with hypervisors or Virtual Machine Monitors (VMMs), grid computing and cloud computing, and so on, this could be already sufficient (causal link, part of our Ontologic System (OS), etc.) to stand our ground even at the court.
At least the responsible entities, Avi Kivity and other developers of the company Syclladb and the Linux kernel developer Christoph Hellwig, are now neutralized, or better said, eliminated. Do not do it again.

Btw.: When you remove that thing again then do it with fs-verity as well before it goes the same wrong path too far.

09.September.2018

08:57 UTC+2
SOPR #140

*** Work in progress - reduction and some corrections ***
The latest activities of external entities required the discussion about the following topics:

SOPR further steps
We were short before finalizing the details 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), when the issues with

came up and showed how the AoA, ToS, and LM are viewed, handled, and also exploited.
As a consequence, we are thinking about an extension of the ToS and the LM of our SOPR by one or more of the following possibilities:

• economic zone or state,
• customer or end user respectively end entity, and

• licensing of the reproduction of our Ontoscope and the performance of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) on top of our software, platform, and infrastructure provided only by us as a Service (aaS), but no licensing of the reproduction of the Ontologic System Components (OSC) and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), or
• no licensing at all.

Data sharing and interoperability
The discussion about the guarantee of interoperability was also conducted in the issue #139 of the 4th of September 2018. When we continued with thinking about this subject matter then we saw that a general regulation of for example the common data sharing, including the common {correct term?} reality frames, reference frames, reality reference frames, would also affect the voice-controlled systems and virtual assistants of companies. For sure, they are allowed to be realized and provided without licensing by our SOPR, but only with those systems, applications, and services that are

• on the one hand means that they are completely separated from each other even in the 5th and 6th rings and ID spaces, and
• on the other hand is virtually not possible anymore.

Bringing all market participants together in the best way is a complex or even a highly complex subject matter. But our goal is to regulate and interfere with the businesses of our partners and their customers and end users as little as possible.
In fact, this situation, where other entities are reproducing and performing our systems, applications, and services, and eventually doing our business, was not considered by us when we created the OS.
We are afraid to say but it is not ensured at all that all business strategies chosen by companies will continue to work as they are working now.

If an entity does not share its data, which is required for providing the infrastructure and guaranteeing the interoperability, exclusively with our SOPR in accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS), then we will refuse to provide the licensing of the reproduction of our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os), and the performance of our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) to said entity.
The same holds for the interoperability, which is distinguished in two cases of interoperability between:

that are exclusively done over the infrastructure and platform of our SOPR.

We clearly said that licensing our Intellectual Properties (IPs) by following the Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, is already the compromise and therefore we will not make any further concessions, because we are not legally bound to the RAND terms and therefore following them is a completely voluntary act of us.

Our compromise respectively our SOPR is the best solution for everybody for example by following the RAND terms.
But because we are already following the RAND terms, we consider our SOPR and the upcoming subsidiary Ontonics as immune against antitrust regulations in this respect.

Furthermore, if we have no economical advantage with an activity, then this activity cannot be declared as an abuse of market power.
If an antitrust regulator has a problem with this, then we cannot license the OS respectively the OSC to other entities anymore and have to provide only our own platforms and all OAOS, and therefore the complete data sharing and interoperability in-house.

Reality reference frame
The term frame is also used in the fields of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Knowledge Management (KM) (see for example the Arrow system listed in the section Exotic Operating System of the webpage Links to Software of the website of OntoLinux).
In the last weeks we came from Augmented Reality (AR) anchors used as reference frames over common reality anchors to reality reference frames and common reality reference frames.
We are thinking about using the term {which term?} reality frame or reality reference frame for the common data set for all SOPR members, including the Time ID, Space ID, Speech ID, Gesture ID, Skill ID, and so on in accordance with the

By the way: Our distributed ledger of the SOPR (abbreviated as SOPR ledger) based on our universal consensus (see issues #129 of the 23rd of July 2018, #131 of the 1st of August 2018, and #136 of the 21st of August 2018) also works on the basis of a reference frame that is the view on a part of the universe with telescopes from different places on the planet Earth (see the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 26th of October 2017 and 19th of April 2018, and the issue #127 of the 23rd of July 2018).

Single legal person, customer, and end entity
When we use the term single legal person in the issues #121 of the 29th of May 2018 and #139 of the 4th of September 2018 then we mean end entity as definied in the following ways:

• technology
  • system,
  • platform, and
  • infrastructure,
• good or product, or
• service,

means the legal person that receives and ultimately uses the technology, good, or service.

Attention: Fraud with our OS
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) wiill not license parts of our Ontologic System (OS) to the so-called Decentralized Web (DWeb), which in the end will only be our Ontologic Net (ON) and our Ontologic Web (OW), and also our Managed Peer-to-Peer (MP2P) network based on the OntoNet and OntoWeb software components of our OSs, like our OS OntoLinux, and therefore an infringement of our copyright and other rights of us.

In this relation, we took a quick look at some projects of the Protocol Labs scam conducted by some crypto kiddies and SoftBionics (SB) (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computer Vision (CV), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), etc.) bandwagon jumpers:

Furthermore, "[y]ou will have one really long and unrecoverable password known only to you but which works everywhere on the DWeb and with which you will be able to connect to any decentralised app. Lose your unique password, though, and you lose access to everything." The unique ID was stolen from the webpage Feature-Lists of our OS as well, while said problem with losing the unique ID was one of the inspirations for the development of other OS features and our Managed Peer-to-Peer (MP2P) network.
Eventually, our OS already has virtually all advantages and improvements since the year 2006 and we are already discussing data protection, data democracy, data monetization, and data sharing, and also interoperability of systems, applications, and services in our SOPR.
Correspondingly, we would also like to give the recommendation to governments, specifically the European governments, to stay away from that totally naive and retrograde distributed thing of Tim Berners-Lee and Co. and to not exploit it for any populist politics because the result is definitely the opposite of what their societies and their representatives want.

Last but not least, if T. Berners-Lee, that Protocol Labs fraud, the Mozilla Foundation, and the other entites do not stop immediately their related activities then we will take legal actions against them (see also the notes Blockchain fraud will come to an end #2 of the 28th of May 2018 and #3 of the 22nd of July 2018).

10.September.2018
Ontologic Web Further step
We are very pleased to announce that our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) and our Ontologic Web (OW) platforms for our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) have begun with the introduction of stablecoins for every sovereign state and currency union that are

For sure, if a state or a currency union introduces its own digital currency backed on our universal ledger or a distributed ledger connected with our universal ledge, then we will think about taking down our related stablecoin once again.

In this relation, we would like to make clear that stable coins have to backed on our universal ledger or a distributed ledger connected with our universal ledger, when they become available, for beoming accepted as a digital currency in our OFinS.

12.September.2018
Comment of the Day
"Data is the new oil, and intelligent data is the new petrol.", [Mukesh Ambani]
We would like to add that Ontonics is the fields, the wells and mines, the equipments, the pipelines, the refineries, and the markets, as well as the operating systems and management systems.
As we said, the hardware and software systems, platforms, and infrastructures do matter.

15.September.2018

Blockchain fraud will come to an end #5

*** Work in progress - some better wordings, order ***
We have to warn about the next blockchain scam with the defrauding blockchain-based system called FOAM that has been promoted in the last months by the responsible entities and is a system based on

From a news aggregation, web content rating, and discussion website we got the following informations:
[Question:] Does anyone know of any Proof of Location projects? By Proof of Location I mean a technology that enables a device's physical location coordinates to be broadcast to the blockchain in a way that other devices can rely on the location data without having to trust the broadcasting device.
[Answer 1:] No device can guarantee a geolocation. They all can be spoofed.
You might need a system where participants can attest each other's location. Using a chain of trust you might be able to obtain reasonable guarantees.
I don't see how a blockchain would help here.
[Answer 2:] Proof of location you can trust is honestly one of the most difficult things to implement. Even if you have many participants that can attest each other's location, there's no guarantee that they wouldn't just go sybil at any point in the future, and since you're always only relying on majority reporting it's a huge weakness.
If you could require some type of specialized hardware device that has anti-tamper tech such that the private key is destroyed when one attempts to open it or change the firmware on it then you could possibly have greater security, but at the same time, it's not like it's impossible to spoof GPS signals either.
A proper implementation of this requires so much fallback and so many different data sources to have any assurance of accuracy, it would have to be [a] very well funded project.

"[Question:] A mesh network that will help get rid of GPS? Or another $500M [Initial Coin Offering (]ICO[)] scam? What are your thoughts?
[Answer 1:] Scam. Would take an absolutely unreachable amount of adoption to function reliably across the world, and until then, there's no reason for [Decentralized applications (]Dapps[)] to use it over GPS.
Furthermore I don't think they've thought through all the problems, such as malicious actors (they have a tint graphic that says "client side faking" but nothing else on that issue).
To me, this seems just like any other telegram ICO that seems like a new and unique idea, but never actually turns into anything. [...]"
[...]
[Answer 1.1 FOAM:] Hello from the FOAM team.
GPS is an amazing tool for localizing yourself, but you cannot use it to prove location to others. It has no proof of origin, making it easy to spoof. So any smart contract that requires automatic location verification should not rely on GPS because it would be easy for people to attack the application by feeding it fake GPS coordinates. That is the problem that we are aiming to solve with our Dynamic Proof of Location protocol.
Global coverage is not required for the protocol to work. It is not designed to be used for navigation (at least not initially), but for proving location. The protocol is hardware agnostic, but we are excited about Low-power Wide-area networks. The typical max range is about 15 kilometers. It is possible to cover entire cities with relatively minimal hardware. This kind of hardware is already deployed extensively around the world. The Things Network is a community of mostly hobbyists that have set up these radio beacons with no incentives other than the fact that they are excited to work with and test this new technology.
[Answer 1.1.1:] Do you have estimates on when the FOAM network will reach a critical mass to become effective? Or are there any areas where you have that critical mass already?
[Answer 1.2:] Thx for the awesome response! Yes, i understand the implications of GPS (yes, it [is] controlled by [the] USA). Still, I don't think that building such tech is possible today.
[Answer 1.2.1:] The technology we are using already exists, FOAM is providing the crypto-economic incentives for users to run this hardware at scale.
[Answer 2.2.3 FOAM:] FOAM is a part of the Brooklyn Project and uses their new consumer token model."
[...]
[Answer 3:] I am going to go ahead and say scam because I am at Consensus already and can't even sit in the f*<&ing bar without some a??hole running his mouth about his stupid f*<&ing ICO and how smart he was for buying "Blockchain-based [Whatsoever]" coin at whatever f*<&ing cent he bought it.
[Answer 4:] Why is this even on the frontpage?! Writer's FUD piece completely ignores FOAM's incentives. FUD piece is obvious FUD. ["Fear, uncertainty and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a disinformation strategy used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics, cults, and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear."]
[Answer 5:] Wait wait, maybe I'm getting confused but the way I understand it, they don't want to replace GPS for everything GPS is used. They want to create a better Proof-of-location service that doesn't use GPS (which can be spoofed). [...]
[Answer 5.1:] Thx for the reply. Totally agree. But still, if you read the whitepaper (and I added a lot of qoutes) - you can clearly see that FOAM's narrative is "we are better than GPS".
No, guys. Nobody would stop using GPS or WiFi-positioning systems. If you are building a product that will ADD THE CRYPTO incentives to the beacon positioning systems (for stores or buildings) -> then your narrative should be different. Some kind of "we are better than your exisiting WiFi positioning systems, better than [this or that ]Beacon". [...]
[Answer 5.1.1 FOAM:] Hello from the FOAM team. Our whitepaper outlines our protocol as an alternative and backup to GPS. We do not see GPS being completely replaced by our protocol. GPS is a great tool, but it cannot be used to prove location because it can be easily spoofed. This makes it incompatible for use with smart contracts that require secure and automated location verification. Our Dynamic Proof of Location protocol aims to solve this problem.
Further GPS has other problems outlined in our whitepaper, such as indoor positioning and inaccuracy in dense urban areas. Our protocol also offers improvements to these problems.
[...]
[Answer 8:] I agree that FOAM is a probably scam... Trying to cover the planet with location verifiers is a blatant "boil the ocean" proposal. But I'm surprised that people don't see value in distributed consensus on object location, accessible in cryptographically verified format to a cryptocurrency. It seems to me that verification of real-world data is a major stumbling block for many smart-contract plans. [...]
[Answer 9:] Not sold on the project. The team does not have the solid technical expertise to execute this. The founder wasn't even in the tech space until recently. FOAM was going urban design projects until recently. Not sure how the company pivoted to decentralized GPS all of a sudden and gained expertise for something as complex as location.
Stay away from it!
[Answer 9.1 FOAM:] Hello, Ryan here, co-founder and CEO of FOAM.
I have been in the blockchain space for 4 years and we started FOAM in early 2015 before Ethereum launched to explore a Decentralized Architecture Office [...]
Additionally, our CTO Kristoffer was one of the first employees of ConsenSys in 2014, worked on the Haskell Ethereum client and was a founding member of Blockapps the Enterprise Ethereum company.
Further, we have a large developer team and our lead developer Martin Allen has been producing a number of fantastic ethereal tools and libraries [...]
We have been thinking about location and the blockchain through this time period.
Would love to hear your feedback on our whitepaper and why you are not sold.

From a first report published in April 2018 we got the following informations: "FOAM: Bridging Ethereum to the Real World
FOAM is a startup on Ethereum that is comprised of three elements: Crypto Spatial Coordinates (CSCs), the Proof of Location Protocol, and The Spatial Index. Each of these elements work together to provide Ethereum users with a greater ability to interoperate with the physical world.
[...]
The first element is the Crypto Spatial Coordinate. A CSC is created by encoding an Ethereum address with a geohash.
A geohash is a method of showing a location using a string of numbers and letters. For instance, most people are familiar with latitude and longitude coordinates: 50.129 degrees east, -110.301 degrees north shows us how far east and north something is from the Prime Meridian and Equator. These coordinates are used by GPS devices and map programs [...].
[...]
CSCs take a geohash and an Ethereum address, then apply some mathematical processes to them, and create a unique identifier for each location that allows it to be interacted with on the Ethereum blockchain.
CSCs will also have the option of being tied to radio beacons, which will provide location validation services. Users can stake FOAM Tokens (FT) in these CSCs, which will create incentives for honest reporting to maximize returns.
In order to expand the capabilities of CSCs, we're going to use the Proof of Location Protocol and the Spatial Index. [...]
[...]
The Proof of Location Protocol is the core project of FOAM: a trustless, independent, open, accountable and incentivized protocol that will secure the location data in a way that is not possible with GPS.
To understand why Proof of Location needs a "protocol", we need to look at the current location system used by devices today: GPS. GPS positioning is a receive only function on devices, which calculate the distance from at least 3 satellites (due to clock signal delays) in orbit around the earth.
GPS is incredibly easy to spoof [...]. This was especially abused by Pokemon Go players to reach hard to find Pokemon not generally in their geographical area. Cheaters were punished, if caught, but it's pretty obvious that if incentives as trivial as video game monster collection will cause cheating, implementing blockchains into location finding will be a huge target.
The Proof of Location Protocol is designed to incentivize honest reporters of location data. Just as Bitcoin's Proof of Work Protocol solved the Byzantine General problem for securing a ledger across untrusted random actors, FOAM's Proof of Location Protocol is designed to secure location reporting from untrusted random actors.
[...]
This protocol also incentivizes people to report more by placing more radio beacons to do more reporting. According to a [recent report], beacons placed in areas where they are the only beacon will mine FOAM tokens, creating the incentive for people to cover as many square miles as possible. For FOAM to work properly, as a base layer of authentication services, the tech needs to be ubiquitous. The Proof of Location Protocol will help make that a reality.
[...]
The Spatial Index is a "general purpose visual blockchain explorer" in which one can discover where CSCs are placed and active on a map. Described as the cross between [online] Maps and a [market information] Terminal, the Spatial Index allows users to visualize the information that is being presented by FOAM.
The Spatial Index also allows users to create and deploy CSCs as smart contracts.
The Spatial Index is much more than a graphical user interface for CSCs, however. In the long run, the Spatial Index will allow third party developers the ability to hook into the FOAM ecosystem and develop their own applications and uses on top of it. Imagine-the next Pokemon Go sensation could be run on the Ethereum blockchain, using the Spatial Index as a backend for trustless information. You could collect rare Cryptokitties by visiting certain locations [...]. A secure location system could also work as the backbone for a fleet of driverless cars. Since the Proof of Location Protocol and the Spatial Index are open sourced, anyone can develop on top of them, without having to ask permission.
Both enterprises and solo developers will be able to develop decentralized applications - dapps - on top of the FOAM ecosystem. This is the power of open development - FOAM creates the incentive system (Proof of Location Protocol) that promotes the placement of millions of radio beacons, and entrepreneurs find ways to utilize this in dapps that will make life better for people around the world.
[...]
FOAM's vision is to be the provider of location information for the blockchain [...]."

From a second report published in June 2018 we got the following informations: "Can FOAM replace GPS and Google maps with new geospatial standard for Ethereum blockchain?
[...]
The other monopolist GPS owned by US government and operated by the US Air Force serves as a main geospatial standard for many devices. GPS is centralized and controlled by [a] small group of people while the most accurate world clocks rely on it. Besides corruption threats, GPS could easily be tricked by some app like Fake GPS. There is too much at stake to be careless.
[...]
FOAM - the consensus-driven map of the World
What do a blockchain applications need to be connected to a map and to run Location-based decentralized services?
They need a protocol with secure, verified geospatial data to allow smart contracts to communicate with other smart contracts by using this protocol. So certain conditions will be accomplished depending on its location.
[...]
FOAM is an open protocol for decentralized services based on geospatial data. FOAM connects physical space with the blockchain, uniting the Ethereum power with a cryptographic software used to provide computational work and verification to the network. FOAM token economy motivates users to build a consensus-driven map of the World that every application can trust to.
There hasn't been such protocol before FOAM. FOAM brings geospatial standard to a blockchain that smart contracts can communicate to each other about location.
[...]
A new geospatial standard is enabling to deploy smart contracts for the effective functioning of different kinds of Dapps above FOAM standard.
Dapp - decentralized application running on the blockchain.
Many areas would benefit from using [the] FOAM protocol.
For example, supply chain industry and logistics would benefit from tracking of parcels and overall distributed manufacturing processes. Energy markets might use FOAM to store energy within the area and measure usage with higher-precision. Real estate would become less fraudulent due to blockchain ownership and document tracking. Also the future of the location-based games is going to be mesmerizing with FOAM.
[...]
[...] FOAM maps support user actions by rewarding with FOAM tokens which could be changed to any currency anytime.
TCR - Token-curated registries are decentrally curated lists with intrinsic economic incentives for token holders to curate the list's contents judiciously. Mike Goldin
FOAM token is used as TCR token to build highly relevant list for the protocol. In the FOAM case, the map is a list of places of the interest (POI) staked by FOAM TCR tokens and recorded to the FOAM protocol.
FAOM token holders become Cartographers, they can participate in a building of more precise, relevant and secure map of their area by curating, mapping and verifying locations of static objects using FOAM TCR token and earn FOAM token as well.
[...]
We can see that the decentralized maps will be very welcomed in the future, but they have their issues. Community driven maps data like OpenStreetMap can be edited by anyone without verifying. Decentralized maps also suffer from vandalism in it's all different forms.
FOAM has a solution - proof of location using FOAM TCR token. FOAM calls it Static Proof of Location. The goal of the FOAM is to create the most accurate and relevant map with the latest data.
FOAM TCR token model is an instrument against fraudulent actions by making the act of vandalism nonprofitable and risky for dirty players.
FOAM Consensus driven map of the World consists of the Places Of Interest which are added by candidates and approved by cartographers as a result of the voting process.
[...]
In Static Proof of Location, the only way to get tokens is beside purchasing them on exchanges is to participate in challenges and to be on the winning side.
There are three roles in Static Proof of location.
A user - the one who uses the map.
A candidate - the one who wants to add the point with certain geospatial data to the map.
A cartographer - the one decides if the point is relevant for the list.
[...]
Proof Of Use - Cartographers (i.e. FOAM token holders) will be required to add one geographic point of interest to the FOAM by applying to the token curated registry with the minimum deposit of 10 FOAM tokens.
[...]
Next step is to implement Dynamic Proof of location. FOAM zone operators will manage the red of decentralized beacons that will offer secure location services through time synchronization. FOAM Zone operators receive network fee and reward in FOAM tokens providing their services comparable to work of Bitcoin miners.
Further, in the future, your cryptokitties or your ID could be connected to the FOAM map. To make it possible the team is going to implement Non-fungible token (NFT) within protocol that is also trending now.
Non-fungible - Non substitutable, standard protocol for Ethereum is ERC721 token."

From another website we got the following highly interesting information: "Joseph Lubin [] Founder of ConsenSys, a company that develops applications and utilities for the next-generation decentralized web and co-founder of Ethereum. Nov 30, 2017
Announcing "The Brooklyn Project" for Token Launches
[...]
I'm reaching out to let you know that ConsenSys is launching "The Brooklyn Project," a company and industry-wide initiative to help fulfill the promise of tokenization by addressing head-on and - we hope - solving the issues that some regulators and others have raised over the last year regarding token launches.
[...]
Tokens are built on a next-generation globally-shared database infrastructure - the Ethereum blockchain - that facilitates trustworthy, fair, and frictionless operations."
As we said all the time, blockchain-based systems are Distributed DataBase Management Systems (DDBMSs), as can also be seen with the attempt of sharding the Ethereum blockchain platform.

With the latest activities and projects the whole Ethereum platform has been convicted to be serious criminal once again and that it only wants to steal our original and unique, iconic and therefore copyrighted works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, both created by C.S., with which we are already there since November 2006, obviously.
In this respect, we would like to recall that

• basic properties
  • reflective, and
  • validated and verified, and by the reflective property validating and verifying,
• Caliber/Calibre,
• Distributed System (DS)
  • High Performance and High Productivity Computing System (HP²CS)
    • cluster computing,
  • Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing, and
  • grid computing, cloud computing, and edge computing,
• SoftBionics (SB) with its subfields
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI),
  • Machine Learning (ML),
  • Computer Vision (CV), and
  • Swarm Computing (SC) (see also the related links in the section Exotic Operating System of the webpage Links to Software of the website of OntoLinux),
• 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) protocol,
  • Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method,
  • smart contract protocol, or
  • blockchain technique,
• network of telescopes,
• IDentiy and Access Management System (IDAMS), and
• Digital Rights Management (DRM), which is a set of Access Control (AC) technologies,
• Electronic Payment System (EPS),
• Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded Systems (NES),
• Electronic Game Environments (EGEs)
  • Video Game Environments (VGEs), including
    • game engines,
• Multi Global Positioning System (MultiGPS), which can also be rooted by our network of telescopes and its specific utilization (see the related list point below) for solving the issue with the missing origin literally at the root,
• OntoGlobe and OntoEarth (see also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 23rd of September 2017),
• mesh network (see the OntoLix and OntoLinux Website update of the 21st of August 2017 and the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 16th of August 2018), 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-based system the short result of this short investigation is that there is not the slightest doubt that the one or more responsible entities behind FOAM have copied our Intellectual Property (IP), and that FOAM merely read our publications, stole the related part from our Ontologic System (OS), which by the way already includes

• Multi Global Positioning System (MultiGPS),
• MapCloud Computing system, and
• OntoGlobe and OntoEarth software components,

and

and promoted it as its own creation since around 1 year.
But much more important is the fact that validated and verified location is a substantially similar expression of ideas that C.S. presented with the

which are essential foundations of our OS and therefore essential and significant parts of the original and unique, characteristic expression of the personal intellectual creation and work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..
In addition, with our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) you get that all without a cryptocurrency.

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 the company are bold and deliberately conducted

of our formalized SOPR.

As we said before, our OS is the only legal platform (see also the note 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

FOAM is a fraud anyway. In fact, it is only mimicking C.S. and our corporation and 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, Filecoin, NeuroChain, and AIKON 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 see once again the 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 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.

11:18 UTC+2
Attention: Fraud with our OS

*** Work in progress ***
Do not invest your money in the blockchain platform FOAM and do not build any applications and services on top of FOAM. 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:

16.September.2018

12:30 UTC+2
SOPR #141

*** Work in progress - links to former isssues missing ***
Topics:

Review of former SOPR issues
Somehow, we were not sure anymore if we have already found the right balance between freedom and support of users and companies on the one hand and regulation of their duties on the other hand.
We often take the online auction sale platform eBay as comparison, but there is a significant difference between eBay and its customers or business partners on the one side and the SOPR and its members on the other side: No store-within-a-store or shop-in-shop respectively webpage-within-the-eBay-website runs an online auction.

We remembered that we already have regulations that makes the consideration about system, application, and service vs. infrastructure obsolete to a large extent (see issues #... of the ... and also #138 of the 28th of August 2018 and #139 of the 4th of September 2018).
But the point is that the customers of our customers and business partners, respectively the members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) are our customers as well and that the customers, business partners, or members of our SOPR have to do the accounting and billing for the SOPR, which is a condition made in relation with the License Model (LM). Accordingly, members of our SOPR must have two accounting systems:

When we take eBay as example once again then the share is not 10% of 10% of the overall revenue of a second online auction sale platform (customer of eBay) within a first online auction sale platform (eBay) but 10% of the second online auction sale platform.
Please do not confuse this.

So we can go on as decided before and also correct related SOPR issues of the last weeks if and where required.

Blockchain platforms
Under the view taken in the preceeding paragraph, the operation of arbitrary blockchain platforms are allowed if they comply with the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR, which means they must hook into our SOPR ledger and use the digital currencies accredited or issued by our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank).
Even the blockchain platform Ethereum is entitled to create a subsection of our SOPR ledger as distributed ledger derived from it, which differs from the related procedure of the so-called Decentralized Web a little, for example by being legal (see also the related note Blockchain fraud will come to an end #1 of the 8th of May 2018 and the issue #130 of the 29th of July 2018). :)

Global Positioning System 3
In the next months, the deployment of the U.S.American Global Positioning System of the third generation (GPS 3) will begin and responsible persons said that GPS 3 is on a "whole new level" "with three times better accuracy and up to eight times improved anti-jamming capabilities".
At this point we would like to give the reminder that we will fund the U.S. Army by taxes and not accept a double funding by unlicensed use of our Intellectual Properties (IPs). Correspondingly, in the case that the GPS 3 is based on our Ontologic System (OS), our Ontoscope (Os), our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), or a combination of our original and unique works, then

are considered to be OS, Os, OAOS, or a combination of them and have to be licensed in accordance with the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR.

20.September.2018

Investigations::Multimedia

*** Proof-reading mode ***

• Linux
  • Google Android,
• Apple Mac OS, iOS, and WatchOS, and
• Microsoft Windows,

• grid computing, cloud computing, and edge computing systems, and
• programming language IBM X10,

• blockchain-based systems and
• distributed ledgers,

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

• Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Computer Vision (CV),
• Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM) system,
• Cognitive Vision (CogV),
• Cognitive Software Agent System (CSAS),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• Swarm Computing (SC),
• etc.,

In a thread of discussion in its mailing list for developers we could read the following:
"Supporting what you want to requires using non blocking connectors and implementing the blocking in the rumprun component similar to interrupt handling.
If you look at this rumprun kernel module: [The function library for standard input/output] librumpsel4_stdio [...] has an example of blocking a rumprun thread implemented by using notification objects and shared memory to do synchronous calls to another seL4 component. (It's not in [the seL4 components] camkes however, just calling back to the root task). You may be able to use it for inspiration. The rumprun thread blocks on a rumpkernel synchronisation primitive after notifying the other seL4 process. The response from the other process is passed through via the same mechanism as hardware interrupts where the interrupt thread will wake up the rumprun thread from within the rumpkernel.
The other approach you mention of using multiple seL4 threads requires adding multicore support to rumprun unikernel which is likely going to be harder than implementing a new seL4 rump kernel platform layer that has multicore support designed in from the start.
We've been looking into adding better mixed-threading-model component support in Camkes as we have requirements to build CakeML components which are single threaded. Some of these new mechanisms could end up being used to better create rumprun Camkes connectors, but there are no concrete plans at this stage."

For sure, because L4 is a microkernel the drivers run in user space and asynchronous, non-blocking, exception-less operating system functions in user space is an original and unique part of our OS as well, as discussed in relation with the plagiarisms

Interestingly,

What is required and also suggested here is to make the Rump Kernels approach asynchronous, as stolen with the libaio library of the Linux kernel, potentially by adapting that single-threaded solution based on notifications, which would prove our allegation in that relation as well as a side effect, but also in user space and give the seL4 a new core architecture based on e.g. the actor model (concurrency), multi-threading, and active objects (see also Apertos (Muse) and also TUNES OS), which are unique and original, essential, significant, and substantial element respectively basic property of our Ontologic System and not only its OntoCore component, or simply said copyrighted due to the causal link.

We would also like to give the additional informations that the

• has been developed by the
  • University of Cambridge and University of Kent, both U.K., with the financial support of the Gates Cambridge Trust at the University of Cambridge and the Royal Society, both U.K., and
  • National Information and Communications Technology Centre of Excellence Australia (NICTA) through the funding by the Australian Government through the Department of Communications and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence Program,
• is a verified implementation of a significant subset of the functional programming language Standard ML, with
  • type-checking,
  • incremental and dynamic compilation,
  • garbage collection,
  • arbitrary precision arithmetic, and
  • compiler bootstrapping,

  and

  • an ecosystem of proofs and tools built around the language,
• obviously and doubtlessly included in the related part of our Ontologic System by its foundational design with the basic properties, specifically of (mostly) being
  • reflective,
  • validated and verified, and
  • proof-carrying,

  and the overall integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and the Ontologic System Components (OSC), like the OntoBot component based on Poplog, which already includes ML, Prolog with constraint solver used by us for proof-carrying and type-checking, incremental and dynamic compilation, etc., and

• therefore also constitutes a copyright infringement (see the document titled CakeML: A verified implementation of ML, 2014).

  Also compare these features of CakeML with the issue of the programming language X10 of the company IBM (see the Clarification of the 4th of June 2018, the Investigations::Multimedia of the 7th of June 2018, and the related results in the ... of the ... 2018), which has all the missing features and support of multi-threading and multi-core as well.

Bingo!!! At this point, it can be seen that

Finally, outsmarted and those two daydreamers will not help here anymore, because they are already busted together with the supporting entities, such as federal research institutions and agencies. :)

Unbelievable but true:

• continued with copying the combination of the validated and verified L4 microkernel and component-based operating systems,
• stole the show with the seL4 microkernel and its mathematical proof of correctness, but that was only possible for them because they selected this totally retrograde operating system architecture with only single synchronous processes with only one thread, which is now the foundational problem that demands a completely new architecture that is part of our OS architecture, and also
• copied the adaption of hardware device drivers of operating systems based on the Linux kernel and the Unix kernel, specifically the operating systems based on the BSD Unix kernel and the so-called Rump kernel in the latter case. It also tried to steal our Intellectual Properties (IPs) and show with file systems and other works found on the website of our OS OntoLinux, such as the control of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).
• The first activities, where we were able to show a causal link with our OS, were the
  • constraint solver (see the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 16th of December 2017)
  • validation and verification of a simple operating system (see the note Preliminary investigation of University of Washington and DARPA started of the 23rd of January 2018).
• Now, we can also see that the NICTA has stolen even more from our OS, such as for example the CakeML together with the University of Cambridge, U.K., University of Kent, U.K., et al..

But there is also another detail: The constraint solver also fits with the X10 programming language of IBM, because it is exactly the first part that IBM has stolen from our OS as well (see once again the Clarification of the 4th of June 2018, the Investigations::Multimedia of the 7th of June 2018, and the related results in the ... of the ... 2018).

Needless to say, that all these activities prove

• our allegations even in both cases on the one hand and
• the originality and uniquness of our works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, both created by C.S., on the other hand.

So much about trust and resilience.

Please

• implementing elements of our OS
• deploying said elements of our OS under licenses that are not accredited by us, and
• supporting others in breaching the laws and infringing our rights,

and

You are more than 15 years too late, and the operating system Genode and other developments in this field will not solve the problems because they have also significant technical and legal deficits.
Period.
•

21.September.2018

20:xy andd 21:27 UTC+2
Website update

In relation with the latest issue of the National Information and Communications Technology Centre of Excellence Australia (NICTA) and the research network of the Data61 of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (see the Investigations::Multimedia of yesterday) our interest was directed to the functional programming language CakeML and we added a related section for convenience of our fans and readers.

Oh, the hole is also much more deeper here than we thought at first.

22.September.2018

07:02 and 07:24 UTC+2
Website update

In relation with the latest issue of the Australian CSRIO or Data61 research institutes (see the Investigations::Multimedia of 21st of September 2018) our interest was directed to the notification system based on shared memory instead of interrupt handling, which means the seL4 microkernel and the related component system Camkas, specifically their Inter-Process Communication (IPC), are based on an exception-less system call mechanism, which again is a feature of a kernel-less operating system, which again together with a capability-based operating system is an orignal and unique, essential feature of our OS, which again means that seL4 with CAmkES constitute a copyright infringement at least since the Rump Kernels were added, and we added a related section for convenience of our fans and readers as well as the demand to remove all infringing matter.

24.September.2018

06:38 and 10:44 UTC+2
Clarification

*** Work in progress - better wording, some links might be missing ***

As in the case of the simpler proof that the cryptographically secured distributed data store part of cryptocurrencies is included in our Ontologic System (OS) (see the Clarification of the 22nd of July 2018 and the Website update of the 30th of July 2018), we also have a much simpler proof for the inclusion of their consensus protocoll part. In fact, consensus protocols, like for example the Proof of Work (PoW) protocol, are very similar to the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) middleware system, which has been

In this relation, keep in mind that

• used to "keep track of how much CPU time [the volunteers] have donated to various distributed computing projects [and ...]
• designed to eliminate cheating by validating results before granting credit on projects",

• based on the BOINC platform and
• also classified as Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing systems and applications,

and

• basic properties of (mostly) being
  • reflective, and
  • validated and verified, and by the reflective property validating and verifying,

  and

• integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

Obviously, our OS integrates both parts and hence also includes the foundation of cryptocurrencies, like for example Bitcoin, so to say as a Proof@home, Consensus@home, and Coin@home (see also 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 14 months, but the creation of our OS took several years.

Website update
We have updated the Clarification of the 22nd of July 2018 by adding the list point grid computing due to the reasons explained in the Clarification of today, which addresses also the combination or integration of grid computing systems with the blockchain technique.

25.September.2018
OntoLix and OntoLinux Website update
On the webpage about the Roboverse we made out of the underlined term Ontoverse the hyperlink Ontoverse.

26.September.2018
Comment of the Day
Moderator system™
Changing things for the best™

OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps
We worked on our telepathy-based system, which allows the transmission of information between multiple agents and cyborgs without using any known human sensory channels.

Furthermore, we also introduced a moderator system in addition to the recommender system, which both are based on the conversational dialog system. A moderation system works like a discussion and game moderator, whose role is to

• organizer,
• officiant for regarding rules,
• arbitrator, and
• enforcer of the rules,

• voice-based systems,
• agent-based systems, specifically
  • Cognitive Agent Systems (CASs),
  • Virtual Assistants (VAss), and
  • Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs) or Personal Intelligent Systems (PIAs),
• cyborgs, and
• human end users.

Ontonics Further steps
We have begun with the preparation of the

in our OntoBot component, specifically in its part related to the

as part of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), as well as our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) platform based on them (see also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of today).

In the next steps, the mounting and summoning of systems based on other modalities, such as systems based on

will follow in accordance with our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and its related Ontologic System Components (OSC), and our Ontoscope architecture and all its sensors.

In the beginning, an end entity (e.g. end user) only needs to install a rudimentary OntoBot app or another app for the SOPR platform for

For sure, similar apps have to be

in accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR, because this functionality belongs to the infrastructure of the ON, OW, and OV (see for example the issue SOPR #139 of the 4th of September 2018).

29.September.2018
Comment of the Day
"[...] sufficiently original combination [of otherwise unprotectable [...] elements ...]", [Judge Richard Anthony Paez, 28th of September 2018]
For sure, judge Richard A. Paez said this in relation with the copyright law, specifically in relation with the case of Spirit vs. Led Zeppelin.

30.September.2018
Blockchain fraud will come to an end #6
From the official website of the so-called Blockchain Game Alliance we got the following statement: "Convinced that this breakthrough technology brings numerous new benefits to the whole ecosystem, from developers to players, we provide an open forum for all stakeholders to share knowledge and collaborate on research that foster new ways to create and play games. Our ultimate goal is to help spread the integration of Blockchain by developing common standards and best practices."

The foundational technologies utilized by the Blockchain Game Alliance are parts of our original and unique, iconic work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., obviously, definitely, and doubtlessly.
Therefore, we have to make clear that the related provisions of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) published in the issues #130 of the 29th of July 2018 and #141 of the 16th of September 2018 have to be respected, which means they are only legal when done on our SOPR platform, also obviously, definitely, and doubtlessly (see also other related issues).

Btw.: If "games are art, not mass-produced things, and that's how they need to be made", [Hideki Kamiya, 2018], then our Ontologic System and our Ontoscope have to be viewed and respected in the same way, as works of art.

Also intersting is the statement of the Chairman und Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company FedEx, who has promoted the technology in public appearances and explained to the audience in May 2018 that it "has the potential to totally revolutionize that what is beyond the frontier." Obviously, the whole potential cannot be achieved only with blockchain-based systems but with our Ontologic System, which therefore must be this revolutionary validated and verified, validating and verifiying, and trust building thing that he meant eventually, also obviously, definitely, and doubtlessly (see also for example the webpage Caliber/Calibre of the website of our Ontologic System OntoLinux).