Bitcoin Forum

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof?  ::)

What proof could he have? I guess he could sign a message using a key from the genesis block, stating that Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Even then, this is not definitive. Control of a private key does not prove your identity. For example, it's possible for "Satoshi" to sign such a message from the genesis block coinbase address key, and for Craig Wright also to sign a message using the same key.

What would that prove? :)

Control of the early wallets or his original PGP key would be the best as a proof. There is nothing else that could do it better.
If somebody comes up with either one, he would destroy the rest of a good reputation, that Craig Wright might still have.

Satoshi Satoshi Satoshi How long do we plan to discuss this topic? I suppose till the time when the identity of this person will not be uncovered by BBC or other historical channel. But let's come back to your idea. If so, it may be supposed that it is just profitable to Satoshi to stay incognito and even better that some other person is acting like "yes, Satoshi is me". But let's not forget that Satoshi Nakomoto is just a nik from the internet. Who is behind this nik is a mystery.

No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why)

Then SN would give his PGP keys to CW to definitely silence the people that wanted a cryptographic proof.

To me it's not obvious. Please explain.

He was about to give proof that he was the real Satoshi. He once announced that he will move some of Satoshi's coins (which were mined in 2009 and not moved since). But later he went back on his promise, saying that he risked arrest from law enforcement agencies, if he prove that he was the real Satoshi.

Reality is: He can't, because he doesn't have control over any of Satoshi's keys.

His "proof" was just a copy of signature from an early Bitcoin transaction rumored to be made by Satoshi. There's no need for the real Satoshi to come and expose Wright. Craig Wright did it just to get attention, and argument that he is Satoshi is now used by big block trolls to misguide newbies into supporting their shitcoins, which tells us a lot about big blockers. IMO we won't hear about Satoshi again, because his presence would hurt Bitcoin - he wanted decentralized, self-regulating community, which achieves consensus on its own. If he stayed as benevolent dictator, some people would argue that Bitcoin is not really decentralized - kinda like Ethereum is now.

I have no problem with SN hiding and I don't care about his real identity.
Now I do care about people with an obviously great influence on some key figures, that claim to be the creator of Bitcoin and fail to show a proof to their claims.

Well according to some blockchain analysts (https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/), Satoshi is sitting on billions of US dollars worth of Bitcoin.
If I was them, I wouldn't risk any possibility of being traced. This includes making a post on the internet or really doing anything online that involves that username.

So you would never spend a satoshi from your wealth and keep hiding? Then what would you do this for?

Of course that's the case.

https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-david-kleiman-was-satoshi-nakamoto-heres-why/

1. When Dorian Nakamoto was suspected to be SN, Satoshi Nakamoto's P2P Foundation account posted its first message in five years, stating: "I am not Dorian Nakamoto."

http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=504715.0

2. Before CW, many people have been suspected to be SN, but apart from CW not one claimed that they were Satoshi and he miserably failed at proving this claim.

Now Satoshi could have posted a similar message on P2P foundation about CW, but he didn't. Why? Assumptions, maybe SN is dead and CW knows about it, maybe computer forensics analyst David Kleiman was SN. CW made a fool of himself and SN let a fool remain a fool, why correct a fool ;D

Satoshi had always wanted to remain anonymous and suddenly one day CW claiming himself to be Satoshi and wanting publicity, failing to provide any public cryptographic proof, too much of a stretch.

CW would remain an impersonator until he proves otherwise.

Makes sense, but why did they set up this obv. failed proof show with Gavin then?

The government may want to question you and keep you on watch if you made something that could replace the currency they're built on.

We will never know if CW is really Satoshi. Even if he WOULD have moved Satoshi's coins - that doesn't prove anything, the private key might have been stolen and stuff.
Anyway, even if he is Satoshi, what does it change? Satoshi has morphed into so many new identities over the years, that it doesn't matter so much who was the real person behind that name

It's likely that satoshi's P2P foundation account was hacked.  If you read through his original thread about Bitcoin (http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/m/discussion?id=2003008%3ATopic%3A9402), you can see that later in the year when he posted that comment, his account warned satoshi that information was being sold on the darknet.

At a similar time, theymos also made a thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0) claiming to have received a suspicious email from satoshi's email account.

These services are things that are relatively easy to hack if you're talking about a major figure.  Satoshi did not sign a message with his post about not being Dorian Nakamoto.

---

In the past, plenty of other people have made similar claims without reasonable proof.  Without basically torturing him, there's no way to tell what Craig Wright knows.  But it's an interesting piece of speculation for sure.

The gov. should know (as Satoshi should also know btw), that he can't change the bitcoin system to a gov friendly system. It will not be accepted by the Bitcoin community. He has one voice as every developer has. He wouldn't be in danger only because he created a code he can't change anymore. He might be in danger because of the potential money that he holds, but a burn address would delete this problem as well.

I see where you're coming from, burning the bitcoin would be a solution.
It's possible they just don't want to have to deal with the issues that arise after burning is done (and they reveal their identity w/ proof).

All I'm thinking of is all the bitcoins Satoshi have. Goodness, he cant die before we see movement in those wallets. It would be a bummer if he is really dead.

what would we get from knowing the truth on who really is satoshi, i mean were not going to be a media interviewing him and knowing about everything including the name of his dog(if he even have one).
I think it would be better if we dont know the real identity of satoshi, it makes him much more cooler. :)

Why do you think that ? satoshi is not dead, Nick szabo is satoshi nakamoto

or perhaps he just knows the real satoshi will never reveal himself, which is a pretty good bet.

SN doesn't need to reveal himself to prove CW a lying bastard.

It is quite possible. Some $4 billion worth of Bitcoins are locked up in Satoshi's wallets. I hope that the private keys are lost forever. Else, if someone dumps all that coins in a short period of time, the exchange rates can crash.

I have also thought this before. Craig Wright was definitely involved somehow in Bitcoin early on. He must know something about Satoshi being dead. Some believe in the Dave Kleiman theory.

I think Craig Wright is an US government psyOPs and he knows for a fact they got Satoshi either locked up somewhere or killed. He wouldn't indeed being rendered a fool if the real Satoshi came back and moved some coins or something.

Write probably had only one or two keys from real Satoshi and he hoped that convincing Gavin using those keys was the only ultimate stunt that would make it much easier to convince rest of the world. Hence he decided to 'trick' Gavin, but things didn't go as intended.

https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/heres-how-craig-wright-probably-tricked-gavin-andresen/

He had no keys from Satoshi. Otherwise he would have successfully proven his false identity and the discussion was over.
Sidenote: you saw CW at the presentation the other day, where he was talking utter nonsense? This guy is definitely not Satoshi.

It's not a new idea. I posted this theory months ago.

If Craig Wright had the private key to the first block the it's very clear he is Satoshi. What more proof do you need?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNZyRMG2CjA

 Some of the conspiracy theories in this thread are plain nutty

Nick Szabo helped Craig Wright,

Of course he is not Satoshi. My point is he was close to Satoshi which might have given him some of the information which only Satoshi would have known. And he also knows that real Satoshi is no more and he is trying to use it to his advantage.



No, someone who is/was very close to Satoshi may successfully obtain a key or two that belonged to real Satoshi. We need more proof, not just one key.

For CW to come to the public and say that he is SN would have to know the true identity of SN and what happened to SN or CW did this just to convince the real SN to appear to the public


There is something very somber in this story. Nobody in this world would be hidden after creating a technology like btc, unless is dead or stuck.

I would.

Nobody knows the true, so who knows? Satoshi could be a group of person or a fictional name to confuse the world of the real person or gruop behind the creation of BTC.

No body in the Bitcoin Community is Satoshi Nakamoto who invented Bitcoin and Blockchain Technology. If any body is serious to know the real Satoshi Nakamoto; you are welcome !


Meet Satoshi Nakamoto

https://medium.com/@meetsatoshi/satoshi-nakamoto-10dd01809cdc

Talk about nothing. It is unlikely that we already in this life will know who the real is SN. Craig Wright could not prove anything, others can not to

I also think Nick was possibly connected to Satoshi {They, Craig Wright & Nick & Hal Finney might have been part of a

small group of people that formed the pseudonym, Satoshi Nakamoto} I think Hal Finney owned most of the coins in the

beginning and when he died he took the private keys to his grave.  ;) ???

Hal Finney and Nick Szabo being satoshi are one of the best proponents, and big blockers hate this because both Hal Finney and Nick Szabo aren't big blockers and are pro-payment channels:

http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/

Finney being satoshi is specially interesting because he is both confirmed to be the first ever person to receive a bitcoin transaction, and also confirmed to be dead. So if someone knew Hal was satoshi, he would could safely claim to be satoshi himself without risks of the real satoshi showing up.

The way people fight over this matter, man, I wonder if the world will go into explosion if they don’t come up with the person behind that name: Satoshi Nakamoto. Now someone has decided to claim he’s the real SN, and people are still doubting. Infact the real thing is this: nobody is Satoshi Nakamoto, it’s just a code name (as in a username).

Those coins were worth like 30 cents each when he decided to abandon the Satoshi alias. So your theory makes zero sense.

I got your point (presentation topic was just a little side talk. Watch it. Funny stuff) and I also think, that this theory fits well, but I don't think, that CW has recieved any key from SN. Which still makes me wonder how CW convinced Gavin, who certainly knew, that he would play with his reputation. Reason enough for a smart guy, to securely veryfy CW's claims, before going public with a statement like "I believe CW is Satoshi Nakamoto". And the truth is: Gavin messed up pretty bad. The reason for that must have been worth losing his reputation. I think, that both, Gavin and Craig are lying.

I can't rule out the possibility that both of them lied. Otherwise if CW had actual proof to show Gavin, there was no harm in showing it to rest of the world. Why ONLY Gavin? Why not the rest of us? In fact doing it publicly would have made his case solid than ever.

not necessarily.
after many years of not being present (6 or 7 years?) and not once break that anonymity, it is fairly correct to assume Satoshi Nakamoto will not come forward and break the anonymity in the future either. and the reason for that can be anything.
and CW's attempts were mostly a public stunt that the community caught easily. so again he can be fairly sure Satoshi will never come forward to put his claims down since we have already did it instead of real SN.

We don't know if there was no harm in showing it in public. As I said, it must have been worth losing his reputation for this secret.

It seems like a whole lot of people think Satoshi is dead. I don't think we should jump to this conclusion. I think it is more likely that Satoshi is alive.

It is interesting that Satoshi in his posts seem very friendly, polite, patient and likeable in his messages. Craig Wright on the other hand seems cold, bitter, arrogant, and angry in person. In one of the Satoshi emails, Satoshi uses the euro as an example for transaction. This leads me to believe the real Satoshi is from a European country. Also in a post he uses an expression about "eating crow", which is supposedly an American expression, but I have a feeling that it may be European for some reason. Either way it isn't Australian that's for sure.

Craig would not need to wait for Satoshi to be dead to make the claims. His claim is ridiculous and for some weird reason, there is a group of people gullible enough to believe him. Satoshi probably didn't denounce him, because it isn't worth it. Satoshi isn't going to give Craig the honor of being denounced. It already is obvious.


Interesting thoughts on Gavin lying. Who knows what kind of blackmail he could be facing. Maybe he did something really fucked up and Craig is using that as leverage against Gavin.


Hah, another theory for thought. What if Craig really is Satoshi and he was worried people were figuring it out somehow. As a result he purposely came out in the open and tried to do a bad job at convincing everyone. Like a reverse psychology thing. Seems pretty far fetched though.

I'm confident that Craig is not Satoshi, but if he is and can prove that he is, I'll gladly eat crow.   ;D

Be careful of what you speak, we live in a weird world.

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/eat-crow.jpg

The theory of Gavin Andresen being part of the psyOPs operation to pass Craig Steven Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto in order to brainwash the masses into supporting their forks is very valid. Gavin Andresen started doing a 180 on his views after the CIA visit and Satoshi disappeared after his CIA visit... connect the dots.

Gavin and Craig are partners in bitcoin-crime.

Wasn't there something with a patent application Craig and some partners filed shortly after claiming to be Satoshi?
I think I have read something like that in the news and it was discussed here as well.
It all seemd to be some big publicity action to support his claim to get those patents that were about blockchain technology, if I remember correctly.

Are you saying Satoshi was taken out {RIP} because they wanted to take control? I doubt if these extreme measures was

considered to take control over something that they could stop by just using the judicial system. It would also not be for

financial gain, because bitcoins were worthless back then. Interesting thought process.  ;)

It was too late for them to kill Bitcoin. Once the code is out there, it's game over for them. Just like Tor, they couldn't stop it after the code was released and people ran nodes. They knew about this, so they want to manipulate it and keep it alive under their own terms. This is why they want to make the blocks huge, so the people can't run nodes.

I don't know if Satoshi was killed, but Craig Wright is an obvious actor/agent of sorts trying to pass as Satoshi, and I doubt they would do that if they didn't knew Satoshi was either dead or captured. Make of that what you will.

Whatsoever but really Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, so what’s the big deal here. Even if we say, he has bitcoins worth zillion dollars, what difference is that going to make anyways. Look guys, wherever is Satoshi and whoever is he, it hardly impacts me and my earnings. For my sake, he can be in heaven or hell like I care. This topic is just a drag and this mystery is getting on my nerves now.

Since you are think that Craig Wright knows who the real person was behind Satoshi then he might very well know more than anyone else in the world,so that does give a validity right that he really knew Satoshi, :P what if he is the real Satoshi and he is not willing to produce further proof because of the amount of money he has to owe as tax,why should he risk doing that and play the bluff game,it is also possible right. ;D

Of course it would make a difference. People are like sheep and they need their shepard, and they would look at Craig Wright if he was Satoshi as the definite leader of BTC, which would mean they would use Craig Wright to influence people into buying the big blocks bullshit and centralize the network inside buildings owned by corporations.

Craig Wright is a goddamn conman that PsOPS are trying to pass Satoshi to influence the masses into their agenda's benefit.

Info:


Craig Wright faked an email to get out of billion-dollar lawsuit, expert claims in court

https://decryptmedia.com/6827/craig-wright-faked-email-billion-dollar-lawsuit-court-expert-claims

Valid more than ever...

it is also possible that someone got Satoshi when he was working on the development of bitcoin on 2009-2010, or maybe he got bored or something and left the project. or maybe bitcoin is completed and he was just working on an advanced network. Craig W. cannot prove that he is real Satoshi.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/?order_by=desc&page=1
esp. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/1/11/kleiman-v-wright/

If things turn out the way I think it does, Dave was Satoshi and he took his private keys into his grave. 1 million Bitcoins burned  ;D
Possible that Craig has something to do with Dave's demise?

Right, actually a lot has been coming out claiming they are Satoshi Nakamoto but people is doubting them all that is why the debate of who Satoshi Nakamoto is always on the run, I think this will be a never ending debate. It could be that's like a group of people collaboration and all wanted to take credits that is why they are coming out but who knows, for me it doesn't really matter because bitcoin survived without Satoshi coming out into the light.

I don't think that this is a possible scenario. One of the reasons for believing so is that there are others who are aware of the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, such as Michael Marquardt (username Theymos). In case Craig Wright claims that he is Satoshi and if the real Satoshi is dead, then what prevents Marquardt from coming up with the proof? I am sure that he is not doing that only because the real Satoshi is alive and he don't want to reveal his identity.

I don't think the real satoshi nakamoto is not just dead, but they still maintain their privacy so that they are not known by people, Craig W only wants to try to create a sensation and can also provoke the original Satoshi Nakamoto to come out showing who Satoshi Nakamoto is.

No one knows if Satoshi Nakamoto is dead or not. All I think is that CSW is just claiming something that is impossible to happen. SN just want to maintain it's privacy , dead or not no one can actually prove that. What proof can Craig wants to present? It should be strong evidence then to make us believe that he is the real Satoshi.

1. alot of people call craig wright SOSHITA and make fun from him, and he mentally unhealthy,,,so how even people think that he part of the team of satoshi , its just uneducated people very simple.

2. its people behind the bitcoin operation and not one person, the name is just as it is.

3. its not the first time or the last time people do great projects on the web and spread it under one name...wiki leaks work like this and other.

so simple

Craig w. & team socail bully to mr. hodlnaut in twitter on early 2019. The real satoshi naver do like that.

it is simply a safe and calculated bet that Craig Scammer Wright made.
it as been many years since Satoshi went away. all this time we have not heard a work from him, there is no other signs from him either like moving a single satoshi from the coins he had mined in early years. so logically it s a safe bet to say he won't come back. and we are talking about a scammer here. he has the audacity to lie on such a big scale, he doesn't care even if Satoshi came out!
considering the rewards of this lie, i'd say it was a good bet for him so far.

Just a thought, CW can be the false flag of the crypto world, if anything CW and SN may know each other and they might even be working together.. Keyser Soze anyone?

Honestly most of user bitcoins have a confident that Craig W is fake Satoshi. I'm just thinking if most user of bitcoins believe that he is the real Satoshi then the real Satoshi will come with a proof that can't be imagine by all user but most users will believe him. The real Satoshi is still there, but he doesn't intend to make himself be popular IMO.

You have a good point unless the real Satoshi has an agreement with Craig to poised as Satoshi so he can hide his identity, but until now Craig cannot prove he is the real one because he cannot transfer the funds the real Satoshi is holding or even log in to his old account here, if the real Satoshi is dead no one can come out claiming to be the real Satoshi anymore.

He can claim all he wants, but until he signs one of Satoshi's early Bitcoin addresses, nobody will believe him. Satoshi might be dead, but everyone has some family or friend that knows about their secrets. Satoshi could even have left a clue or something for people to find him, but it has not been found yet.  ::)

I would have also silently disappeared into the shadows, if I was in his shoes, but I would have left some clues for people to find the coins in the future.. Why would you hoard over a million of coins, if you wanted people to use your technology as a alternative currency.  ::)

The truth will come out eventually and then CW will have a lot to explain.  :D

I wonder what are the consequences of the trial by Dave Klieman's brother for 1/3 of a Billion Dollars.

Unsure that if he loses, he will not go to a country without extradition and suffer nothing for his lies.

Also, if he was in a Satoshi Group with Dave Kleinman and Hal Finney and himself, and as a result is the last man standing,

he likely would know that the inventor(s) of Bitcoin are indeed dead, in that both the other 2 men have passed away.

I suspect he will lose the case, continue to state he has no access to the coins till 2020 and beyond, and go to a country

where he can't be extradited on a 'civil manner' like this. Thus, he will declare 'Victory' and FML if Bitcoin SV won't go up another 33%

because from what I can tell from this whole farce is humans are idiots and will believe anybody almost.

Brad

It is a civil case - not a criminal case - so no extradition will happen. There will only be a large monetary award.

In my opinion CSW is already so deep into the deception that a few more lies won't make it any worse for him.He has nothing more to loose.

Those that believe him will only continue to believe him if he keeps lying. If he admits the truth then he looses that following.

He has been caught out on so many lies already that IF the Australian or US Government decide to take action there is ample evidence already.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/revealed-the-ato-hit-suspected-bitcoin-creator-craig-steven-wrights-company-with-a-1-7-million-penalty-2015-12
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-australian-who-may-have-invented-bitcoin-claimed-to-have-landed-54m-in-taxpayer-funded-rebates-2015-12
https://www.grantcentral.com.au/big-numbers-involved-in-rd-tax-incentive/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53827716#msg53827716
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg53826866#msg53826866
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.0

I don't think theymos, or anyone else for that matter, knows who the real Satoshi is. All we can do is verify a message signed with the PGP key or any of the known early bitcoin addresses.

So far, no one has done so.

I was also in the 'sign a message' camp, but even if it's done eventually, it's still no concrete evidence that we're dealing with the 'real' satoshi.

Private keys can exchange hands, either on a voluntary or non-voluntary basis. As long as nobody signs from any of those ancient 50BTC reward addresses it's safe to say that the real winner is the market (i.e. the holders of Bitcoin), which I add a whole lot more weight to than finding out who or what satoshi is. In other words, people shouldn't want x/y/z entity to ever sign a message.

This however also means that losers such as CSW have free game to claim that they are the inventor of Bitcoin. Rather this than the price crashing hard.

You are contradicting yourself. One one hand you say, that private keys can exchange hands and it would be no concrete evidence, on the other you would believe somebody who signs with one of the ancient Bitcoin addresses (with the private keys nessecary to do this - which could have exchanded hands).

Sure it would be no 100% evidence, but what else would Satoshi have to prove he is the real one?
If somebody signs his PGP or with one of the old addresses, most people would believe him. No doubt.

These are some of the ways Satoshi could validate themselves.

PGP signature from Satoshi
Old bitcoin address signed message
In depth detailed knowledge of bitcoin
Demeanor and writing style
Knowledge of private messages sent to various contributors
Convince Theymos and others that were part of the early core team.

Someone who genuinely wants to verify themselves does so patiently and welcomes public scrutiny - knowing it will be met with skepticism.

Or perhaps because people keep talking about him and given him the reason to even behave like that, the man is feeling on the attention people are paying on him, when people choose to ignore him then he won't have enough interest to pursue, 
I think it is time people learn to pay less attention to this homo sapien.

There are way too many theories about this. We can only assume and speculate. But in the end, I think it doesn't even matter.

I don’t really think so. Craig Wright isn’t the only person that have claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto and he’s not even the first that has done that. He did it because he knew the real Satoshi is not ready to reveal himself, but unfortunately for him he doesn’t have any proof that shows he’s the real Satoshi Nakamoto, so he ended up embarrassing himself.

We don’t even know whether the real person is still alive or not, and even if Craig was one of part of the team he wouldn’t be the only one, so others would have come out as well and stop him acting selfishly. They will even stop him before he goes public with this BS.

To me Craig is an opportunist. He saw an opening and just barged in. Such things sometimes happen on big parties or even funerals where narcissists seeking attention come in and form this aura of untouchability around them. I'm sure you've seen this in the movies where some guy comes to a wedding and hugs the bride. She hugs him back and invites him in because she thinks it's her husband's friend or family. Just look what Craig has gained when he took on the role of Satoshi. He's being invited to conferences, parties, people listen to him, he's a VIP. Have you listened to some of his speeches? He doesn't say anything important. Throws a joke here and there, parades the stage like a cock, adds a few curses here and there... All his talks are irrelevant and don't bring anything to the table, it's all just for show.

I don't really follow the whole "who's Satoshi?" drama, but what you say could well be true.  OP's point from 2 years ago is that CW is only an opportunist because he knows Satoshi is dead or otherwise isn't coming back (I think that's his point, anyway).  I hadn't thought of that, and it's an interesting proposition.

Though I'm at best mildly curious as to who Satoshi is, it would be really interesting if his identity were finally made known--and I have a feeling it will be eventually.

Based on his deep understanding of some very low level constructions of early bitcoin architecture, I think he is Satoshi. But I guess he lost his keys to most of the early day bitcoins, since those coins worth nothing before 2011. Who would keep a disk full of useless things for 2 years? Anyway, many such projects before bitcoin just came out dead

And there is another fact supporting this view: All those early day coins were mined to different addresses, 50 at a time, they were never consolidated into a large batch, which indicated that they were just left there untouched for some reason. If someone really care about those coins, at least some kind of consolidation or movements of those coins should have happened

He pretends to be Satoshi because he's sure that the real Satoshi will never appear again, just notice how CWS started making claims in around 2015-2016 -  long after the days of Satoshi's public activity. He didn't make his claims in 2011 or 2012, when there was a chance that Satoshi will return, or maybe he didn't even know about Bitcoin back then. He shown zero signatures from addresses that solo-mined a full block, which means he wasn't even involved with Bitcoin at its early days.

It can be that or that he really wants to take the risk and fail in it so that the real Satoshi actually turns up and prove him wrong and his wish to meet and know the real Satoshi is fulfilled, either way, it's like punching in the air because Satoshi if he's alive won't mind Craig taking his name as Craig hasn't really proved in any way he's Satoshi.

Yeah, look what Craig has gained! All this is going to finish with him behind the bars, so he better be living the best moments of his life right now 'cause it's not going to last much longer!

He doesn't say anything important because he's just a joker. Basically the troll of crypto. And people listen to him because they want that BitcoinShitVersion to turn into $20k so those who've missed the BTC rally would get another chance.

The dump this ShitVersion is going to have will surprise everyone who's put their money in Craig's pockets.

I have disks that are 5-6 years old. Scientists tend to keep their work forever. When they change computers they keep their old drives stashed in a box somewhere. Craig woke up years after Bitcoin was created and tried to patent it. He's not Satoshi and I don't understand why you'd believe that he is.


This is only a proof that real Satoshi didn't care much about the value of his coins. It's understandable because when he was mining there was no way to sell them. There were no exchange services and people who got involved in early 2010 were just giving it for free to others or exchanging for fun.

This does not prove that Craig is Satoshi. His forgeries paint a different picture.

I always imagine SN smiling seeing various speculations and ridiculous news about who he really is. Whether he is alive or not, I still imagine him smiling in one corner of the world and enjoying the brilliance of this innovation. I do not know, I am not too interested in anyone who recognizes himself as SN, who is clear with his intelligence to design all of this, surely he will not just carelessly reveal his identity, there must be another diversion. Like following a drama series

I don't think Satoshi Nakamoto is dead. He must have been resting somewhere in the world chilling with his fortune because for sure he is a rich man and surely he is laughing about Craig's claims. Being the creator of this huge project me personally if I where Nakamoto I will never reveal myself I don't need the recognition I just want support for what I did. Plus it will be a great threat if he will reveal himself in the public.

I guess nobody currently have an old disk holding WeiDai's B-money which a predecessor of bitcoin, if historically all such projects become useless after a few years, who would expect bitcoin to be any different in 2010. Even in 2011, those coins worth only 100 pizza

BTW, the keys can be stolen, keys prove nothing.

There is always a best way to find out the inventor. If you are Satoshi that invented bitcoin, you must be able to answer many original design related questions such as why OP_CHECKSIG is designed in such a seemingly illogical way. So far only Craig can answer that question, core devs don't understand that, so they invented segwit to replace it

Craig found out later that his invention is hijacked by a group of stupid coders, so he started to apply patents to prevent the same thing happen again

That would be another question or mystery that could be impossible to know.
We know that CW isn't the real SN and we don't even know if someone really know SN in real life so it could be so hard.
My theory is thatCW is just trying to bait the real SN out but it seem's like it isn't working and it is only making him look's like a fool on the internet.

I am not so sure about it but that scenario is not impossible also as he claims that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto so there will be some reasons why he is doing this. As everyone can easily claim that they are Satoshi Nakamoto as the real SN is not showing himself.

There is a very little chance that the real Satoshi Nakamoto is already dead. Why? It's been only 10 years since the launch bitcoin and his disappearance is not about his health condition. But if I were to guess, there is a big possibility that Craig know the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto and they are doing this scene as part of their plan.

The simple way is the often the best way.

To proof ownership by just send some coins, is not a proof of ownership/identity. Btw

So - since no other guy really comes up with his caliber and saves ownership of copyrights and original BitCoin version to exists in real world..... (he invited all to sue him, simply) CSW is the simplest option

More simple proofs expected imo

BSV is the simplest BitCoin, btw

Yes, this is a very common theory, and given the personality of Wright, who clearly knows something about the birth of Bitcoin, but cannot provide any significant evidence, this theory is very, very strong.
Although I have been telling everyone since 2015 that Satoshi is probably unfortunately no longer with us.

I've *never* seen wright repeat a true fact about Bitcoin that he couldn't have learned just reading some posts here or the mailing list. Instead, I've seen him repeat many false claims that you can find posted on the internet which anyone involved early in bitcoin would know.

The obvious conclusion is that since he is perpetrating a multi-million dollar fraud and identity theft he spent a little time doing homework, but as his school records show he is utterly terrible at performing any kind of intellectual work at all... and so he didn't do a good job of it.  He produces so much evasion, obfuscation, and outright bluster -- literally screaming FUCK YOU at people who challenge his technobabble, that he manages to fool more than a few people who aren't following closely.

If you want to make guesses as to why he would assume Satoshi wouldn't out him... first, why would he need to assume that?  He could continue to rake in money from victims until that time-- the scam has to end eventually after all, it might as well end that way.  second,  there were a long sequence of false Satoshi claims before him and Satoshi didn't show up to debunk those either so it's a safe bet that wright could get away with it for a long time.

Finally, wright's activities have caused more fixation on satoshi than ever.  It would be bad for everyone for satoshi to show up in light of that.

I agree with almost all of your statements. There were a lot of people claiming to be Satoshi, but CSW was the only one who made it as far as convincing a person, who has gained the original Satoshi Nakamotos trust: Gavin Andresen. I would very much like to see the communication between him and CSW, that made Gavin book a flight to London.

Yes, this case was widely covered in the press then. And everyone I knew in the cryptocurrency world at that time was also at a loss how Anderson could believe Wright. Then, indeed, many thought that Satoshi was finally found, but this turned out to be completely wrong.

I don't think so. There is no one who knows about who is SN< what is SN, where is SN, and also what happens to SN right now. Whether he is still alive or even dead.
In relation to CW, I think that he is only making something surprising again to attract the issue about him. Well, I also don't think that he really knows about Satoshi.

I also think about this. Why should we make some judgment/prediction, and also guess about Satoshi more and more in this forum? Let it be and let Satoshi be Satoshi. Of course, He had his own reason why he didn't want to come up to the public and not to be seen. And let him still with his secret because it will be more interesting.

Let's not ascribe CSW any more credit than he is due.

It's quite clear that he simply took advantage of the early naivete of the community and lack of blockchain analytics platforms back in the day, to falsely claim that he is Satoshi in order to manipulate the market.

He's a straight-up fraud and not worth discussing. He'll be in jail soon enough, since he tried to co-opt the identity of another individual.

I don't know if I'd go quite as far as trust, but you make a fair point.

We (the bitcoin devs) asked Gavin a number of questions in the immediate aftermath of his endorsement of Wright.

Gavin went unresponsive when we asked for details about when he started communicating with Wright.  So good luck finding out anything there.

He said in media interviews that he was absolutely convinced before ever seeing any proof.

Certainly, in none of Wright's communication that I've ever seen has he sounded at all like Satoshi for any span of more than a few words-- maybe a sentence at most... except where he was just quoting Satoshi.

And yet, as we are today Gavin has still never fully retracted his endorsement. He left it at an 'I'm not sure what happened, maybe I was fooled. It doesn't matter anyways'-- something which wright's promoters continues to use to promote wright's legitimacy.

Probably the most significant thing I can say on this subject is that *none* of the core-devs upon hearing Gavin endorsed the guy thought this was at all evidence of the claims-- even before seeing the publication of the obviously faked signature.  The idea that Gavin was hacked, was being coerced, was being paid off, was a scammed idiot, or was attempting a desperate attempt at taking over Bitcoin after he was unable to convince people through the merit of his arguments were all considered serious possibilities. We discussed the possibility that wright got his hands on of an early block private key that was mined by someone other than satoshi, and was planning on exploiting the ambiguity about who mined what-- and that Gavin fell for that because of one of the might have fallen for it due to the aforementioned reasons. The only people that thought his endorsement was persuasive were people that hadn't worked with him on technical matters. The people who would know best how to weigh the evidence of that endorsement didn't find it remotely persuasive. And in the aftermath, when Wright's public signature turned out to be fake Gavin's response wasn't to adopt complete transparency and help take out and protect the Bitcoin community from the guy that had supposedly conned him. Take that for what you will.

I think in general the pattern we've seen from Wright is that he isn't particularly convincing or persuasive, but rather he exploits the fact that people are usually unprepared to deal with such an audacious liar.  ... the sort of person who will go literally red faced screaming at you that NO, IN FACT THE SKY IS GREEN NOT BLUE THE SKY IS GREEN.  When faced with behaviour like that some people just start wondering if maybe its legit because they'd personally never act that way unless they were telling the truth and were absolutely sure of it.

If that is actually the case then he lost the identity of Satoshi aswell. No keys = No Satoshi or Lost Keys = Lost Satoshi's Identity. It's as simple as that... Besides, why would such an ingenious person who has deep understanding of some very low level constructions of early bitcoin architecture would fail to keep a single private key of his addresses? ::) I have skype conversation almost a decade old still saved on 3 flash drives for one of my web app which has achieved nowhere near the success of what bitcoin has amassed but I still have it just as a proof of sorts, I find it hard to believe that the person who invented bitcoin didn't know how to take care of his keys, even if they were worthless. It makes a nice bedtime story but in real-world speculation gets us nowhere.

TBH I don't think I will be ever satisfied with any proof of sorts. Keys can exchange hands and technical knowledge of Bitcoin /Blockchain can be learned. At the end of the day even if the Real Satoshi decided to come back and say hi, I don't think I will be able to trust that person. Basically you will be trusting the judgement of Theymos and few devs who worked with Satoshi and one of them has already got their judgment in question ^{( Gavin )}, as @xtraelv mentioned... So for me, at least the Identity of Satoshi will forever be a mystery and I am pretty satisfied with that...

It is true that of all the faketoshi, it is only craig wright who is most passionate about proving himself to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
According to my logic it is not because he knew that the original satoshi nakamoto had died, but instead he wanted to lure
satoshi nakamoto out of his hiding. So from that he was very confident wanting to prove himself satoshi nakamoto even without
any evidence strong until now.

It's not obligatory. For Craig Wright, it’s enough that Satoshi Nakamoto has not been felt for such a long time. Of course, he runs the risk of claiming that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. However, the risk is worth it. In any case, many talk about him, he becomes famous.

in my opinion it is more likely that Gavin Andresen was conned by Craig Scammer Wright. he obviously wasn't Satoshi and someone like Gavin could have seen that easily but it is possible that at the time due to all the drama with scaling the scammer played on his emotions and convinced him that his intentions are like his and wants to help scale bitcoin. he did the same with bcashers before screwing them over too.

As far as I know, this blog entry of his (http://gavinandresen.ninja/either-or-ignore) from 2016 was his last formal comment on the issue:


So Gavin believes there's an equal chance that Craig is a "master scammer." The narrative that he completely believes Wright is Satoshi has been bogus since before BSV was even an idea. Either way, he clearly says Wright should be ignored. You never see BSVers talk about this blog entry when they talk about Gavin, its always a YouTube clip of an interview he gave _before_ he wrote this post.

Satoshi losing his keys doesn't mean his identity is lost as well. This was actually discussed about a year or 2 ago on this forum and basically people asked the same question. If he lost his keys could he still prove his identity? And the answer was yes. And I believe it was the forum moderator Theymos that stated that there are other ways he can prove he is Satoshi.

One method could be he could recall private conversations of PM with certain individuals, something that only was discussed in private between 2 users. Even though his account here is locked, the PM might still be saved somewhere and as long as Satoshi remembers certain conversations, it can be used to prove his identity.

If Craig W wanted to do this then he could of but I don't think he even tried.

you have a good point here because the way he claims the Name he is so sure about nothing will run unto Him,and also he is so confident about the claims.

but the Only Problem is he has no complete proof of being Satoshi so it means Him being Faketoshi.
the only way needs is the Address and also the Bitcointalk account that will Give him a chance to prove His claims.

What are the real goals and purpose of Craig Wright that he really claims that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto? But we all know that he is not the real one because he doesn't gives any concrete proof that he is the real Satoshi.

I really think that the real Satoshi does not wanted to intefere with Craig Wright because he really wanted to stay anonymous until he dies.

Couldn't agree more with this, and it's the same attitude I would advice for every troll in every space, in real life and in crypto. The more we give them attention, the more they enjoy the spotlight and the more they are motivated to make up all things.

Though, I actually think there could be a logic in CW making these claims because he knows the real guy can't. Whether he's dead or simply unable to, I don't know.

Trolls typically stay ano and not go via courts and public

No

CSW takes that all very serious

Fear and full bags are never good advisors btw

Basically trusting the judgement of people you have never met in real life, if that does the trick for you I'm fine by that but for me, it isn't the proof. PM's can be compromised and keys can exchange hand, So yeah even if the real satoshi signed the addresses and provided some detailed descriptions about the conversations he had with theymos or core devs it still won't do the trick for me... There is no way even Satoshi can prove to me that he is Satoshi basically...

I, nullius, am a 118-year-old Russian princess named Anastasia! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0)  (← If I were to say this seriously, and say it loudly enough, and insist on it with neither uncertainty nor hesitation, then somebody, somewhere would actually believe it—and more somebodies would have some doubts.)


I must preface this by noting that I doubt Craig Wright’s own ability to carry off such a—well, a psy-op by himself.  In view of how the Faketoshi sham is being handled overall, I expect that Wright has some sound advice in some form or another.  He is a shrewd scammer, but he was never so smart as one who could understand the deeper details of human psychology.  Money and power are on the line.  Cui bono?

---

Blackhat Mindhacking 101:  Exploiting Wetware Insecurity

This is a basic exploit in human psychology—a sort of stack-smashing buffer overflow of the capacity to assess falsehoods:

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 17, 2020, 12:06:46 AM

I think in general the pattern we've seen from Wright is that he isn't particularly convincing or persuasive, but rather he exploits the fact that people are usually unprepared to deal with such an audacious liar.  ... the sort of person who will go literally red faced screaming at you that NO, IN FACT THE SKY IS GREEN NOT BLUE THE SKY IS GREEN.  When faced with behaviour like that some people just start wondering if maybe its legit because they'd personally never act that way unless they were telling the truth and were absolutely sure of it.

Damn.  You made me look outside at the sky, just to double-check!  And then, I started wondering if maybe, just maybe, I am colourblind—protanopia often does cause difficulty distinguishing green from blue!—or perchance, I went slightly insane, and I confused the meanings of basic English words blue and green in some Twilight Zone style psychosis...

You sounded so sure.  Nobody would sound so sure unless he is sure, and he’s telling the truth.  Subjectively, I know that I wouldn’t dare to tell such a whopper—and if I tried, I would stammer and stare at my toes or glance around nervously, instead of saying it straight while looking you in the eye.

Of course, it is not necessary for me to be so introspective as to think through all of this:  I feel that nobody could tell such a lie, because I instinctively feel that I myself couldn’t.  I empathize:  I feel what a liar would feel in that position, and thus, I feel that he must not be lying.  It feels terrifying to me.

It is not because I am so virtuous.  I know that I could probably get away with the petty little lies that most people sometimes tell themselves and others.  But such a ghastly monster of a lie, telling people that the sky is green?  I would fear being caught; I wouldn’t dare!  When I see Dr. Wright declare that he invented Bitcoin, I wince, and wonder in the back of my mind what the consequences will be if he’s lying—no, I wouldn’t dare!  Therefore, nobody would dare...

Add to that:  You apparently have more education than I do, and you definitely have more money than I do, and you’ve got plenty of friends for “social proof”—hell, you are even better-looking than I am!—I am just some guy on the Internet; how I am to be sure you’re wrong?  —And who am I to say so?  I am a no-name nobody; I’m a nothing, a nullity.  (nullius = Latin: ‘of nobody, of nothing, of zero’.)

Doctor Craig Satoshi
fresh-scrubbed and dolled up as best he can manage,
showing credentials, looking confident,
surrounded by a retinue (see also (https://web.archive.org/web/20191126213405/https://craigwright.net/about/#biography)):
https://i.imgur.com/EOmv88h.png
Who am I to question him?  Dare I?

Could the sky be green?  You made me seriously question my own judgment, just because you sound so certain!

I’ve been advised that I am “nowhere near as smart as [I] (and apparently many merit sources) think (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221450.msg53732294#msg53732294)” I am.  Since my childhood, I’ve been told that I should be humble.  How can I be sure of the authority of my own mind? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219640.0)  —Dare I risk being left to stand alone? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225220.0)

Quote

Nullian Rule:  To exercise fully independent judgment in the face of opposition requires that one’s humility be inversely proportional to the strength of the opposition.

And the delicate Internet tea-party debate-club members would never dream of using ad hominem argumentation, even when it is objectively correct!  Need I remind you that argumentum ad hominem is only an “informal fallacy”, and is not at all fallacious when personality and personal credibility are relevant to—no, are the issues being argued?  Oops, I forgot that.  I became so “logical” that I feel like I should avoid anything ad hominem.

Furthermore, I’ve been told that it is rude to insult someone by calling him a “liar”.  Mother said so:  I should judge actions and not people (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221041.0), and put things in terms of “‘I’ statements” and diffident requests, not harsh demands:  “Dr. Wright, you make me feel like your claims are incredible; would you please provide me a verifiable Satoshi signature at the threshold (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53635577#msg53635577), or at least explain to me one more time why you refuse to do so?  I’m sure that you are a good person—we are all good people, deep down inside!—there must be some little misunderstanding.  Maybe I misunderstood something.  I am sorry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53859851#post_motion_to_compel_apology) if I hurt your feelings; I apologise!  It’s not you; it’s me.”

“Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm)...” is what I was taught not to be by my mother, and my kindergarten teacher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_I_Really_Need_to_Know_I_Learned_in_Kindergarten),^* and the finger-wagging Sunday-school teacher who told me that the meek shall inherit the Earth (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5%3A5&version=KJV), by the mass-media culture, the movies, the teevee, and the beauty-pageant winner who said that all she wants is world peace and to meet a nice guy.  Sounds great in a swimsuit.  To stand up and face someone down is to be a jerk:  Cruel, contemptuous, forceful, domineering, heartless, as if I’m some aristocrat who looks down his nose at everybody.  It is indubitably unkind and unsympathetic.  Why can’t I at least be nice (https://www.etymonline.com/word/nice) to somebody who tells me that the sky is green?

Quote

Philological protip:  Compare the etymological development of the word “nice” with the proposition, “...der ungefährliche Mensch sein muss: er ist gutmüthig, leicht zu betrügen, ein bischen dumm vielleicht, un bonhomme. Überall, wo die Sklaven-Moral zum Übergewicht kommt, zeigt die Sprache eine Neigung, die Worte ‘gut’ und ‘dumm’ einander anzunähern.”

And I know, gmaxwell, Dr. Wright’s (actual) credentials do not compare to yours—however, Gavin Andresen’s socially important credentials do!  Why, he even has the mark of popular fame in $CURRENT_YEAR:  A Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen)!  Sorry, I could not find one for you (despite your @wikimedia address).  And Gavin is the official Chief Scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, he has a three-digit forum ID, he hob-nobs with big cheeses in the government and the Council on Foreign Relations...  Even if I were so terrifically prideful as to argue against Dr. Wright, who am I to argue with Gavin?  —Who am I, just-nobody, to stand alone and call him out, cast the first stone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=224) and say that he is an untrustworthy liar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53826983#msg53826983)?

Dr. Wright has been expertly “verified” by the Bitcoin Chief Scientist.  He also has some peer pressure on his side.  hv_ and his buddies are Internet nobodies; but then, I’m the guy who named himself “of nobody” on the Internet.  Who am I to call hv_ such nasty names as “shill”, “liar”, etc.?  Him, and plenty like him (a dime a dozen)...  Who am I to stand against Dr. Wright and the Bitcoin Chief Scientist and a crowd of folks?  Authority plus peer pressure!^*again  When Dr. Wright sounds so sure...

Anyway, Sir Maxwell, I feel sheepish; I admit that you may have a point here.  If I dare to repudiate your fully self-confident declaration that the sky is green, then either people will think I’m a jerk, or people will think I’m a fool.  Maybe both!  I dunno.  Maybe you are right.

Maybe my eyes are lying to me, or maybe I made a big mistake—and then everyone will laugh at me, because the sky actually is green, and the Earth is flat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.0), and 2 + 2 = 5 (https://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/), and Dr. Craig Steven Wright invented Bitcoin, and I’m just so stupid that I didn’t realize it.

/me is suddenly feeling so insecure. :-(

---

Craig Wright does not need for a majority of people to believe him:  He needs only for a hard core of shills and fanatics to believe him, whilst the majority wavers.

Military counterinsurgency studies show that a revolution can be carried off by as little as 10% of the population.  This applies to both violent and nonviolent “revolutions” in the sense that the deciding factor is social change of opinion.  The majority is always deadweight:  Apathetic fence-sitters, at best.  If the majority has no too-strong opinion, then its opinion will be carried by a vocal, absolutely fanatical minority—if there is no opposing minority of equal or greater strength and certitude.

In the current context:  If Craig Wright can play the mass-media to introduce doubt into the minds of most people who have heard of Bitcoin, and if he is shilled to the hilt by a cadre of hv_ types, and if the only significant opposition is a bunch of forum theorists who won’t push the issue as hard as hv_ does, then Faketoshi will win.

That he is wrong is irrelevant.  History shows that contra popular delusions, the truth is a fragile and precious thing.  Lies are robust, because they appeal to the power of human frailty—and because they can be manufactured at will:  I have only one truth, but Craig Wright can make up a new lie every day so as to drown my protests of truth in endless arguments.

A compounding factor is the distaste that many Bitcoiners have for drama, hostility, and especially, emotionalist arguments and ad hominem attacks.  It is good to have a culture that values logical arguments—but do not confuse critical thinking skills for efficacy at persuasive argument.  If Craig Wright wields false persuasive arguments against your facts and logic, then he will win the hearts and minds of the majority, whose critical thinking skills are negligible.  As I have said before:  Don’t bring a sword to a gunfight. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53754420#msg53754420)

If you debate the question of Craig Wright’s claims to or before the average person, then you may mostly convince him—yet he will harbour a lingering doubt:  How can I be sure that Craig Wright isn’t Satoshi?  He seems so sure...  As aforesaid, the doubt is Faketoshi’s trump card, his secret nuclear weapon.  And you allowed that doubt to persist, via your first mistake:  Debating a question in a reasonable manner, which implies that there is a reasonable question to debate!

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.  He did not invent Bitcoin.  He is a liar, a scammer, and a grand-scale identity thief.  Every expert who has ever examined the matter has so concluded, without any doubt—except for Gavin, the same Gavin of the thoroughly corrupted so-called “Bitcoin Foundation”, the same Gavin who visited the CIA and the CFR before embarking on a years-long campaign (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53826983#msg53826983) of fork attacks against Bitcoin!  Gavin has no credibility (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=224).

That is a conclusion, not an argument—and certainly not an invitation to debate.  I will only debate Faketoshi or his shills if they can produce the most basic piece of evidence:  A verifiable signed statement (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53635577#msg53635577) by one of Satoshi’s known keys, identifying Craig Wright as Satoshi.  They do not do so, because they are liars or dupes—period.  That is the truth, the objective truth, based on facts and not “debates”.  Complaints >/dev/null

Quote from: nullius on February 02, 2020, 02:32:27 AM

This is how it’s done, folks!

Don’t waver in the face of lies.  Don’t quibble with liars.  The emotional question in the minds of those watching these “debates”:  Are you as confident that Craig Wright is not Satoshi, as he seems to be when he declares that he is?

I exceed his confidence because I am a Bitcoin expert, I have examined the facts, and I know that Wright is dead wrong.  I know the truth.  I do not need to argue.

---

* A small personal story—not quite about kindergarten, per se:  When I was in the sixth grade, a teacher said something gratuitously rude to the class unpopular kid—and the whole class laughed at him, except for me.  He was the stereotypical unpopular kid:  Jewish, nerdy as hell, a face as handsome as dog barf, skinny and runty, but inadvertently too wont to advertise his 148 IQ—and he was enthusiastic about books of tricky riddles and little mathematical puzzles.

He was admittedly annoying:  Mostly harmless; but all he ever wanted to talk about was puzzle books, Star Trek (yes!) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53817168#msg53817168), or this top-of-the-line new computer that his family had just bought, way back when that was a big thing...  And since he knew that he annoyed people, he had the exact opposite of self-confidence.  He thus annoyed all the worse, with a self-conscious, desperate puppy-dog friendliness.

I don’t remember what the teacher said to him; it was forgettable, just a matter of picking on him like everybody else did.  There certainly was no reason.  He was supinely diffident, a wannabe teacher’s pet; he wouldn’t have even imagined doing anything to incur the teacher’s negative opinion, much less dared it.  And for my part, the teacher never would have expected me to dare opposing authority.  A congenital tendency to orderliness is easily mistaken for blind obedience by those who see only the surface.

I abruptly stood up on my chair, and told the teacher with cold courtesy that she was wrong.  Cue twenty pairs of eyes suddenly staring at me—of a sudden, you could have heard a pin drop.  ’Twas the silence of mass shock, from the teacher on down.

Later that day, the teacher approached me in the hallway, hugged me, and profusely apologised to me.  I have no idea what she said to him, if anything at all.  I never asked him, because I wasn’t really his friend, either:  I was born to be nobody’s; I kept everybody at arm’s length.  He liked me, though—probably because I didn’t treat him like dirt, he could invite me to his birthday party without the risk of a crushing rejection, and he respected my IQ of higher-than-his.

Now, I am not sure whether I accidentally wrote a saccharine glurge story (https://emojipedia.org/face-vomiting/), or showed myself tenfold as arrogant for my sense that noblesse oblige.  Anyway, the point of the story is about the social pressure of combined authority and peer opinions in the abstract, irrespective of the particulars of the circumstance.  Moreover, I have with myself a running contest for the title of “the longest footnote in history”—so to speak.

---

---

Postscript:  A Liar’s Equivocation

Boldface is mine:

Quote from: nutildah on February 17, 2020, 05:12:46 AM

So Gavin believes there's an equal chance that Craig is a "master scammer." The narrative that he completely believes Wright is Satoshi has been bogus since before BSV was even an idea.

Soooooo...  Let me get this straight.  After he played a pivotal rôle in the creation of a monster, your excuse for Gavin is that he equivocates?

Quote from: nutildah on February 17, 2020, 05:12:46 AM

Either way, he clearly says Wright should be ignored.

...and that he sometimes may whine that, in substantial effect, would you please ignore something that is very embarrassing to him—which he himself is too dishonest, too cowardly, and/or too compromised to repudiate with the same mass-media “Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist” starburst as with which he originally “verified” Faketoshi?

Quote from: nutildah on February 17, 2020, 05:12:46 AM

You never see BSVers talk about this blog entry when they talk about Gavin, its always a YouTube clip of an interview he gave _before_ he wrote this post.

You see, that is the “nice”^* thing about equivocation:  Faketoshi can get the support he needs, and Gavin can try to repair his reputation without actually repudiating his “verification” unequivocally, in no uncertain terms.

(* See above notes on “nice” etymology (#post_nice_etymology).)

Gavin has done massive actual harm:  Bitcoin Foundation, XT, Faketoshi “verification”, Btrash shilling...  You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?

Not falling for that one.  If he ever wants to be known as anything but a malicious liar, he needs to come clean and put serious effort into repairing the actual damage that he did.  Shrugging doesn’t cut it.

But are you framing him for murder or?

Hah, jk, if your theory is true then he and SN knew each other in the past, but if SN didn't give him the private keys to the genesis block or close-to-genesis blocks then he wasn't someone of trust to SN, so why would we trust him then?

That makes him more of that and I really wonder why he have the guts to claim himself as the real Satoshi. We don’t know much about it and maybe he has the right to do so. If the real Satoshi was dead then claiming himself as the real one is pathetic, he can’t pretend forever.

I'm not reading the portion of this post that doesn't apply to me. I have things to do.


What? No you goof. I'm not "excusing" Gavin -- I'm simply relaying his _actual words_, which are _less_ favorable for BSV than BSV shills would have us believe. Admittedly I don't know if he put an equal weight on both scenarios. He might favor one more than the other.

How do you twist this into me making excuses for Gavin?
  

Truth be told, Gavin did far more for bitcoin than you and I ever have and ever will so if the man wants to have an opinion, let him have it.


If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.

Another theory about Craig Wright aren't we have enough from this person?
I wonder what would be the next topic about him everytime a famous person speaks about him would be a big topic on crypto.

It may not matter who Satoshi is, but it does matter if someone is fraudulently misleading others into believing that he is Satoshi and is otherwise engaging in behaviors that are used to attack bitcoin... especially if some of the attacks and misleading efforts are effective in the short term.  Sure, maybe in the long run, those various attacks on bitcoin will not be successful, but in the meantime, there will be some innocent people who are damaged during such scammening attempts, which should matter, no?


I agree with everything that you say, Thekool1s, except maybe I would quibble somewhat with any kind of absolute assertion regarding the extent to which it would matter if satoshi really did show up or was found out.  

Sure, it is likely true that satoshi showing up should not matter too much to the actual development of bitcoin, because bitcoin has gone down a community consensus path that should, in theory, be quite difficult for any single person to change, even if Satoshi did identified himself (or was unambiguously identified) (and sure, he could already be involved in the space in an ongoing way, but we just had not known his true identity).  

So, yeah, if Satoshi were to show up, then how he showed up, and if he changed his behaviors, such as beginning to move around a lot of coins, then those kinds of behaviors could have a very strong affect on bitcoin, especially in the short term and public perception, including causing his identity to matter based on what kinds of conduct that he engaged in or where he had been during this whole time (the extent of his continued involvement).

Furthermore, let's say for example, that AGD's speculation that Satoshi is dead were to be correct, and in that case there could still be some concerns about the manner in which he passes down of the keys to his coins through inheritance or other means, then those kinds of outcomes could have decently large short-term affects on the bitcoin market, even though perhaps in the longer run, the honey badger would not give too many shits.  

By the way, as was already mentioned several times in this thread, I really don't buy AGD's speculation that CSW actually knows anything about Satoshi being dead or not.  CSW merely remains a mere simpleton scam artist that is has been capable of latching onto any kind of ambiguous situation and spouting out some kind of dramatic baloney that has been proved to have been wrong so many times that there should hardly be any question that the guy lives in a kind of fantasy land.... except he seems to have enough of a budget and a means to even fund his scams, publication of his scams and to get others to go along with his baloney for their own reasons, perhaps pumpening of shitcoins or naysaying/attacking bitcoin.

Sure, there may be a decent number of people who have sufficiently developed senses to be able to identify those kinds of fraudulent personalities, and can identify the scamminess, contradictions and exaggerations soon enough to write off that diptwat... but that still does not mean that the ongoing bullshit propagation of CSW does not cause ripples from people who don't have either the ability or knowledge to identify his pedigree of seemingly obvious bullshit artistry, so some innocent people are likely get caught up in some of that phoney baloney misleading information, too.  

We don't know! We don't have any knowledge who is the real satoshi Nakamoto is and if he is still alive or not. We don't know why mr. Craig Wright is claiming that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto, but the thing is what if he really knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is? And he already know that the real Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't have the plan on revealing himself so Mr. Craig Wright is claiming it in order to gain the popularity that he wants. What if that is the case?

or really that he dies for long time that is why CSW is claiming to be One.
and that is also the point of this thread.
because he is bringing popularity to crypto,His sh*ts bringing us advertising specially to the international community ,and let us just be happy with a clown lol.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. He never apologized for the things he did, and somewhat still supports them or never retracted his support properly. By letting stuff like this happen we are strengthening, and actually encourging attacks and loss of funds that happened to to common Joe believing people like him - Yes, Gavin is both directly and indirectly responsible for uncountable financial damage. Back before these things actually were happening, I was spamming on the forum and people privately left and right to save as many individuals from being burned by the orchestrated scam as I could..

---

There is a very good difference between the past Gavin (pre-attacks) and the current one. The former deserves much credit and trust, the latter neither. Don't "godify" somebody and/or their contributions just because they were a decent software engineer at the right place and the right time, by chance..
Note: The scaling and all the "fork" stuff thereafter is not "opinion", that's a lie perpetuated by the less intelligent and knowledgeable (Ver et. al.). It is pure science, objective, mathematical science. No room for a "Software Engineer" such as Gavin to have a "opinion". Something is either a 1 or a 0, not an opinion based on who looks at the particular bit.

How am I wrong? You're saying nullius had more involvement with the fundamental development of bitcoin than Gavin? Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?

Nobody's "godifying" anybody. What I did was use Gavin's final words on the subject to demonstrate that there exists some doubt in his mind that Craig is Satoshi, whereas BSV supporters believe there is none and go around misrepresenting his actual beliefs. Then nullius construed my post to be a defense of Gavin which needed to be attacked, which was both insulting and stupid because it was nothing of the sort.

I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility (https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/), and knowing what you already know about my post history here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.0) its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking.

Regardless, what happened already happened and there's no changing the past. Shitting on Gavin now isn't going to change anything for the better. Shitting on him for not yet completely taking back his words on Wright isn't going to change anything either.

I purposely left out these parts for obvious reasons!

Based on what I said in my previous post, and based on who Gavin was, he should not have had any opinion that isn't based on science and peer-review. He chose not to trust his former colleagues at the time, for whatever reason this may be.

I'd like to think this as well, but based on his previous attempt at forking Bitcoin with Hearn and continual support for these schemes I can't reasonably conclude this. Duped multiple times? Duped to this day? When will this fork-duping stop then?

Oh, but I am just starting with Gavin and Craig. It's quote a different perspective if you weren't heavily involved in things like this:

Not that this makes me any better than anyone at anything. It just made me personally involved with countless victims. We are talking about all kinds of losses - from very small to very detrimental (almost going bankrupt) because of Gavin (and others). I can't say "it's okay, what has happened has happened" after witnessing this. I am not asking you to hate him or to vilify him, but I ask you to also consider why people like me have the perspective on him that we do - and why we must act on it, as not acting on it would represent a fundamental self-betrayal (and that of the victims we had a chance to interact with).

Thanks uncle!  :)

I see where you're coming from.  The problem is that Faketoshi has become such a sore point for many that even the perception of a partial endorsement needs to be challenged.  Have to be really careful about how we word things now.  Your clarification makes sense to me, so I hope that's as far as it goes.  I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that this is not something users will start falling out over on a regular basis.

This is another side-effect of what Wright, and people with 'partial endorsement' like Gavin did. We want the same thing more or less, but the methodology is the differentiating factor and this causes yet more fighting that is wasting time of people that should be building things. This is actually one of the major goals of these social attacks, and I'm quite glad that people like sipa didn't fall into this trap! Make peace everyday and as a community fight back against the BSV scam.

OK, fair enough.


Somehow this:


got misconstrued into meaning this:


I suppose I should have just answered the question by saying "no."

See, I keep asking people to de-escalate when you end up clashing in some argument especially when you are on the same side. The stuff between you two quickly spiraled downhill, and no it does not matter "who started it first" or whatever (I didn't even read the beginning only the ending). Try finding common ground, or at the very least not making loaded questions and attacking each other!  :)

whatever man, you're nuts if you think i'm reading all that. you win, OK?

until next time.

My mistake was presuming a literacy level above that of Twitter.

I am here for substance.  I am willing to invest my time in substance (and without a paid signature—for freedom, not “for free”).  If you are not reading it, then it is not for you.


Have a nice day.

Its possible that CW killed him (SN) too which is why he is very confident that the real Satoshi will not pop out one day to provide a sign message in bitcointalk claiming he isn't CW. It is possible that Satoshi is dead, it be best to also consider the rest of the people who claimed to be satoshi to be besides CW because this will mean there are many of them.

Or maybe he did it because he knows that the true Satoshi wouldn’t do anything or say something about it. There are lots of people that already came out and claimed to be the real Satoshi before Craig came up with those claims of being the real one. So if the real Satoshi is still alive and never did anything about it, that would give him the courage to go ahead.

So, I am not really saying that he’s alive or that he’s dead, hence I have nothing to prove it. Satoshi might be out there and even enjoying his life and watching what’s happening but we are here unnecessarily worrying too much about it. I mean to say everything is having 50% of chances and knowing the actual truth must be too great rather than simply living out of assumptions.

1. Satoshi is very much alive. He just left the alias behind and moved onto other things.

2. There is a reason why faketoshi claims and the cryptocurrency civil war started in 2014.

EXHIBIT A: September 2014
satoshin@gmx.com is compromised
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0

EXHIBIT B: May 2016
Craig Wright comes out to press claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191165

Q: Who had access to satoshin@gmx.com after Satoshi left? The mailbox was left intact.
A: International intelligence agencies (confirmed via two western intel sources), then hacker(s). In the initial years agency access kept the email alive even when GMX policies would gave deleted and removed account! It is unknown how the hacker(s) got final access before GMX removed account.

Q: Did any of the mails reveal Satoshis ID?
A: No.

Q: So why is this important?
A: Anyone who got access to the emails was able to defer who is not Satoshi out of the key current players with much greater certainty (versus the general public). Like the game 'Guess Who', once key names had been eliminated, it allowed for more emboldened plans. Not just by faketoshi but wider players to take control of the cryptosphere.


ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

It's our fault for keeping this thread alive. This if my first comment on this thread but, yeah. If it's relevant is because we've made it relevant ourselves, even if its just to criticize it/him

I read it all @nullius.

Maybe we should say the same thing about Jeff Garzik? He, "abandoned" core and tried to set up his own "bitcoin unlimited" or something along those lines.

When I questioned that act, others questioned my competence... (they could not question my integrity I think; or maybe it's too difficult to question a reputation.)

This is the same line of thinking I have about a great many people who have done a great many things in the past, but then decide to do something bad later in life, or are somehow coerced to do it. Martyrs are made because they died for their beliefs, not by compromising them.

For the religious out there, if you have lived the life of a saint up until the day you die, but you despair and commit a mortal sin willingly and willfully, you still go to hell. (It's arguable about suicide that in the last moments before death, one may have repented, so that's a different story altogether.) Conversely, if you have been wicked your entire life, but repent dying on a cross, that same day after your death, you could be in paradise.

Discussing Craig on this forum is like bashing on flatearthers on a science forum. Everyone knows he's BSer but still people get pissed off

I don't mean to be too dismissive about potentially valid explorations that might be raised, but these kinds of pie in the sky speculations regarding what might be potentially "valid" CSW motives are common tools for trolls and shills to place too much emphasis on what is highly unlikely rather than focusing on more plausible scenarios...

In this case, the more plausible scenario is that the CSW is a fucktwat scam artist that just makes shit up and throws spaghetti at the wall until something might stick, and in that regard, it does not matter hardly at all to speculate in a way that attempts to cause CSW to appear anything less than narcissistic and/or deluded in regards to what he knows or might know.

He has become a sensation no matter what we are speaking about him here or anywhere - at least he is in the talks which means he is something an important topic to discuss about. That's what he wants and that's what we're giving him - utter importance to a debate about a non-sensical scammer trying to gain fame by endorsing himself as Satoshi no matter even if he gets fucked in his face, he'd still not stop himself claiming that he is SN, yes he is a SuNky dude who can't resist the fame this Bitcoin thing could get to anyone who could actually prove that he/she is Satoshi.

The adage (not originally mine) is, “If you read it, it’s for you.”

Quote from: Dabs on February 18, 2020, 08:54:02 PM

Maybe we should say the same thing about Jeff Garzik? He, "abandoned" core and tried to set up his own "bitcoin unlimited" or something along those lines.

Indeed, jgarzik (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=541)’s political game with BU didn’t work out so well—so he became a NYA/2Xer.  I just lolled at his current signature:  “Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.”  (Bold underscore mine.)  In 2014 (cough), he was highly trusted and widely admired!  Actually, till 2017...

Traitors always evoke an intense feeling of horror and personal violation in those who trusted them.  Whenever I think of jgarzik, I think of dooglus (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420)’ comment which I memorialized in this screenshot when I was a Newbie, when I had been actively posting for less than five days:  “What have you done with the old jgarzik and how much will it cost us to buy him back? (https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/28ebbdb1f4ab632a1500b2c412a157839608fed0#commitcomment-24748502)”  This was when 2X tried to subvert the Bitcoin P2P network; committer: jgarzik, whose code is not trustworthy.  Read that 28ebbdb commit for details.  Underhanded bastard.

Quote from: nullius on December 06, 2017, 05:31:07 AM

https://i.imgur.com/Sj6Apc0.png (https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/28ebbdb1f4ab632a1500b2c412a157839608fed0#commitcomment-24746808[/url)

Reading in the recent release notes a list of “Network fork safety enhancements (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2388679.msg24412929#msg24412929)”, I can well imagine the internal monologue which must have gone through some dev’s head.  “I need to finally finish this patch for Segwit change address support (plus tests, tests, tests).  No wait, first I need to find some ingenious hack to ban fork nodes who lie about their identities so that they can waste node resources and try to subvert the whole network.  Network safety first.  Sigh.”

It requires prodigious engineering effort to produce mission-critical financial software which handles hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of value, operates in a hostile network environment, and is never, ever allowed to make the sort of mistake which could drop huge amounts of money on the floor because somebody rushed the change address patch.  I’m so glad that Core gives this to you, me, and everybody else for free so we can run our businesses, whether or not we pitch in what we can for what is an open-source project (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls).

Quote from: Casimir1904 on December 06, 2017, 02:15:42 AM

For sure i'm not going to invest money to create own work arounds or own patches to core code.

Another one of my Newbie posts, from when I had been actively posting for seventeen days:

Quote from: nullius on December 18, 2017, 11:44:37 PM

You fork, you die.

Genuine Bitcoin has crushed numerous forks and attempted forks:  “Bitcoin XT”, “Bitcoin Unlimited”, “Bitcoin Classic”, and the “New York Agreement” (misnamed “Segwit2X”; nothing to do with Segwit), to name but a few.  These no longer exist.  For the current outbreak of forks, if you wish to claim some fork coins, then dump them in exchange for real Bitcoin, and enjoy your free bitcoins.  Otherwise, simply ignore.  Anything from “Bitcoin Cash” to “Bitcoin Super Diamond Plus2X Plutonium With Ponies” is only a scam; and these scams will die sooner or later, just as did their antecedents.

https://i.imgur.com/9FtExlc.jpg

There are many pretenders to the Bitcoin title.  However:

There is only one Bitcoin.

(Note:  Quote changed to refer to an imgur upload of the image that I originally obtained from http://segwit.party/nya/tombstone.jpg)

That tombstone could also read:  Here lies Jeff Garzik’s reputation in Bitcoinland.

Whereas Gavin Andresen (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=224) is worse, much worse.

---

JayJuanGee:  ++occam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2112829.msg53867362#msg53867362)

(Not that that negates the likelihood of a leash on the grand-scale scammer and identity thief (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0) who seems thus far curiously immune to consequences.  I could never get away with what he’s been doing for years.  Cui bono?)

Not immune from consequences.

Michael Ryan and  DeMorgan Information  Security Systems Pty Limited
v
Craig Wright and Lynn Wright

https://i.imgur.com/h4GRNPZ.png

https://i.imgur.com/PDNgsKG.png

https://i.imgur.com/GL3tbRq.png

Australian tax office investigation and ruling.

https://i.imgur.com/OPMw8eI.jpg

Ira Kleiman v Craig Steven Wright

https://i.imgur.com/Vk68f2D.png

https://i.imgur.com/iRLUJbs.png

https://static.coindesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Order-_CSW.pdf

Personally, If I could prove myself as Satoshi, that implies I have the private keys,  I'd rather just cash out some of the coins. I'll probably start at the tail end (closer to present time rather than closer to genesis block.) I'm almost certain Satoshi had been able to mine some later blocks which flew under the radar and not attributable to anyone in particular.

There isn't any evidence or proof (and there could be none at all) but isn't it likely he would have stuck around at least until after the first halving, just to do some test mining and see the reward drop from 50 to 25?

Would probably split the forked coins too.

Just to refresh your minds... I quick searched the word "united" through all the pages but couldn't find anything so I'll assume that nobody has mentioned it yet.

Jeff Garzik also has a shitcoin project... a 1:1 (supply-wise) fork of Bitcoin.

United Bitcoin (http://www.ub.com/). (Trading for ~$1.8 at the moment on these exchanges (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/united-bitcoin/markets/reported/), yep it is pretty much dead.)

Everybody was getting his own version of bitcoin, and that was Garzik's shot.

He doesn't even need to say that he does it. He can give some clues and hints that it is he but not show so much proof for the authorities. For example including a number on some tweets. Then moving the amount in BTC. This is just an idea.

While I wholeheartedly agree with what you said and the conclusions.

Gavin should have been more careful - he fell for the ruse. As a result his reputation too has been tarnished.

But Gavin wouldn't have been appointed as Chief Scientist for his forensic or detective skills. It would have been because of his passion for the project, his programming and project management skills.

Someone who is honest themselves is more likely to be trusting of others.  History shows very intelligent people fall for cults, cons and scams.

The definition of a con man is:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/con_man

Gavin was gullible, was used and was duped. As a result he gave traction to a hoax and  lost a lot of respect from the community.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say that if I was in his position that I wouldn't have fallen for the tricks. Errors in logic are not always immediately detected.

Hindsight is great and when a situation is stage managed there is limited time to make a proper assessment. Not everyone figures out how a trick is performed in a magic show.

Even if you are an expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0CC99hVK8

https://www.cryptologie.net/article/350/how-gavin-andresen-was-duped-into-believing-wright-is-satoshi/

Then again he cannot provide any proof that's why suddenly many people confuse to him so maybe it's best for us to move and not believe on any claims coming from him since listening to him is just a waste of time, finding the real Satoshi still a mystery right now and if he's alive maybe he need to show up to eliminate those fakers.

even he knew or not if satoshi is dead still this person will claim the title because He is looking after the benefits he might have if he fooled the world and took the title from the real Satoshi Nakamoto.
how can he Prove to be the one when he does not have Proof of claiming?simple thing to do is Sign  a Message to the wallet addresses that Satoshi has so that can save everyone's time for this issue?but why can't he provide this?because he is a Faker.

I prefer Satoshi to be anonym. It is really interesting to know who he really is but I prefer him to be privat and just enjoy what he have done. I hope also that he still owns his Bitcoin as he gave most of the people in this industry and of course all around the world a new chance and opportunity to achieve better things.

I will never believe this person, because there is no evidence that he is saying.  At least, when the court requested Craig Wright to provide secret keys to Bitcoin wallets, which are the real property of Satoshi Nakamoto, this person did not fulfill this requirement.  And if Satoshi is alive or dead, then this is a completely different conversation.

I'm interested in this:


Where in the forum can I find these experiences that happened? They're probably buried under 500 threads by now.

This is a great point and it's something to keep in mind.  I do think that many of the people wright fooled could have and should have done better, but none of us should feel confident that we couldn't have been fooled. We could have. Maybe the trick that would have fooled us would have been different or the situation that succeeded would have been different. But humans make mistakes.


To be fair, the only thing that ever appointed him as Chief Scientist of anything was an organization that he, alongside Jon Matonis (Former Nchain Vice President of Strategy), Roger Ver (another prior Wright sucker, massive shitcoin promoter), Peter Vessenes (stole millions from MTGox customers and is holding up the distribution of the remaining mtgox assets with frivolous litigation),  Charlie Shrem (went to jail for money laundering), and Mark Karpeles  (lost customer funds at MTGox and went to jail for smaller scale embezzling) created.

There are plenty of defences that can be offered for the Bitcoin Foundation and the people involved with creating it but I don't think anyone can argue that it was some dream team of people went on to demonstrate good and careful judgement.  :)

Validation of Wright's evidence is a question for a technical expert. Gavin had sufficient expertise to demand the right things-- he had even previously published a more or less reasonable laundry list-- and he didn't. He also knew enough to know the basic limits of his expertise, such as being unable to determine if a random windows PC had been tampered with. Most importantly, he should have known that he was being asked to participate because his enforcement would be taken as a high degree of assurance, nearly proof, by the media and the public -- and as a result deserved either an appropriately diligent vetting on his part or a refusal to participate if he was unable or uninterested in providing one.

From my perspective it was just another example of a long history of poor judgement.
 
The fact that anyone can be tricked is why it's so much more important for people who will be perceived to be an authority to make an extra effort to not get tricked or just not play along.  So I think here the issue isn't so much that wright tricked him, it's that he shouldn't have been exposed in the first place, and that to this day he still has do little to nothing to walk back the damage.  Wright suckers still continue to cite his equivocation as evidence to support wright. I  think Ver is one of the less ethical people around cryptocurrency, and yet even Ver did better and eventually provided an unequivocated statement against wright's claims.

CW claims to be Satoshi because he’s a crook, a fraudster out for his own financial gain & he will do or so anything to ensure he earns money. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.

He’s a creep, the sooner he disappears into bankruptcy & or prison the better.

Well said, this is the only reason we can see and we all know that this is what he really after. He also want to be more popular so he can perform more fraudulent activity by trying to earn the trust of those people who believes in  him to be SN.

And yet I still have people who quack around telling me that Gavin is trustworthy around here, many things are backwards. The very very least that he should have done after all this nonsense got exposed was apologize and retract his statements (if not condemn Wright too). Ergo, not trustworthy.

If he knows about the probable death of satoshi, I am very sure he is not the only person that knows about that and this secret must have long be broken. I just think the guy is playing mind game and maybe there is more to the character he is currently playing probably a move to see if the real satoshi will come out to rubbish the guy's claim

I don't understand how people still actually believe this. There's zero actual evidence that Kleiman knew fuckall about bitcoin. All that anybody has is a bunch of forgeries by Craig with computer generated signatures, some backdated documents and a shell corporation purchased in 2014.

MicroGuy, burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise. Anybody can say anything they want about Satoshi. That part is easy. Backing their statements with evidence and facts is another story.

Craig has already been caught in so many lies. It's absurd to continue to believe anything he has to say, about anything. People need to deliver proof that they know what they are talking about instead of just regurgitating Calvin Ayre and John McAfee talking points from twitter.

Craig Wright assumes that Satoshi Nakamoto has not shown himself for more than ten years. Satoshi either does not want to prove himself, or cannot do this for various reasons. Craig Wright takes advantage of this. Of course, he takes a little risk, calling himself Satoshi Nakamoto, however, in his opinion, the risk is worth it.

Wright has no proof, his fame is dependent on been an imposter, this is how he gains more followers who know less about his original personality. I don't even think he knows about the real Satoshi.

---

Wright has no proof, his fame is dependent on been an imposter, this is how he gains more followers who know less about his original personality. I don't even think he knows about the real Satoshi.

He just knows most about BitCoin.

Nobody else ever disputed him on this matter.

Why?

That's possible because there's a possibility that the real Nakamoto could come out and that will embarrass Craig Wright, I guess he knows the real cannot come out anymore, unless he gives out a will to his inheritors and that includes the private key,he is exploiting something that he knows.

In fact Wright has shown extremely profound technical ignorance about Bitcoin, but he says that what he is saying is brilliant. Because you, yourself, are incapable of directly evaluating his claims you make the mistake of believing him and other similarly uninformed persons.

Of course, not absolutely everything he says is untrue or gibberish-- some things he just copies out of the bitcoin wiki or old posts and chatlogs.

Because you, yourself, are incapable of directly evaluating his claims you make the mistake of believing him and other similarly uninformed persons.

[/quote]

Agreed. I do not know enough about computer science and cryptology to challenge claims based in those topics. But I know enough about psychology and motivations. Craig's claims and existence do not align with Satoshi's original values.

They could not be more dissimilar.

Just because you're not peddling your scamcoin anymore, doesn't mean your opinion is suddenly worth something around here.  Leave the history lessons to be taught be people who aren't held back by the burden of their tinfoil hats, please.

If you guys are watching him for a long time, you should what he is doing with us, he keep on claiming that he is the creator of bitcoin then he spit some negativity to it, from that phase you should have know what he is trying to do with your mind. He is just setting your mind to hate him and love more bitcoin, and from that you guys will have the courage to invest more in bitcoin on which he privately holds a lot of it. Craig is a smart person, he would not be this too low if he does not want something in exchange.

Hey Greg, this guy says you should invest more in bitcoin. Did you see that? Should probably think about that.

LOL.

Seriously though. I mean wow, what a post!!

So how do you explain the fact that it took so much data collected form mass surveillance (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2139791.0) for the NSA to make a fingerprint of Satoshi? From the link:

I don't know man, I feel like Satoshi's identity is very important to them because Bitcoin is a threat to them so they want to stop any genius mind - like Satoshi's - that could provide us so-called "weapons" against them..

I'm just wondering: what if Bitcoin's creator was either Chinese or a Russian? Yeah, so what? Where's the threat to us as human beings? I'm asking because it looks to me like it'd be a threat to them, the 1%, not to the peasants.

---

Haven't you guys had enough of CSW on here? I don't know, it kinda scratches my brain when I read his name now, just let his character die in peace, let him be, he doesn't deserve any of the attention we give him as we pop this topic to the top every day..

I'mma be straight on point: he's not Satoshi, he's just a lying pos that deserves nothing of what he's received except the court case. The court case is what he deserves, and I hope his final sentence will be larger than what he's got so far.

this has been discussed so many times and we have made a conclusion that craig is not satoshi but faketoshi. By discussing him again and again we are doing what he exactly want i.e. giving him popularity. so I suggest all members not to discuss this faketoshi.

You added yourself years after Satoshi was no longer active: https://web.archive.org/web/20141022054522/https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/friends/SatoshiNakamoto

It looks like (https://web.archive.org/web/20140308002508/https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/GregMatthews) you created your account in March 2014 and the first thing you did was leave a comment promoting a shitty altcoin (http://[url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140308012742/http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?commentId=2003008%3AComment%3A52864&xg_source=activity) on a more than five year old post by Satoshi.

If you knew Satoshi in any way there certainly isn't any evidence at the link you provided-- quite the opposite: Most people don't tend to go around writing impersonal "Thank you for the clarification" messages to five year old posts by their friends. They especially don't go sticking tacky ads for their competing offerings on them.

Why do all these satoshi obsessed people need to be incompetently lying pieces of shit?

LOL. Busted. Guess this wasn't true either:


He didn't "friended" you, you "friended" him.

Why let little details get in the way of a good story though?

Someone in the forum once said that, the anti-Core trolls, have not brought their A-game yet. Their clout-chasing moves might be the start for another one of their disinformation rampage in the forum again.

They want to trick newbies to take their narratives for truth because, "look I know Satoshi, I have clout".

Reading the Satoshi White-Paper and having no heavy hodl bags - get Bitcoin on a higher abstraction level than a ticker - is always best way to get into and understand the matter.

thats okay if the founder gave him a permision to do that but what if not ? and he claims that he is sato   ? thats no good  .

that is worst if sato is really dead because he dont respect a dead guy   .  now going back to my first sentence  . if satoshi is a different guy ( and not craig ) i think its still awful to claim that he is sato even if given a legal permision  .   satoshi will only be satoshi for all of our hearts because that is the name we know when he released btc

Satoshi released BitCoin a Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System - P2P - on IP to IP  ....  - not just a ticker

If you can only think ticker, first was no ticker, than  BC

not btc

I don’t know if this is true or not, but you do have a point here. It might be that Craig Wright knows about this Satoshi Nakamoto and maybe the real person is dead and he then decides to claim that he’s the one so that he can take all the glory.

Or maybe he took the courage to do so, because he saw other people that has been claiming to be the real Satoshi that nothing was done to them. You just can’t tell. And moreover, I am not wishing that Satoshi be dead, because I am hoping that one day he would show up and reveal himself and take the spot he deserves. I seriously want to see who the real Satoshi Nakamoto is, and I don’t want him to die , not yet lol.

I have often seen people with a list of "thinks to ask and do" crumble under pressure in court or in a pressure setting. Wright would have known Gavins strong desire for being shown a demonstration of proof. Wright would have carefully spelled out his demands and "walked away" if he felt the ruse wouldn't work due to his demands not being met. With other situations his temper and demeanor resulted in him intimidating others or throwing his toys out of the cot. Gavin appears to be a relatively placid character.

To verify it properly it either needs to be able to pass public scrutiny or requires a "James Randi" of Crypto to verify it properly using carefully prepared tests. The demonstrator should never set the limits or scrutiny of the test.  The test needs to be designed by those that verify it.

Wright has the perfect chance to prove it in the Kleiman and McCormack case. Where the court determines conduct and demeanor. The lawyers and experts will determine the tests.

If he does not utilize the opportunity to prove it then he will still be held liable for his claims. For the case to succeed they do not have to prove that he is or isn't Satoshi. They just have to prove that his conduct means Kleiman is eligible for compensation.

Under "fair comment" McCormack only has to prove that based on the publicly available information that in McCormacks opinion he is not Satoshi.

The BSV camp will try to claim victory while facing complete failure. Because despite the claims that evidence will be provided by Craig that he is Satoshi I am of the opinion that it will not stand up to scrutiny.



https://i.imgur.com/SmvqPkU.png

What's that have to do with anti-Core trolls, that gaslight, and spread disinformation to trick the newbies?

Plus every forked shitcoin is after the ticker. They want to be "the Bitcoin, BTC", but no, they can never be. The community can't be tricked by frauds, and con-artists.

How do he knows the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto? And how he knew that SN was dead already? A lot of people probably is searching for the real person behind the inventor of bitcoin. But no one get any idea about him. If CW is saying that he is SN and he keeps on making announcements that he is the person behind while proofs and other events telling the people he isn't it. He just making some noise.

Craig Wright only wants to get public attention, so he claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. After all, how would Craigs Wright know Satoshi
Nakamoto has died, while Satoshi Nakamoto identity is unknown. Several times claiming he was Satoshi Nakamoto was useless, as long
as can't show proof that craig wright is satoshi nakamoto. Now craig wright is known as faketoshi.

I had this thought when I watched that video. The only way you can actually claim ones position in life is mostly when the person is dead. Good point but.... No matter who's dead and who's alive, bitcoin lives till the day after tomorrow!! ♥

It's been 3 years and still, the topic is very lively.

It makes sense 'cause CW won't have any confidence if he knew that the real satoshi is still living.

And there are possibilities that CW might know the personality of Satoshi Nakamoto, maybe he's claiming the title for his friend.

But still, I doubt that CW will make and receive the approval of those judges since he lacks a lot of evidence even the basic one to help him in the court, so probably he's a fraud. ::)

Just take a few minutes to read up. And you'll realise he has no point. The theory of Satoshi being dead is a plausible one (relatively, as is the theory aliens kidnapped Satoshi), but the discussions that follow this particular thread of CW knowing stuff, has no merit, is full of holes and contradictions. It is extremely easy to:
- prove Satoshi is dead.
- prove any claim of being Satoshi.

Yet none of the claimants have been able to do anything other than peddle fantasy stories not even really interesting.

Or the theory that satoshi was an alien and simply returned to their home planet, where the vast distance of space means satoshi's transactions don't sync with Earth's copy of the blockchain.    :D

But back on a serious note, nothing about satoshi has to be proven, because we only need to prove who satoshi isn't.  And it definitely isn't faketoshi.  That much is beyond doubt now.

The myth of satoshi identity that I usually consider to be true, is that satoshi is not a person but an organisation, organisation with government support. It is difficult now for anyone to claim the glory. I also believe America security agent knows too much on the invention. I dont expect such an approach given from countries like USA, Russia and China to the currency. They are liberal and tolerable to bitcoin especially and some developments that allow its adoption. This countries hold the largest share of the space and keep on encouraging the mining. In a time like this that the coin shows reason for global and government adoptions, some people are leaving for fiat that have so lost value.

Jesus, imagine what happens when the light transmitting those txs eventually get picked up by Blockstream's satellite network. The miner including those fees should be rubbing their hands nicely together.

But we don't actually have to prove who satoshi isn't, to me, if you can't prove it (and the burden is on the claimant), then you're not. Elimination process would be endless. Best thing is, anyone who claims and can't instantly prove it, has been eliminated, no matter how hard they insist they aren't.

These guys really need to be more entertaining. So drab, boo.

First of all, Satoshi is not dead and never will he be cause every genuine bitcoin enthusiast are also Satoshi since they share and investment in his dream. However, I dont believe CW was claiming to be Satoshi because the real Satoshi is dead for the mission of people like CW who are always con all the day of their live dont usually bring something good. What I'm saying is that the purpose of his act maybe a bargain between him and an organization which totally was to see bitcoin vaporize which may have promise to gave CW something worth it for himself to do all his silly act.

He didnt know Satoshi personality but he's trying to expose his personality for a dirty purpose and thats the reason why he took different form of lies/excuses.


I check the link to your profile (https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/m/profile?screenName=3b1cz0i5u4yyz) provided by gmaxwell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425) and stated the above message you posted and with what you have been doing on this forum and the forum provided by gmaxwell since the day you sign up people like you dont have any right to mention the name of Satoshi.

Drawing attention to himself and he's telling an untruth to be Satoshi cause Satoshi is dead to be more popular? We need to think like a con person to understand CW intentions and i can assure that all his claims to be Satoshi cant just start in a day if it wasn't planned very well or have some group support.

It's got to the point where he just continues to claim to be Satoshi because he's so far in to his lie that doing otherwise would be so much more harmful than to just keep up with the lies.  He's still got a lot of people fooled.  Plenty of people shoveling money his way based on his claims.  He gives himself up, all those things go away. He's clearly not satoshi, he could easily prove it and has not...Satoshi being dead or not doesn't seem to matter much in my opinion.

Just imagine that one day the real Satoshi and his team come out..I would not want to be in Craig's shoes. ;D ;D ;D

Sure, but there might be 'no other'  - Wanting original Satoshi Version to run as set up and in stone by Satoshi is pretty much aligned with Satoshi, isn't it ?

mmmm - whatch his socks rather

Doesn't matter.  A lack of presence by satoshi doesn't mean we want or need a cheap imitation knockoff:


If you bother to read:
https://modernconsensus.com/commentary/the-case-against-craig-wright-part-i-2009-2011/
https://modernconsensus.com/people/exclusive-the-case-against-craig-wright-part-ii-2012-to-present/

and the twitter posts linked within:
https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1225479475456024585
https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1209858790113337344

and the author's website:
https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html

You should have all the evidence you could ever need.  But instead, you continue to make yourself look a complete fool by continuing to support an exposed fraud.



Attempting to secure 6000 patents (https://btcmanager.com/craig-wright-crypto-blockchain-patent-spree-industry) based on Bitcoin and blockchain is not "aligned with satoshi".  The conman wants fiat, you poor, deluded muppet.  He couldn't give less of a shit about Bitcoin.  It's just something he can exploit for gains in his preferred national currency.  You are blind if you can't recognise that.

If you try to rip people off by attempting to scam them with shitcoins, you mean.  I don't care how many of you group together to protest your supposed innocence, you're all scum trying to profit from scams.

I believe it's the same for Bitcoin Cash SV holders like Kevin Pham as well. They won't admit that they were scammed. The shame would be unbearable! Hahahaha!

You made up a lie that satoshi was your friend in order to promote your altcoin. That's pretty low.

This just isn't true:


You being "attacked" has nothing to do with Blockstream or BTC maximalism. It has to do with making shit up in order to promote your own investment, which is inherently untrustworthy behavior.

it is possible that he knew that Satoshi Nakamoto did not want to appear or he was arrested, so he claimed to be Satoshi. But it doesn't matter that he is one of the people who holds the most bitcoins. Now, even if Satoshi appeared, what could he do when bitcoin's technology was in the way? For me, who is Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't matter, who is making the most money in this market. Now I only pay attention to the influencers and they can manipulate the market.

Many people tried to claim themselves Satoshi Nakamoto including Craig Wright. Satoshi Nakamoto did not reveal himself to the public for whatever reason, therefore many people tried to take advantage of that by presenting themselves to be (fake) Satoshi. No body believed Craig Wright when he claimed to be the founder of bitcoin.
Also where is the original  Satoshi Nakamoto , dead or alive , no body knows ?

depends all on your own view - funny 'legal' proof there.

I see that facts - BSV does what Satoshi wanted - no matter of all the rest

All - really all other protocols (gambelling tickers!!) got derailed, hijacked - altered -

call that a success - the price is on a different plate (moaning trolls - what a fun)

There's literally a thousand other altcoins out there that "does what Satoshi wanted" according to your very low standards. The only difference between those and BSV is that BSV is being led by a fraudulent conman who insists that he is Satoshi, despite being thoroughly ridiculed by the bitcoin community and never offering a single shred of proof that he is.

I call usership the ultimate measure of success. So far BSV has a very small actual userbase. It is accepted by almost no one, for anything, anywhere. Here's some quick stats for you:

Bitcoin SV
Median Transaction Value   0.00002 BSV ($0.0039 USD)
Active Addresses last 24h   21,220

vs

Bitcoin
Median Transaction Value   0.035 BTC ($266.13 USD)
Active Addresses last 24h   660,855

BSV has spent so much effort into filling its blocks with meaningless transactions in order to say, "behold muh big blocks!" that its totally lost sight of what was supposed to be its main goal: acting as a form of digital currency.

Really, when was the last time you wanted to send 4/10th of a penny to somebody?

BSV is like 99% of other altcoins: a lot of "look what we can do" with nobody actually doing it. If it weren't backed by Calvin Ayre, pumping millions of dollars into propping up its place in the CMC rankings, it would have fallen somewhere between Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond, where it should be.

Your response will include the words "troll" and "triggered," because that's all you ever have to say. I don't think you're mentally capable of coming up with an actual rebuttal, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

too much bla for what??

triggered ?

BSV is just Bitcoin

No shit

just fun

What he "wanted", with the information he had that time, doesn't matter. He is not here anymore.

ALTHOUGH, if he was here, I believe he would agree to the conservative design-decisions taken by the Core developers that made Bitcoin more robust.

That's not a fact.  That's an opinion.  



Taking satoshi out of the equation altogether, whether they were here or not, the only thing that has any discernible impact is consensus.  It's fine to have an opinion on which network you believe is a closer reflection to a document written by satoshi, but at the end of the day, it's just an opinion.  

If some people allow their opinion to blind them to the reality that the Bitcoin network is the one that has the:

• most potent network effects
• longest chain without cheating with an emergency difficulty adjustment
• strongest security of any blockchain on earth
• majority of the community's dev talent working on it
• largest support from users running full nodes
• most recognisable "brand"
• greatest utility and actual usage in making real-world transactions

then there's nothing we can do for them (by the way, @hv, those are what "facts" look like).  

Faketoshi supporters are entitled to their fantasies that they're winning some sort of perceived "moral high ground" and pretending that only they are uniquely placed to know what satoshi really wanted, but the simple truth is, they've lost far more than just that.  They've lost their credibility by following a fraud.

Newbies, this is Satoshi's real vision,

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWsT9LnVcAAB95N?format=jpg&name=large

That's not possible if the Core developers made design-decisions that would centralize the network towards a few entities that are driven by profit.

I'm not saying those entities are "evil". They only act according to what's necessary for the network.

That's no longer news, I mean don't we all already know that Satoshi wants to remain anonymous,  unknown,  in this case, it is very convenient for an attention seeker like Craig W to want to take advantage of that, remember he can not verify that he is actually satoshi despite his claim,
I would say he doesn't know shit, he is just like everyone else with what already know, he can shout all he wants he is satoshi   but fact remains he is not, being one of the pioneer of btc is different from trying to be the creator of btc.

This impersonator will never stop until He is putted beyond the bars because how many cases he has been facing yet not stopping to claim another BS stuffs.

Now His latest issue is this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5244298.0 That satoshi never used Bitcoin ,Look how funny this stupid CSW is.

The fact is Satoshi had been long gone from the public by the time you added him as a "friend" on the P2P Foundation website. His P2P Foundation account was hacked (https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/satoshi-nakamotos-account-hacked/2014/09/09) sometime in 2014, so whoever "added" you was the hacker, who incidentally used the website to post as Satoshi and threaten to dox him if he wasn't paid some BTC.

This was the message he left using Satoshi's account on the P2P Foundation on September 9th, 2014:


That is who you were "friends" with.

Maybe you just weren't aware of it, but this occurred over 5 years ago you should have brought yourself up to speed on the matter in this time before attempting to pretend Satoshi was your "friend." LOL. He's your friend about as much as Tom from MySpace is my friend.

The hacking incident was even mentioned on the forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0) while you were a member.

Oh brother.  ::)

Why would Satoshi threaten to dox himself? Can you answer that?

Clearly you weren't dealing with Satoshi, if anybody at all.

Smoking pot while reminiscing about what great pals you and Satoshi were, also inferring that he was killed and his body found covered in feces... all just to promote your altcoin? I would say it was bizarre if it wasn't also pretty low.

No, I quite doubt that he would. But I can ask him if you really care.

Again,

Why would Satoshi threaten to dox himself?

I have nothing to do with Blockstream ...

 ::)

Nope, more fragile and attackable, cause altered with less genius injections than was built by the real genius, and non-compliant BitCoin the more

Logic is not bendable

---

Why u think he might? Why he 'left' at all?

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

You are not saying anything that is exactly shocking or innovative, MicroGuy. 

The whole theme of this thread has the idea of satoshi being dead as its underlying premise.

Well, sometimes when you are so terse and flippant, then moderators can feel that you are not really adding much if any value.

I have had a few of my posts deleted too, especially when they are one liners that do not really add much substance and come off as merely serving as a kind of easy pun joke.  If you get a lot of posts deleted then you might find that you are tending to engage in that kind of a posting style. 

Overall, I don't get too many posts deleted, but I believe part of the reason is that even if I make a kind of smart ass statement, I will also provide some explanation, too, so that probably helps to lower my deletion rate.

Regarding whether Satoshi really is dead, I doubt that anyone really knows, including that fucktwat craig.  Sure, craig might be stabbing in the dark in terms of presuming that if satoshi disappeared (whether dead or not), that he (craig) had a lot of opportunities to present himself as satoshi.  Difficult understand why anyone would believe such a arrogant fuck, such as craig, but sometimes people can either be gullible or just feel that the narrative also fits their purposes, and another side of believing the craig story is that some people like to gamble on the possibility that some kind of outrageous claim may end up being true, and therefore they can benefit from getting on board early to such otherwise seemingly outrageous claim.

You are likely the one that needs to get a grip, and maybe grow the fuck up.

You need to get so much of a grip that you cannot even make any semblance of staying on topic or trying to provide some kind insight without devolving into blurting out irrelevant and seemingly stream of consciousness nonsense.

And, you seem to be a person who wants to argue or to stir-up irrelevant stream of consciousness shit for the mere sake of it.  

Hard to know, exactly, what potentially insightful point, if even feasible, that you are trying to make.

The forum rule is no posting twice in a row under 24 hours. If a fresh thought crosses that genius brain of yours and you have to let us know about it, just edit your last post if its the last post in the thread. If somebody else posts after your post, no need - you can make a new post - and it won't be deleted.

I've explained that to hv_ at least 4 times but its more fun to pretend you are a victim of the Blockstream Conspiracy than actually acknowledge the rules of the forum.

@Nutilda what happened to Bruno?

That may be true, but it doesn't make JayJuanGee wrong.

Plus nice trolling, you have done a good job in annoying people better than franky1 from what I have observed in the topic.

MicroGuy (Greg Matthews) is a piece of shit scammer.   He got caught (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2112829.msg54279907#msg54279907) fraudulently claiming to be "friends" with satoshi in order to promote himself and his scams... and his reaction has been to go into panic overdrive,  deleting the evidence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5242753.0), and flooding multiple threads with noise to bury the posts, and cloud the skies with conspiracy chaff.

The residents of this forum aren't half as ignorant or gullible as the residence of other venues full of victims and former victims of Wright's scam, so I predict that this isn't going to work out for him here.


Behold the narcissist in his native habitat replete in his self-worship, leader of all gullible enough to believe his incompetent lies.

Or maybe I'm wrong and he's just another drug addled idiot who's somehow earnestly arrived at this confusion,  but if that's the case why hasn't he attempted to answer nutildah's straightforward question?

For the record, JayJuanGee does not practised what you said and i guess you dont know that because you never make a good impact on this forum from the get go than offer shitcoin sservices.


You shouldnt have list your name among the members of this forum who work towards uniting all crypto enthusiasts together while you're planning to scatter with your dishonest act.

Youre not the ine who's his posts are deleted. However, the job of forum moderators is to keep the forum clean and if your posts worth deleting they will delete it.

I concur ...


...

the SELF ISOLATION rap by Goldie Lookin Chain (GLC)
- https://youtu.be/NPcBMQjBftY

 ;D

---

 >:(

Studiously trying to help 'fix' Bitcoin OPSEC since <2010

Re: TOR and I2P
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22.msg191#msg191

Re: TOR and I2P
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22.msg223#msg223

Source? This thread !  ::)

Sadly he passed away from a brain tumor. He will be missed. This is his last thread, where he talks about his hospitalization: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236380.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236380.0)

Specifically, here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140912070019/http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?commentId=2003008%3AComment%3A55276

You're going to continue your narrative knowing this was posted by the Satoshi Nakamoto account at least a month before you were "friended by Satoshi?" I sincerely hope not. Also, I'd like your comment on this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5244815

Thought you should be aware of it -- giving you the chance to correct any mistakes I might have made.

And only one guy informed Dave s family about what he might was involved in

Interesting, that guy is always on step ahead...

Hey big blockers! The mem-pool is more than 50mb large. Isn't that your reminder to start launching a tirade for a hard fork to big blocks again/convince everyone to use your forked shitcoin?

It IS fine, AND HEALTHY!

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h

Unconfirmed transactions are high, but the fees are low.


Bitcoin HAS the highest transaction volume though. The forked shitcoins have transaction volumes lower than Dogecoin.

Not Bitcoin

Shill for btc that

HAS. ... just speculation

But HAS no capacity to grow

HAS not any business case to grow (speculation IS , but how long)

HAS lots of anarchos, anonymous, criminals and idiots shilling it ( able to shil for speculation, not more, happy hodl)

HAS no future,

Only Bitcoin with compliant protocol and capacity HAS future

It's only bsv atm

Except it does, though.  Efficiency savings are being worked on right now so that transactions can be smaller.  This will result in a capacity gain.  

Also, just because the majority of users don't want the BTC blockchain grow as rapidly as your crapcoin hypothetically could (if anyone actually used SV, that is), doesn't mean they will flock to your crapcoin.  Capacity in and of itself is not a selling point.  Particularly if you sacrifice decentralisation to achieve it.  What you call "the simple way" in your sig could equally be described as "the blunt-force stupid way".  There's nothing remotely genius about it.

Your majority is just such a nichy minority

But fine, you got such segregated by yourself

Happy to hodl that fact

Plus Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi, and that we should be thankful we found Bitcoin like this poor fellow, am I right? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194581.0

OK, welcome to Flat-Earth.

Try drinking less while posting, it sounds like you're failing at writing a bad haiku.  Whatever meaning you were attempting to convey has been lost. 

Also, statistically speaking, I don't think SV supporters are in a position to lecture about niche minorities.  Your little faketoshi cult would be adorable if it wasn't so fraudulent and filth-ridden.