Hello everyone.
I would like to say I am hopeful about this post, my first on Steemit after coming over from my own blog at btczero.org. I have been in this space a short amount of time compared to most of you, but I assure you I could not be more hopeful and bullish about the future. Bitcoin is revolutionary and the platforms and apps that have come forth have given me a vision of things I never thought possible in my lifetime. A word of warning, a lot of people have come after me over my hypotheses and working theories of the crypto space. I do not write these things to offend anyone. I am merely sharing my research and what I believe to be beneficial to other outsiders (non-developers) who come along. I think what I have found and shared only helps the adoption and growth of this decentralized technology. I spread the word because I believe in it.
I wrote at my blog about Mastercoin, the modern day Omni Layer which issued Tether as asset "31" on its protocol back in 2014. By tracing through numerous happenings on the block explorer all the way back to Mastercoin's Exodus Address (1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P) on the BTC Blockchain we can see how exactly Tether came to be and help explain what is going on with its current collapse.
I will try to retrace this from the beginning of Mastercoin (known as OMNI today) at the Exodus Address all the way to the creation of Tether (USDT). Using Blockcypher's incredibly accurate block explorer in addition to Omni's I have done some interesting investigative accounting.
Mastercoin (MSC)/OMNI (Omni Layer Asset Number 1)
Issuer: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P
Creation: Officially August 31, 2013 (but first tx was a test on July 31, 2013)
First Tx on Bitcoin (BTC) at Blockchain.com: Link
Raw Tx on Omni Layer Explorer: https://api.omniexplorer.info/v1/property/1
The picture above is the Raw Tx on Omni Layer's Explorer for the creation of Mastercoin, now OMNI. Since Omni Layer is built on top of Bitcoin (BTC), we must go to the Bitcoin block explorer at Blockchain.com to find the record of "creationtxid" from the info above. The transaction of record can be found on BTC's explorer, but you have to put it in manually because the transaction does not exist at the "Exodus Address" where Mastercoin/OMNI supposedly was issued from. You can find the creationtxid here.
The data shows that there are Newly Generated Coins from this Mastercoin/OMNI "creationtxid" - but there are no BTC there, yet.
The amazing part about this is that I have discussed this transaction "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" many times in my writing as the true coinbase transaction of Bitcoin. If you care to read about that in depth you can explorer my various findings related to the matter on btczero.org. I found that through raw block data, Devcoin's raw blocks produce Newly Generated Coins on BTC's ledger and also found the record of the true Bitcoin coinbase transaction in my Devcoin QT Wallet's debug log when first booting it up:
To understand why this is the coinbase transaction for Bitcoin one must first know what a coin actually is. Libcoin wiki was very helpful in describing that for me:
If you look at the record of this transaction I found via Devcoin's debug log, you will see how it fits the standard of "COIN" by definition (it has a record of COutPoint - which is the coinbase tx). The COutPoint from Devcoin's coinbase tx matches the creationtxid for Mastercoin/OMNI. The source of value in Devcoin as well as the entire Omni Layer began at the transaction "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000". This is truly remarkable. However, the transaction now isn't fully available on BTC's explorer at Blockchain.com. What goes forward can be cut off from being broadcast and I believe that is what happened here. It could also be reworded to say part of this transaction record is "pruned" and not found on Blockchain.com. Other block explorers may not even have record of this transaction because they communicate information and recognize information differently.
Blockcypher, which is a 99.99% uptime Bitcoin (BTC) block explorer shows the original Bitcoin "genesis block 0" has moved to Block 1. Blockcypher does not even show a Block 0 on it's explorer - rather just denotes the previous hash (which would be for a new Block 0/genesis block). The previous hash for the Bitcoin genesis block is universally recognized on both Blockchain.com and Blockcypher as:
"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
The "genesis block of Bitcoin" is moved to Block 1 (BTC) on Blockcypher but retains the same previous block as Blockchain.com's Block 0. The same data from Blockchain.com's Bitcoin genesis block is seen now at Blockcypher's BTC Block 1 (an exact match):
So the previous hash of Bitcoin's first genesis block "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" that we have thought was irrelevant for so long has actually moved Block 0 for Bitcoin (BTC) to Block 1. Bitcoin is yet to record its true genesis, which would date back to the genesis of Devcoin via the COutPoint (backed by both Bitcoin block explorer data and Libcoin wiki definition of a coin).
Sparing you the exact details (please visit btczero.org where I expand on all of this), I will remind you I have found Devcoin raw blocks produce Bitcoins that show up on BTC ledgers and Devcoin raw transactions on top of those raw blocks seem to create tokens (50,000 per block) which are what we may buy as "Devcoin" on exchanges and send to Devcoin wallets. Devcoin has a unique function in creating its DVC on top of blocks that send off Bitcoins to BTC where they are mistaken for "Newly Generated Coins" on many different BTC addresses. These addresses are found in Devcoin raw blocks and look like this in the DVC explorer:
This is the only coin I have found making these type of transactions and as explained in my blog article they meet up at certain addresses with a BTC hash 160 that matches up to a "12.5 BTC" block reward being minted on other merge mined chains. I have proven how an address found on both DVC and I0C raw blocks meet up on the BTC ledger. They have issued OP_RETURN scripts with those transactions of "12.5 coins" and my hypothesis is that anything Devcoin produced can match with an output from I0C at the "OP_Hash160" on a I0C raw block which meets a pubkey found on both DVC raw blocks and BTC explorers. For proof of I0C involvement just read this article from my blog at btczero.
This function of raw transactions (producing DVC) and raw blocks (producing Bitcoins) should be thought of tokenization of the original coinbase output (COutPoint). DVC makes Bitcoins and tokenizes them with its own larger DVC raw transaction output in the same block. This process reminds me of tokenization off of Ethereum (ETH). It wasn't until recently long time participants in Devcoin on bitcointalk.org began talking about ICO-like functions using Devcoin. Another amazingly interesting incidence and what I suspect is not a coincidence can be found at this tweet tying Devcoin to "Eth" (Ether).
This could possibly be a combination chain of what we know as Bitcoin and anything else that came from the Devcoin coinbase tx (COutPoint). I will not discuss Ethereum or Ethereum Classic in detail here but I have covered it many times on my blog. Just see below for where the original "Ethereum" chain, Ethereum Classic started at ETC's Block 0 (parent block for ETC is the equivalent of previous block for BTC):
Because Mastercoin/OMNI began at the same transaction/block it means that the second genesis of Bitcoin would have began at Devcoin and went through both ETC, ETH, BTC, and created the Omni Layer with Mastercoin/OMNI.
Review:
Tether came as an offshoot of Mastercoin on the Omni Layer. Where would you think Tether (USDT) begins?
On October 6, 2014 Tether (USDT) was issued on the Omni Layer. What stands out to me is that the raw data looks very different from issuance of Mastercoin/OMNI:
The first thing that stands out is the amount issued is said to be "0" in what one would assume to be USDT tokens. There are "issuances" on the bottom but one might wonder what exactly is being issued. I found it interesting that Tether has an issuer address from a Bitcoin script public key (3MbYQMMmSkC3AgWkj9FMo5LsPTW1zBTwXL) at and not a Bitcoin legacy key like the Mastercoin/OMNI coin issuer at its "Exodus Address" (1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P).
As I started to explain in the picture above, the raw data "creationtxid" from Tether issuance on Omni Layer's explorer can be found on BTC's Blockchain.com explorer. It is interesting that the issuer of Tether acts as an input and an output of this transaction. Another output is the Mastercoin/OMNI "Exodus Address" which is also unspent. The creation transaction of Tether also has 3 unspent outputs that are not for 0 BTC, and unable to be decoded.
(This linked post is from the purple text in the above image, "markm" explaining DVC's value as 1/1000 BTC)
Using Blockcypher we can get raw data on BTC for the Tether "creationtxid" and it matches with scripts from Blockchain.com's block explorer while revealing what was "unable to be decoded" in the Blockchain.com outputs:
The information continues below:
The information above is complex and over my head at the moment. I would just like to note the following from it:
What you should take from this is that there is some unfinished activity set to go on in this transaction
Lastly, lets go back to the Omni Layer raw block data for Tether's issuance and check out one of the 'issuances' that are referred to as "grants" - they show up on BTC at the "txid" but the amounts are in BTC and do not match the Tether portion seen on Omni's explorer. The BTC Portion of this transaction is shown on Blockchain.com here.
At the bottom of the page, the first tx is for 0 BTC and features an OP_RETURN bitcoin script. This script is said to be the smart contract function of Omni Layer and it is the only part of the transaction denoted "unspent" but it is not there for no reason. A look at Blockcypher's raw blocks of this first "grant" tx can be found here.
According to Blockcypher a value of 700,000 satoshi was enough to create "25000000" in possible Tether. However, if the amount of Tether issued was "0" as shown in Omni Layer's raw data of the Tether creation tx, then an OP_RETURN might be attached to right a few wrongs (or mend all of the issued Tether back into Bitcoin?). It surely is confusing, but these transactions are backed by BTC (700,000 satoshi's here). So Tether can be said to have been issued off BTC.
The creation of Tether is shown on BTC explorers with 5 unspent outputs, whereas "grants" or Tether token issuances are shown to be backed by Bitcoin's at the bottom of the Tether creation tx on Omni explorer. What may have happened is Tether was never backed, but issued off of BTC's value. If an output in the creationtxid for Tether includes an output to the Exodus address and the Exodus Address created Mastercoin/OMNI off the coinbase tx (which has yet to occur for BTC or is cut off being broadcast) this is a situation of organized chaos.
My best working hypothesis is that the source of value for Mastercoin is the coinbase and the value is not high on OMNI tokens (yet much higher than Devcoin) because the Omni Layer will merge itself back with the coinbase at one point when Tether is no longer needed, when stablecoins are not needed. All of these tokens go back to the same coinbase tx as Devcoin, so all tokens could be merging back with Devcoin and through Devcoin, with BTC (seen in Devcoin raw blocks).
If Tether transactions have an OP_RETURN script but the other non-zero outputs are spent, we need to look at the reason this "null-data" transaction was sent with each issuance of Tether tokens. With the total amount of Tether supposedly "0" there's a part of me that says Tether should not actually exist. Having an OP_RETURN code on its "grants" of tokens showing up on BTC also comes with a value of 700,000 satoshi's for 25,000,000 possible USDT tokens. If that was read as $25 M USD for 700,000 satoshi that could give you an idea of Bitcoin's end game, but I have no proof. That would seem outrageous in the present.
The definition of OP_RETURN is that the transaction should be invalid. What could happen is all Tether transactions are market invalid and the value in $USD comes back from Tether to Bitcoin. In 2014, 700K satoshi was not worth what 700K in satoshi is worth today - far from it. If all of these transactions become invalid and then the transaction proceeds to be paid back to the "Exodus Address" it has a route to go home to the original COutPoint and create a genesis block that connects all of the coins and tokens discussed here to Bitcoin Block 0, Devcoin genesis - creating one Bitcoin with a dual function as a coin and the tokens/Devcoins and layers built off of it.
Again, this is some insane math and scripting but the raw data points to the eventual merging of one, super-functioning Bitcoin. Tether will be gone soon, and it doesn't even need to happen on exchanges. This can automatically be executed by enabling certain bitcoin scripts. We can already see the events and how they are supposed to be played out in the future through raw data and code. This is why I am so very bullish on Bitcoin despite the day-to-date drama and irrelevance in the news cycle.
This article has already gone far enough for something that may be moderated and deleted, but I have faith Steemit will leave it up, uncensored. For a far more in-depth explanation read this late August 2018 blog entry about Devcoin, BTC's future as Bitcoin, the Omni Layer, and Tether. Tether is just a piece to the entire puzzle in my honest opinion - as much more value is connected to the COutPoint hash discussed in this article. The COutPoint is from the coinbase tx itself.
Currently, I believe we are seeing the first part of phasing out Tether and the beginnings of a main network Bitcoin from sources that I have explained in this article. Merge mining is about merging and coming together. The 'fork' may just be a name change and a tweak in some of the code for different bitcoin "forks" yet, Devcoin has repositories that go all the way back to 2009.
What someone says is not code or data. A widely repeated saying in the space is "Do Your Own Research (DYOR)" and I choose to follow through with that. Securing Bitcoin this way secures the future while providing fair opportunity to cash in as an outsider. It doesn't even cost one more than one satoshi at DVC's current price to get a coin that generates Bitcoins every single day.
If Bitcoin began intact and prepared for everything as we have heard from Satoshi himself, perhaps it was deconstructed to securely offer the public a chance to see its true value. I like to believe that and I back that belief with facts. I can only thank those who left such information to people on the outside of development, like me, because I believe this is the beginning of the decentralized internet itself.
When Tim Berners-Lee proposed what he would invent as 'the web' in March 1989, it resulted in a process where he gave its code away free for all to develop on. The late 1990's internet bubble happened, people swore the internet was 'dead' by 2001, but since then, it recovered. In its recovery a few tech companies have monopolized the internet, but the web can still become decentralized enough to take back control. Bitcoin is all about decentralized control of wealth, space, identity, and so much more. A new decentralized economy will form as a result - but it has begun already with Bitcoin, even if the final product is not ready yet.
I think Berners-Lee intended for this all along and I am glad to see him working on Solid with Bitmark/Bitcoin developers - which gives me hope that the integration of Bitcoin and decentralized web goes hand in hand.
Tim Berners-Lee has been on staff or involved at MIT since the late 1990's and coincidentally that is where I found the first ever, internet reference of "Satoshi Nakamoto" on a MIT database where his PGP Key resides, with a date from 2004 and two dates from 2008. I am not here to "out" Satoshi, but to not make mention of this now would be foolish. It's definitely possible.
Ask yourself, what is a coin? Where does a Bitcoin get its value from?
I do not believe Bitcoin needs stable coins in its future. It will just eat fiat and grow.
Follow me 
