Bitcoin Forum

Today I happened across a recent interview with him, in a bitcoin discussion.

He stated at the end, "I was Satoshi".

The interesting thing I noted is a well educated smart individual using the word "was", is very past tense.

It could have been nothing really, but from someone who hasn't even begun to touch his wallets for some time, sounded odd.

Is he for real? He doesn't seem fraudulent to me.

But that is a big statement to make to the crypto world.

I apologize if this has been posted to death, I didnt want to necro any old stuff.

long story short
he doesnt write bitcoin code
in 2013+ he pretended to own bitcoin of pre 2012 and make a false name for himself by pretending to own coins of bitcoins inventor(due to certain addresses being well known(part of his ploy/plot))

he does not own the coins and just grabbed publicly available data, which anyone has access to, to fake a 'trustfund' to then use the trust fund as collateral to scam many businesses including the australian government.
the aussy government tried chasing him with civil court actions so he fled australia
he is now just trying to grab fresh money from many places to hope to repay old money (run a ponzi) so now he is geting deeper into trouble

he is now trying social drama techniques to continue false faming himself. and hopes the fame would be the proof of ownership without having to prove ownership. and hope he can dig himself out of his hole using social drama, although he is just digging his hole deeper

in short he is not a bitcoin coder, not a bitcoiner, and not a bitcoin influencer.
no point talking more about him as he has nothing really relating him to bitcoin but scams. thus lets not give him more attention. let his name die out and let his faked fame evaporate

Thank you and that does explain a lot of my question. Heard of him before, never gave it much consideration. And that is where I should leave it. Appreciated.

-CTS-

Since Franky answered and explained your question very nicely, I won't go into that details. Just one thing I am willing to mention, there's no way we can prove his statement right or wrong! So he is just taking the "benefit of doubt" of this dilemma. If he was the creator of bitcoin, then why he would create another coin? If your son is behaving badly, will you abandon your son or would you try to fix his behavior? 

He seems to have influenced you pretty strongly.  You appear to use a number of his arguments when you talk about how you think Bitcoin should work.  Let's look at some comparisons:

---

---

---

---

Looks like you two have got a great deal in common.  Like two peas in a pod bits of corn in a turd.  I wonder why you don't want to talk about him?  I guess we'll just let people form their own conclusions.   ::)

1. We don't have to prove his statement right or wrong, just as no one has to prove the hundreds of claims right or wrong. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. No one has proven it, least of all CW.
2. Benefit of doubt is not the privilege of a claimant. If I claim to be Satoshi, should I be given the benefit of doubt?
3. It's an assumption to think Bitcoin's creator would or would not do anything. Therefore, until proof is forthcoming, any theories we would have would have to be based on quite a bit of assumption.

There is no point in listening to anyone claiming to be the creator of bitcoin, until and unless someone can sign and verify using the genesis known wallet, there is no point in claiming he is the creator, what is the reason to come out and say that he is the creator and not willing to prove anything, if he plans to come out in the public, he has to validate rather than telling clumsy reasons for not revealing everything. Who ever created bitcoin abandoned within the first year of existence and if that person has to come back, he would have appeared when there was the block size limit issue and prove himself he created it and made some opinions as to how the development has to go.

Even if he did, that would not be proof that CSW is Satoshi, and I think it would be more likely that he had somehow "acquired" Satoshi's keys than he was actually Satoshi himself.

You only have to compare Satoshi's writing and philosophies to CSW's ranting, scamming, faking and incompetence (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright) to see that they are not the same person, regardless of which keys CSW may or may not be in possession of.

craig appeared public in 2015.. i been here since 2012
chicken.. egg..

what you dont realise is craig is not as smart as he makes out to be. so pretending craig influences people is a big laugh..

also. my opinion is mine. made from many sources human, code, running scenarios... basically research.. u might wanna try it as your echo's are echo's heard many times before by a known group.
but nice try playing the echo game against me.. shame it didnt work due to lack of proper research

so yea ill still yawn and facepalm you. have a nice day
P.S ive never been into the altcoin drama. my mindset is on diversity WITHIN BITCOIN. but you continue highlighting altcoin and social drama stuff

but maybe stick to eastenders next time

that's incredible to me, because he comes off like an obvious conman to me. maybe it's just the fact that i've seen him caught in lies---like the time he tried to trick people into believing he controlled satoshi's PGP key. it was an obvious scam.

there are other things too. he gets incredibly angry and flustered when bitcoin discussions turn highly technical which never seemed quite right.

Maybe true but I only heard of him before in retrospect after watching an interview with him.

I must have been under a rock lol.

Like some other people that dupe people around this space (... say someone who posted earlier in this thread...) Wright compensates for cluelessness by applying an abusive attitude, technobabble, and choir preaching insults at respected authorities to both elevate his standing and make his audience feel superior (like "I knew it! all along those respected folks were really worst than me!").

People without the relevant background can't judge the content, but they hear the the tone and attitude and they can't imagine using that approach unless they were telling the truth.  They just cant imagine being a pathological liar with testicles of neutronium themselves... and so, improbable as it seems, they actually find Wright's spiel credible even though to the rest of us it wouldn't even make for a credible conman act in a movie.

In fact, his utter implausibility works in his favour in another way: it discourages competent people from spending their time discrediting him, and when they do it they find themselves saying something like "wtf. how could you _possibly_ believe this crap. I can't even.", -- not exactly the most effective, even though it's actually a fair response considering the utter absurdity of the situation. :)

Also, since no one has linked it and to avoid myself being guilty of just giving a "I can't even" response, the bitcoin wiki page on Wright is obligatory reading: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright

This Wright seems like an impostor. If he doesn't write any bitcoin node like someone above me inferred, then he should gaining popularity by riding on the anonymous identity of Satoshi. People really don't take him serious.

Indeed. I welcome everyone to see for themselves exactly how they try to twist things to fit with their own agenda ...


It is immutable (transcript).

 ::)

Well that explains everything clearly. Besides that there would be no proof for him to justify that he is the real Satoshi.
I guess even if the real Satoshi appears right now, it would be difficult for us to trust him unless he shows us the access to his real old addresses and funds.

He can't prove he is satoshi. The guy is a fraud.

The most challenging for CSW to do its to sign message of satoshi's wallet and send some BTC to another wallet. No one touches that wallet since time.
If he "WAS" satoshi why destroy BTC with his own fork? 

I am too of the same opinion as you because I am not sure if CSW is satoshi, if indeed he is satoshi then he must dare to say who he is in all media or news from crypto. no, no he is not satoshi and I am sure he is a cheater.

seeing franky's answer, its just open my eyes about what will happen if someone pretends to be someone else and seems to be in power about it just because he has little involvement in it. Right now Mr Satoshi is still "not found" or its maybe just an anonymous people that put some people's random photo in it and then named it as "Satoshi Nakamoto"

If he was Satoshi then why would he just said it later on? the thrill will vanish, it's all about publicity, no more no less.

Anyone can claim that they are Satoshi, even me but until the time comes that the account of Satoshi Nakamoto's account 'Last Active: Today' will be sighted then that's the time I'll be started to believe that he's back.

I agree that this man is probably not Satoshi, even though we cannot be 100% sure, but  I am pretty sure he owns (or used to own until recently) a lot of bitcoins. I mean, don't we even know for sure he has lots of bitcoins? He wouldn't have been sued for billions unless people new he had them, no? And he said he'll sell a lot, and we can see that someone did.
Returning to the question in the original post, he is not, was not and will not ever be the Satoshi we respect and value.

He bought an insignificant sum on mtgox in 2013. There is no evidence that I'm aware of to suggest that he had any when he started scamming Bitcoiners. And there is a lot of evidence he didn't: If he did, why would he be risking them (and his freedom) attempting to defraud the AU government for millions? Why, when the AU government caught him and demanded he prove he had owned bitcoins under risk of imprisonment (his scam required him to claim to have a lot of BTC) -- didn't he reveal some of them instead of taking the risky step of claiming that a bunch of MTGox's coins were his?

The people suing him are doing it just on the basis of his public claims.  For them it's a simple strategy:  Either Wright is telling the truth and they're owed big time, or Wright is lying and he should settle with them (for, say, a few million) quickly before their discovery process reveals more of his criminal fraud. Win/win.  To do this they have to treat his public claims as the truth, even if they don't believe them. Though they might... filing a lawsuit doesn't give them any special insight. The fact that wright is frauding is better for their lawsuit since it creates more incentive for wright to settle quickly.  (Unfortunately for them, he's just not that sane...)

Somebody blow my fuckin brains out while the day's still young ... PLEASE!!!

LMAO. Sorry dude. Didn't mean to fire you up.

I was ignorant of his past, but boy howdy I learned quick. Still quite an interesting back story I wasn't aware of.

There's a long post by Greg Maxwell on reddit aka nullc, he goes in detail about how he did the trick of signing the key in front of Gavin Andressen and whoever else was there on the non-disclosure signing event.

There's also the job done by wizsec on the so called satoshi coins linked to Craig's claims:

https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/I0UHk8b.png

What can be said about Craig Wright that hasn't been said at this point?

I will give him the benefit of the doubt until 2020 because im very generous. He himself put several countdowns on his credibility, including the end of the Tulip Trust thing which has the coins on lock, and the one where he will kill segwit next year. If he doesn't deliver, he just can't hold his act anymore, not even for his biggest fans. His ego is unlimited tho, just like his block size, so he will come up with further excuses.

did you even read the details of the tulip trust.

heres the revelation.
the tulip trust holds only PUBLIC KEYS which were put into a notepad file. and then notorised into a fund.
NO PRIVATE KEYS

as your post above proves he just grabbed random early adoptor keys. again PUBLIC KEYS
the tulip trust has NO PRIVATE KEYS

so no point waiting for 2020.
the tulip trust has been ripped apart as a scam hense why when craig used the tulip trust as collateral. it led to craig getting into alot of trouble with the aussie government after they done their checks.

all craig wright is doing now, because he cannot provide private keys. is to try social drama stuff to get his face on as many media publishings as possible and hope using the media publishing as proof of ID, to then hope to use that as proof of ownership (DUMB-ASS)

until then he is trying lots of tricks to gather funds to hope to ponzi his way out of big trouble (repay the big debts) and try to mitigate trouble by leaving only small holders too afraid to sue him left empty handed.

I have wanted to ask this question to people who had interactions with Gavin Andresen.

What's the story behind Gavin Andresen's claim that "Craig Wright" is Satoshi? He has the relevant background to judge, and I believe that he is not that naive either. But why?

I heard of theories that it was a deliberate act to discredit himself because he was already compromised by the CIA.

the only reason why people like Craig Wright exist and continue their shenanigans online is because WE are giving them the attention they seek and them being attention whores and wanting to scam people love this attention and succeed in their mission.
so i say it is time that we stop starting new topics and discussing anything that is remotely related to these types of people. that is the easiest way you can fight them. otherwise you will be blue in the face before you can debunk half their bullshit.

@gmaxwell Oh damn, I never realised everything was nicely documented on the wiki page. Thanks, and very useful reference.

As pointed out countless times and reminded belatedly in that string of evidence against CW, proof of claim should be supremely trivial (as shown by LTC and DGB creators who simply signed from address associated with Genesis block).

Love the following Tweet: https://twitter.com/spiroseliot/status/727163005339860992

bitcoin has authorities...
Gmax claiming to be an authority... is the exact problem that proves bitcoin centralisation.. while then saying that if people dont respect him, the disrespectful should be treated as clueless abusive choir preachers...

dang gmax, high ego. and admitting bitcoin is centralised in one sentance.
kinda the whole reason to actually lose respect for you


anyway craig wright is just a scammer playing with an altcoin that he didnt even write himself. he deserves no fame and should just fizzle out into obscurity. cw has nothing to do with bitcoin.
 im surprised how such an 'authority' deems cw such a threat to even get emotional about cw drama.

also those few people that have slow internet because they are home users actually bottleneck the propogation. and thus they are not helping the network. so just being a full node for the sake of thinking they are helping, is actually doing the opposite.
 :'( :'( :'( :'(

^
mindset above is of the same mindset as real bitcoin inventor circa 2008-2010.(satoshi, NOT craig)
this is not a mindset of cw's creation... but craig to pretend he was the inventor adopted this mindset to push his fake ploy that he was the creator.

when others agree with the idea that slow connections=bottlenecks, does not make the idea wrong simply because cw now quotes it. it also does not mean people are following craig if they are following the slow internet=bottleneck..
but should be realised that the content has merit(original source). but that craig is only saying it purely from a point of view of 'i am satoshi'.. it still does not make the content wrong. but just makes craig a ass hat for trying to claim the mindset as his own


if your a home user with slow internet dont try being a node with hundreds of connections. as its like trying to be a torrent seed that is only offering independent users a 0.005kb/s datastream. its far better to only have 1-2 connections to cause less bottlenecking for others. thus offering a 0.25-0.5 datastream instead of 0.005
attempting to up the node connections to be helpful does do the opposite. because the recipients are not getting best connectivity.
also du to node drops due to low offering.. a slow internet user then needs to establish new connections and then send out the exact same data to new nodes AGAIN and again and again. thus not even helping the slow internet users own bandwidth utility.
its like someone with a stutter. its far better to talk to only a couple people and concentrate your speach on 2 people to keep a good conversation. than to try talking to 100's of people who will get bored of waiting for the completion of a sentance, walk off and the guy stuttering then has to restart with new people. it does not help the listeners. and the guy stuttering ends up repeating self more often then needed, further infuriating himself due to his limited ability. thus helping no one

think about it logically.. even the real bitcoin creator pointed this out in 2009-2010(again real bitcoin creator, not cw)
imagine 8 slow internet users of 0.5mb/s had 100 node connectivity for seeding out data.
another node that connected to those 8 slow internet users would get 8 connections of only 0.005(0.04 combined)

now imagine the 8 slow internet users only allowed 2 nodes each
another node that connected to 8 slow internet users would get 8 connections of 0.25(2mb combined)

also it actually helps the slow internet user to:
be a reliable seeder for others
to not have connected nodes drop them meaning they retain connections
to not have to get repeat drops which means not have to repeatedly send the same data
which reduces the bandwidth usage the slower user actually uses, thus helps themselves and their connected peers.
.. also those not personally needing to verify hundreds of transactions a day add latency, so normlly best to have 100,000 nodes that need high transaction verification needs. than have home users that dont need high transaction verification needs just being there for the sake of being there

but again
just because craig says it in 2015+ does not mean the original idea from the original source of 2008-10 is wrong. and does not mean others who say it are also wrong. because the reality is that idea is not of craigs invention..
though there are some people out there that try to discredit real idea's, simply due to craig quoting the idea. even if its not craigs idea in the first place

Yes you are right !


I think it is time for me to write here few lines to demonstrate some secret matter regarding @ProfFaustus. Craig Wright did not created the social media id name @ProfFaustus. Indeed it was Satoshi Nakamoto who created the social media id @ProfFaustus  and he put Craig Wright's picture from the internet on it. Some how, Craig Wright has got the access of this  social media id @ProfFaustus and claiming to be the owner of it. This is a Bitcoin Drama what Satoshi Nakamoto himself has designed on the online to enhance the possibility expansion  of Bitcoin and Blockchain technology.  

Every movie needs a villain or two or more to make the movie more interesting. The Spectators do not know what is next ? it would be pointless to create a real live Bitcoin Drama online without the artistic elements of drama or film. Craig Wright   recently reading a lot about the real Satoshi's writings which are available online and mimicking as a very good impostor of Satoshi Nakamoto character.  He has stated in his Medium  article that he hate Ross Ulbricht  because of his creation of Silk Road and other things. A parot is always a parot and the parot will never turn into a human being speaking human language. Craig Wright is just character, a role in Satoshi's Bitcoin Drama.

Well Satoshi met Craig Wright once, only once. He himself does not like the Craig Wrigh's atitudes of pride and arrogance behaviour but Satoshi wish Craig Wright could have improve his atitudes up to an acceptable standard if he is going play the role of Satoshi impostor. Satoshi has tried to educade him tand help him to change  his arrogance but  Craig Wright is Craig Wrigh and he always will be Craig Wright from Australia.


I really do not want to push Craig Wright out of the Bitcoin Drama Stage, until all his recitations come to the end.

The Bitcoin Community has the rights and responsibilty to fight against any fraudstar by revealing the true identity
of real Satoshi Nakamoto. Other wise Satoshi himself will standup and reveal his true indentity to correct the thing that
has gone wrong. Yahoooo ! Yahoooooo !


I am Moses,  Bitcoin Moses !



  

The mindlessness above is that some newbie spammer copy/pasted and plagiarised your own words (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107437.msg49649494#msg49649494), then added some smileys at the end and you didn't even notice.  Did you really think someone actually agreed with you?  That's just precious.   ;D

If you think his use of "was" was telling that he's a fraud, wait till you read all of these: https://github.com/CultOfCraig/cult-of-craig
With Wikileaks calling him the Bernie Madoff of crypto, his career as a con artist will soon be over.

Mr drama queen.
my reply was that i recognised my own words and treated ashraf226 quoting my words and the tears as some subtle face palm . not agreement....
in relation to what i believed was ashraf226 thinking i follow CW.(because CW also says that.. )
(learn subtly.. oh and it was tears not smiles. so again, ill say it to you.. i did not assume agreement.. i noticed the opposite than agreement..)

again it was nothing about ashraf226 himself agreeing with me. it was actually about me recognising the subtle hint that he facepalming me and feels i must be sharing an opinion with CW.. which is something you yourself also wrongly supposed think too. due to CW saying similar stuff

if you done research you would know the actual source of the mindset.. oh wait... my post even clarified it.. yet you didnt even get that hint

anyway
so i replied in the manner to clarify that the mindset of home users bottlenecking the network is not a concept/idea of CW..

i was pre-empting the obvious subtle facepalm rebuttle... thus its you that didnt pick up on the subtlety of why ashraf226 facepalmed my words

so again for clear emphasis
the home users botleneck the network is not an idea made in 2015+ by CW,
anyone also agreeing with such should not then be pigeon holed into the 2015+ CW drama

the home users bottleneck the network is an idea by the real bitcoin inventor(satoshi, not CW) circa 2008-2010
CW only took on the concept purely because of CW wanted to pretend to be satoshi. however CW real independant thoughts actually counter satoshis

so dismissing the content of home users bottleneck the network purely because CW used it years later . is the foolish thing. because that just makes lame excuses to dismiss anything satoshi ever felt/thought.. if then years later a scammer called CW then quotes it.

it is also foolish to pigeon hole people as CW followers, even though, if you do research the thoughts were not even CW's
again for emphasis.. when the original source of what people follow was not even CW
admit it doomad.. you foolishly want to pigeon hole me into CW follower. but you have not done the research

dont you get it yet. CW is not even making the concepts he is grabbing them from others.
wake up and do the research

You're conflating different definitions of "authority."

Greg was referring to those with the power to influence others because of their recognized knowledge and expertise. That doesn't imply that such authorities have power or control over the Bitcoin protocol. It just implies that there are knowledgeable experts within the Bitcoin community, just like all other technical fields. Craig Wright regularly lambasts such people in a populist attempt to persuade people towards his arguments.

ill also say the same thing to you
craig wright has never had an original bitcoin independant thought, ever. he just grabs them from other people.
craig wright was never bitcoin involved to any notible high degre. nor worthy of even being treated as a influencer

best to just let him fade away into obscurity and let the courts sort him out and slap him with a wet fish

Well I guess the sarcasm didn't go through in text format. I know there is no Tulip Trust, Wizsec's report is as good as it gets.

The guy was involved on Bitcoin since back in the day, but it's clear he is someone desperate for notoriety, he loves having a big twitter megaphone just like Roger Ver and all these guys.

I was talking about fanbase-wise. He has many fooled with his countdown for the Tulip Trust coin unlock, and he's also put a doomsday counter on segwit and basically Bitcoin as a whole. If he does not deliver, how can he sustain his tweeter fanbase? only the most demented diehard fanboys will hold by then.

technically there is a tulip trust(legal paper, but no financial value)
for a few years now the aussie government and a few private firm now know its as empty of value as a notepad file of public keys. hense why CW fled australia.

what truly makes many peoples blood boil is how CW, knowing how sick and near end of life the notary was and knew the notary would not be around by 2020 to have to explain reasons for formalising a empty of value trust.. CW proceeded in using him to formalise the empty trust.

which just shows the depths CW would go to to scam being rich and con not just private firms but the aussie government.
but anyways no point waiting to 2020. CW has no more cards up his sleave. so the only magic he can now do is fizzle out into obscurity and we just stop trying to reference him in regards to anything bitcoin related, because the truth is he aint relevant

best let the FIAT industry handle his scammy shinanigans and let it become news about him scamming FIAT. rather than bing bitcoin negative issue

::) The competent will always be the authority figures in any development of a software project. Or else there will only be chaos.

Aren't there authority figures in Bitcoin Cash ABC too?


What's your theory on Gavin Andresen's support for "Craig Wright = Satoshi"? Why would he discrediting himself?

Here's my idea.

Start a petition to boycott any and all crypto conferences where Craig Wright is schedule to speak, albeit allowing him to attend for possible shit slinging by attendees ...


To be clear about the proposed boycott, it'd include boycotting ALL sponsors of such events.

This fucker should not be allowed to speak at any crypto event.

Bruno

What's up with Calvin Ayre?

calvin ayre isnt just some dude that has some passing independent thought about craig. calvin has craig mentioned in calvins twitter avatar description/bio. so it obvious their more than joined at the hip

Well aware of that franky1 - Somewhat of a rhetorical question!  ;)

to anyone that might be wondering what is up with the recent "Craig e-drama" recently, I have a very simple theory:
Shilling, can be done in multiple ways, by raising awareness of a topic, regardless of the comment over it. So any thread, blogpost or twitter topic, be either bash or praise, can be used to raise awareness. In other words a good press/ bad press, with the philosophy of "there is no such thing as bad press".
But why now?
https://i.imgur.com/Sr2mxmE.jpg
BSV is in a downwards spiral of volume, and in consequence, price. The fork out of BCH was a clear last resort for Craig, who is facing the legal consequences of his fraud attempts and general bad actor behavior (hash war, hard fork, slander regarding BTC, LN and other projects).
As volume drops, desperation sets in, and even bad publicity would at least make people open up shorts for BSV.

This is my theory, they are trying to accumulate friends and enemies at the same time, in hopes that their fork see action in any form.
Monero has just surpassed them in daily volume averages.

It looks like he's going even further off the deep end. I guess he's made his bed with Craig Wright and now he's got to sleep in it. The pair of them are looking more delusional by the day.


This is just fascinating and hilarious and sickening all at once. :D

I'd say they're made for each other given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Ayre#Criminal_charges

Most folks don't even know who really won the Bcash / ABC / SV 'hash' wars ...


Merged Mining FTW ;)

NOUR  :D

Bring Me The Horizon - medicine (Official Video) * NSFW *
- https://youtu.be/MocF43ncu8I

He was (or still is) probably trying to get his own pump and dump going with the BSV fork in order to cover the up and coming clusterfuck with the tax authorities that he will eventually have to face.

Btw the former pic I posted got deleted by the dreaded bitcointalk proxy thing so here is the link for these still didn't see this:

https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

And as far as your previous posts on blocksize, if satoshi smart, he would have predicted that after the initial stage passed, attempts to hardfork (in order to raise the blocksize) would just end up in clusterfucks that benefit no one in Bitcoin, so basically it has become digital gold de-facto, at least in layer 0, the blocksize has become no different from the 21 million coin limit, there's no consensus to change it, at least not anytime soon.

The Inception of Bitcoin ?

A potted (*satirical*) history ... "The Best Bits" ... so far ...

The Golgafrinchams - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy - BBC
https://youtu.be/fMoPR2IA2Uk

Answer To The Ultimate Question - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy - BBC
https://youtu.be/5ZLtcTZP2js

Hatsune Miku - World Is Mine ~ Project DIVA Live -
https://youtu.be/O17f3lB7BFY

Hatsune Miku "Ievan Polkka" Project Diva Dreamy Theatre (HD)
https://youtu.be/ZjDZrReZ4EI

The Disappearing of Hatsune Miku ~ Hatsune Miku Project DIVA Live - eng subs
https://youtu.be/9LG7wo82ivs

It Isn't Easy Being A Cop - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy - BBC
https://youtu.be/CdULDIFU0EY

Vogon Poetry
https://youtu.be/0lXas5Ix65U

Don't Panic! - Introduction To The Hitchhiker's Guide - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy - BBC
https://youtu.be/YKBRbrx2Jas

Galactic Tax Hole - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy - BBC
https://youtu.be/PQjgMF_20dE

Tony Wilson interviews Bill Drummond
https://youtu.be/7oLdYay0PnE

KLF Return After 23 Years on BBC1
https://youtu.be/O2xgxtr8O5M

Demolition Man - The 3 Shells * NSFW *
https://youtu.be/n7nFEnFtvCM

Marvin and Gods Last Message
https://youtu.be/vA2vCG6WwQA

~ THE END ?   ::)

   :D

Amen on that, but there's new Drama Incomming at the "U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission" whom I would link to the FIAT industry.
https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61969
So going short on popcorn could be pure bancrupty asap.

Juxtapose the above with the following excerpts from "Mr Bitcoin: 'I don't want money, I don't want fame!' BBC News" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DCAC1j2HTY) ...

every time there has been big "bitcoin consensus" meetings/conventions. seems some 'hey look what CW is upto' drama begins.

seriously folks. he aint worth anyones time.
if you care about bitcoin. stick to looking at what the bitcoin devs are upto not the altcoin social drama.
let the CW drama belong in a court room

So what you're sayin' is automatically 'facepalm' and yawn at Craig Wright, eh?  :P

Ineffectual because "crypto" conference have long been thoroughly overrun with scammers. Everyone who takes a strongly principled position on not attending events with scammer sponsors or speakers are already rejecting almost all events in this space.

Scammers just get a much larger marginal return from promotional activities like conference speaking/sponsorships.  Conferences are almost all run as money making enterprises, so the fact that they're saturated with scammers is unsurprising.

No he is not. This is very bad case of insane need of media attention and beign important for his imaginary reasons ;)... whatever lie is needed for that, he will give it all.
Not serious person, attention seeker that is all.

there is no winner as long as they both exist and can take hash rate from bitcoin's network! the war has a winner when the other side(s) gets annihilated, or at least we see one 51% attack from one chain against the other. SV is a good candidate for getting 51% attacked since it has a low hashrate already .

both cash and SV didnt 'take' hashrate away
both cash and SV didnt influence bitcoin

in sepember/october (BEFORE SV) there was news of new next gen ASICs hitting the markets by december. so pools slowly wanted to sell off the old (s9) asics whil the S9 had value still. so an october(emphasis BEFORE SV hashdrama) curvedown of hashrate occured.

ofcourse the altcoin drama thought they would take the oppertunity to buy that cheap old tech and start some drama pretending they were somehow involved/cause or effect...

meanwhile. bitcoin network pools thought they would see an early influx of next gen asics and a few pools getting to be the testing ground (QC checks) before the actual release.
but things have been sluggish on that front. whether it be TSMC not producing asics quick enough or just holding out and spreading the batches out a bit to avoid a massive onramp of hashpower on the network.

either way cash/sv did not influence bitcoin.. it was the other way round

in other words you are trying to say that it was a coincidence that exactly at the same time as these forks occurred bitcoin hashrate went down. not to mention the EDA shenanigans of BCH and the fact that each time they reduced the difficulty bitcoin hashrate dropped and time between finding blocks increased noticeably. coincidence?!!

For the cost of a postage stamp anyone can verify if CSW filed the blacknet abstract to the australian government in 2001
With this knowledge trading based on that information before it's public is easy.

Has to be hand written and mailed.
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/faqs-for-individuals/how-do-i-make-a-freedom-of-information-request

Surely CW being a billionaire knows whats at stake with fraudulent claims and isnt wanting jail time. He would ruin himself is this doesn't exist.

A 'winner' was / has already been declared, by some ... (certainly by definition of network 'hash' power / block count / stats. etc.,) ...

- https://coin.dance/

...

I do network security work myself. I spend half my day improving network security and preventing DDoS attacks.
~ Not sure why some accounts seem to be trying to draw me into such conversations as of late?

...

The Broken - Episode 1 - Kevin Rose first solo project *Satire* *NSFW*
- https://youtu.be/oYYnF1ZeOo8?t=474

SV (craigs drama) was november
bitcoins hashrate was OCTOBER

chicken / egg

the whole idea of SV was not to actually do anything. but to take an oppertunity of buying/leasing cheap hashpower and falsely proclaim he is influencing and stealing hashpower and doing things/causing trouble.

again, dont give him the pleasure of making him think his fake fame game is working, ignore the altcoin drama

the reality is a shift from old ASICs to new asics.
those involved knew before summer that a ASIC switch over was going to occur by Q4.
the SV drama was a effect, not a cause

The Craig Wright is nobody to me because i don't want to know satoshi. I like the fact that he is a faceless man so please let us stop talking about this Craig Wright guy.

Can't / Won't Sign and Verify a single Bitcoin block (as bitcoins supposed creator).  ???

Yet, I, a humble bitcoin early adopter can Sign and Verify blocks on old wallets, blocks that do not even exist (as well as ones that do of course!) ...


PM me if you need 'help' with that.  ::)

...

- https://medium.com/@hoaxchain/the-hard-evidence-about-craig-wrights-backdated-pgp-key-step-by-step-guide-for-windows-users-bd99c47c495f

Of course he's a lying impostor. And it's strange that so few impostors have come up. But out of curiosity, has he ever commented on some of the choices he, being satoshi, chose to make? It is always interesting to see a liar scrambling to explain choices that he has no idea why they were made.

Why did he choose that name? "Satoshi Nakamoto"

- https://youtu.be/4oPddS8HujA   ::)

Craig Wright is left only to make some filthy  statements on bitcoin and crypto industry he want to divert the investor's attention into his own project bitcoinsv

Would you be wiling to participate in one of the Tone Vays' conferences? Either Unconfiscatable conference or the up and coming Understanding Bitcoin ones.

Websites:

http://unconfiscatable.com/
http://understandingbtc.com/

Adam Back and Wladimir Van Der Laan are going to understanding BTC. I think they are the only 2 decent conferences out there. Understanding BTC is aimed at Bitcoin devs mostly.

The first one is over and I missed it, for I live in Vegas. #Sad!

I kind of think he was trying to make people understand that satoshi wasn't a real name.. . that it was a psdonym or something.
I doubt he is satoshi though. There is something not right about him :)

I think he will be making those conferences yearly ones so you can go on the next one. He's trying to get more people for the Understanding Bitcoin up and coming one, I would like to see more Core devs, specially people that aren't the usual suspects, other less known people. Also developers of other Bitcoin clients that aren't Core but still are also Bitcoin, those are often forgotten.

It has to be made clear to people that Core isn't forcing anyone to use their software. Anyone is free to start their own client and convince the rest of the network that their software is the best without forks involved. I would like to see this view discussed but Tone is too much of a Core fanboy for that, but still he is one of the best "celebs" on Bitcoin at the somewhat mainstream level.

This is the tricky part.  What happens when someone feels the "best" software needs to include something that would result in a fork?  It's not something easily avoidable.  I think it's just something we have to be mature about.  We can't treat every fork proposal as a "coup" or "power grab", because that's not a healthy attitude.  But at the same time, if those proposing a fork feel strongly enough about their ideas, it's only fair for them to understand that they might need to move forward without support, as an altcoin, if the two sides can't reconcile their differences.  Longstanding deadlocks are not healthy for anyone in the community.

what doomad cannot reconcile or understand. is that 65% the community were not core 'happy'. but core opposers never used force or coersion.

yet it was the core 'happy' group that done the mandated activations, NYA tricks of deploy core roadmap and maybe get extra later, and the other stuff.

yes core had the tricks to take people off the network disagreeing with core even before cores actual feature they wanted voted in got the vote.
CODE and blockdata prove it.

so.. if doomads latest quote is anything to go by..

if a software client feels they need to include something that results in a hard fork. then let the honest nodes of TRUE consensus and byzantine generals solution cause the activation of the new feature if its acceptable, which THEN results in a fork for the minority. and not let allow a fork be the only reason the new feature gets the activation.
meaning no fork pre-activation. meaning no force or coercion

again to highlight the point that keeps getting tried to be brushed under the rug. no hard fork pre feature. just to fake a feature vote



this means if people truely, honestly like the feature, it gets activated without a pre-fork. where the new feature itself THEN causes a fork after activation whereby only a minority is affected by a feature fork
this means if people truely, honestly dislike the feature, it doesnt activated to cause the fork, thus nothing happens, no harm no foul

this ensures those proposing features actually think about features and actually propose things that would benefit the community rather than just their groups plan.
but hey we will just hear how doomad and thos who echo the same as him loves the idea that core can do as they please as consensus is meaningless and permissionless is everything and how core deserve to dictate the rules for other nodes to follow. and if people dont like it they can just f**k off

to spend a year+ defending a group pretending they are open and represent the community, and pretend they cant do nothing... but also say they dont need to listen/represent to the community and should do anything they please is utterly beyond just a flip flop. but admitting control, centralisation of decisions is now occuring. and no longer the consensus/byzantine generals solution is in place.

Note the part where I said it's something we have to be mature about, then cue franky1 being totally immature and fixating on his one favourite date where he can refer to an arbitrary 65% figure that doesn't actually mean anything in practice.  Then a bunch of fanciful wish-list stuff.



Call it "TRUE" consensus all you like, but you are powerless to make everyone accept your definition of what that is.  What you can't reconcile is that if you don't like date-based activations, then the method you'd naturally lean towards is bit signalling, but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.  You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations.

Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else says, consensus is going to happen naturally.  There's literally no point in trying to direct things in a direction you approve of by telling people what they can/can't/should/shouldn't code because it's not something you have any say over.  Just know that everyone is going to run what they think is best and that's how it's always going to be.  That's why your plea for "true" consensus falls on deaf ears.  We already have true consensus.  You just think it should be different, like "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree" etc.  It doesn't work like that.  People can ignore your vote if they want.  They can disconnect you if they want.  They can code stuff you don't like if they want. 

You can't force people to vote.  You can't force them to consider your idea.  You can't force anything.   



This only holds true if you believe users are "sheep".  Probably why you're the only one who thinks devs are "in control" when they clearly aren't. 

doomad you keep sweeping things under the rug and then move and meander the crap you spew out as "my idea"
do your research. and dont find someone from 2015+ who is just some mouthpiece.
i mean go all the way back to 2008-2015 and research devs, code, whitepapers, technical stuff that will teach you about what bitcoin truly is (pre core manipulation)

you really love turning real network changing events into social drama. purely because you love centralisation.
but your missing the whole point of bitcoin

though 'my idea' is just discussion... you pretend its code that is somehow actually causing network conflict.. again your not thinking logically

the only network conflict has been caused by core devs
you pretend no on is able to force their 'idea' in.. yet then say core can do as they please and activate things by dat and force things in.
again. stop flip flopping. do some research, find the blockdata, stats, dev admissions and code which supports a flip or a flop.. and then stick with one narrative.
admit core now control the network. or admit they never should control the network. stop flip flopping

p. s stop trying to insinuate that core are just chimney sweepers and that somehow my forum discussions are more powerful than code.. as that is your massive logic error which you try to use to deflect the discussion away from CODE that DEVS write

its why i dont give a crap about CW. because he aint a dev and he aint playing with bitcoin. if you think CW is an influencer. then your really missing the point of bitcoin and the understanding of devs, code, network,and how things work

funny thing.
switch the "you" for core. and put it against the 2017 events and try to actually keep up your pretense once the shoe is put on the other foot.
your whole last X months of flip flopping fail when you swap your comments around to be aimed at core instead of me

here is another prime example of a massive logic failure
"but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.
You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations."

translation.
you cant stop someone doing something. you cant stop someone preventing something

translation.
someone cannot stop you driving a car. you cant stop someone taking your car away

just shows how you dont understand the byzantine generals issue and how satoshi found a solution to it called consensus in 2008-9
all your concerned about is how cor bypassed consensus and your happy that they can now do as they please

again for emphasis doomad. as its been your main social drama switch
you keep thinking code does not matter and how a discussion on a forum has more network effect.. seriously sort out that silly echo you keep using as it just makes no logic sense.

The only logic fail is yours.  You see flips flops because you don't understand English.  

You whine about disconnecting nodes.
You whine about "mandated" activations where someone picks a date for a fork to occur.  

You can't prevent either of those things.  If people run the code that does those things, they happen.  There is no flip flop, you are just a simpleton.

and then he will later say "you cant enforce either of those things"
typical flip flopping

anyway the point is. using a fork (not feature activation) purely to cut out a certain group of people. to then SEPARATELY activate a feature. is not consensus.

but hey.. flip flop like a fish out of water all you like.
but atleast try understanding the whole point of what bitcoin is about. even if core have bypassed consensus to do as the blockchain, code and as you now FINALLY admit. mandate forks via dates and disconnecting nodes. atleast admit that core do have power and they aint just some chimney sweeper, powerless to do anything.
and dont even try to insinuate or meander it back into some social drama that i (on a discussion board) am some how a network threat or that i am the one that is changing the network maliciously and how core have to defend themselves against me.

find logic, do research and understand the point of bitcoin. stop the social drama games with your flip flops

doomad
for months now you and your echo chamber have been basically saying
X cant happen because it involves people to agree to X
X cant happen because Y
Y cant stop X
Y has no power
franky needs to stop trying to change the network with Y
Y Y Y
no one talk about X
franky stop trying to force Y
lets all talk about Y
X never happened
X happened and no one can stop them
X can do as they please
franky is forcing Y changes on the network and core should stop Y
franky franky franky

while completely missing the point that X did happen. and it happened by not using the consensus that has been existant for years.
trying to make it sound as if cores the unicorn and im the network attacker is foolish meandering and just social drama.
trying to make it out that consenus and the byzantine gnrals issue is something that only existed by some altcoiner speach of 2015+ is foolish.
trying to be a core lover but then hide it, but then admit it, but then hide it is foolish.
all your doing is flip flopping for social drama and not actually recognising the point.


trying to meander DEV/CODE/NETWORK events into "shh lets talk about people that dont write network changing code".. thats your goal.. i get it.
now move on and try something new.

meanwhile.
ill continue to highlight when the network code has changed due to devs, whre the change has been controversial and not actually benefited the network but done to promote some central agenda
if you dont like open discussion of such, hit the ignore button

If Craig white was Satoshi it would have being proved last time when he tried to prove himself and fall apart. So their is no point now left just for him to prove again. Also their was no need to come out as in so many years it was not done so why someone would come now and try to claim int.

If one is claiming that he is the SATOSHI then it should be supported with evidences. The words used to claim that he is SATOSHI is not a valid basis without proof. If he really think would like to get acknowledge as the real owner of bitcoin then he/she should start revealing evidences so that we wi credit him/her the creation of cryptocurrency.

Satoshi will never impose his identity. Satoshi will remain anonymous forever. Craig Wright is one of the self proclaimed satoshi. We should not believe to them because it is a false information.

Anyone can claim to be satoshi nakamoto, the problem is when they have to prove it. The only prof we are asking for is a signed message with the first bitcoin addys, and since Craig wasn't able to do it, then he was lying.

It used the consensus that the rules allow.  BIP34 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki), for example, was being developed in 2012, before you even started using Bitcoin.  Why did you even bother joining this network in the first place if you can't abide by softforks and believe them to be "bypassing consensus"?.  You don't even understand what has been "existent for years".

Ok, I started this thread out of curiosity over who this guy was and what he represents.

I was in for quite an eye opener for me and I certainly appreciate everything everyone has posted. I can say quite interesting to say the least.

I did see he wants to be interviewed by some crypto experts or something in order to clear his name. I look forward to the entertainment at the least.

shows you didnt read
"All older clients are compatible with this change. Users and merchants should not be impacted. Miners are strongly recommended to upgrade to version 2 blocks. Once 95% of the miners have upgraded to version 2, the remainder will be orphaned if they fail to upgrade."

the MANDATED fork...
the PRE upgrade disconnect.
has nothing to do with bip 34

so you saying that core in 2017 used something that was available in 2012 is YOUR FAIL

spend less time flip flopping and try and do some deeper thought stuff on actual events.

read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.

core in summer 2017 did not follow the wait for majority. then activate IF miners agree to suggestion, which would then cause fork
core in summer 2017 did controversially fork off opposition using mandated force via forking early. then fake 95% to activate,

This Craig Wright thinks that people will just believe what he says and whoever believes is also stupid.
If he's real then signing a message in genesis block will be easy for him and yes he can't and he will never can.
Then I won't be surprise if Craig will soon launch his own coin and just withdrawn his claims. Goosebumps***

I guess segwit is again being discussed and how it got added via soft fork on former replies.

You aren't really forced to use segwit if you don't like it. There's other's clients that bypass segwit and you just ignore segwit addresses. If segwit ever got "unsegwitted" out of the network, you wouldn't suffer any losses, given that you are holding on addresses that begin with 1 matured after a couple of blocks.

So just like that, Core cannot really force you to do anything that you don't want to do.

The way I see it is it's just impossible to fork Bitcoin at this point. 1MB and all those things are just like 21 million coin limit, in theory it can be changed, but in practice consensus will never be reached, so Bitcoin has achieved immutable status, and forks will end up as BCash and co.

Craihg Wright is mad man desperate for attention, aiming to make himself relevant. It's really disappointing that the media is covering this guy.

Also worth noting that Satoshi was a very private individual, there was no ego involved in both his communications and his/her actions. Craig has a very contrasting attitude by comparison, It seems very doubtful that the real Satoshi would pose in front of a glass board full of math to take a professional headshot.

I'm going to walk you slowly through what just happened here, step by step:

• I made the points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108368.msg49883791#msg49883791).
  
  
• You made a post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108368.msg49883925#msg49883925) which completely failed to overcome those points and then added the false assertion about "not using the consensus that has been existant^(sic) for years".
  
  
• I pointed out that you don't even understand the consensus that has existed for years (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108368.msg49884594#msg49884594), since you incessantly whine about "in-flight updates" and softforks in general, claiming that's not how Bitcoin "should" be.  Despite the fact it has been within the rules to do that for a long time.
  
  
• You then use that statement in an attempt to disprove my initial points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates, even though it doesn't disprove those points at all.  Those points still stand and your broken logic doesn't change that.  Again, you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates.  You have failed to refute those points, whilst also demonstrating in the process that you don't understand Bitcoin.
  

 

Other people would need to agree with you for any of this to change.  They would have to run code enforcing different rules.  Rules that don't permit softforks, activation dates, disconnecting nodes, or whatever else it is you don't like about Bitcoin depending on what day it is and whether it suits your argument at the time or not.  The users on this network clearly don't agree with you, based on the code they appear to generally be running.  Also, your reasoning skills are abysmal.  Quit while you're behind, it's just getting sad now.

Dr Craig S Wright
- https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1100437200234266624

"The ONLY legal means to create a new consensus method, to alter the protocol is to start a new blockchain from scratch.

That like Core or ETH is simply an Airdrop and sham offer.

Time will show this."

...

Dr Craig S Wright
- https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1100440103883886600

"As with the Harwyn case, unregistered spin-offs violate the intent of the 1933 act.

What in Bitcoin is a commodity in standard form, can be treated as a security sale when in other forms and issue.

#BTC is a sham and airdrop
Not bitcoin"

 ::)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
"... definition of knowledge: S knows that P if and only if:

    P;
    S believes that P;
    if P were false, S would not believe that P;
    if P were true, S would believe that P. ..."

...

🔴 🔴 It's now possible for everybody to be Satoshi ⭕ ⭕
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113610.0

your flip flops is saying how your buddies can do what they like and no one can prevent it.
but anyone opposing your buddies.. their attempt requires permission("need to agree")

do you now see the point of centralising your admitting to.. how core dont need permission(your words) but other groups would need permission

a. cant prevent
b. need agreement

your the one flip flopping about only one side has control basically

anyway. the 2012 consensus bip34 is something coded back in 2012...
BUT was not used AS -IS in 2017
again you admit to the august first bip148 that was a pre-fork method to scew and falsify a consensus by doing a controversial split. you were even extremely happy about the NYA x2 attempt too a few days later.. you seemed very happy that the consensus was abused by pushing people off thee network before a consensus to fake a consensus, to force in something that would not have got activated without the forced pressure (as it only had 35% agreement pre threat)

you trying to even suggest 2017 was a fair true honest consensus of bip 34 is just more flip flops.
anyway

go back to your social drama of thinking bitcoin is cores private property and the community should not tell core what to do when core want to activate network changing code.
but then be happy to tell a forum how a private property should listen to its userbase

point is core SHOULD not OWN the network and be the CORE / Reference... no one should be a CORE REFERNCE.
that was the whole innovation and magic lightbulb moment of 2008-2009 that there doesnt and shouldnt be a core centre of code decision

you are more of a flip flop than a fish out of water. only thing you dont realise the more you just lay there flip flopping with no single chosen direction to move in.. the more your left struggling and weakening yourself.

so spend less time flip flopping, do some real research and choose a mindset to have and stick with it. choose a narrative that has some stats and data to back it up and stick with it. because your flip flops are getting boring and winning you no sympathy even after i have tried to tell you many times to atleast try learning bitcoin more (being helpful, but you treated it as an insult)

as for your flip flop of thinking 2017 used bip 34
hint: bip 148&bip9 is not the same thing as bip 34.
bitcoin ntwork has not used 34 for years.
[/list]

anyway.
i hope doomad drops his flip flops for a few months and spends the time just researching, learning and gaining a few independant thoughts beyond the reddit scripts he reads of 2015+

but as for CW
he is not a influencer and not important to bitcoin so best to just not treat him as important. let him sizzle into the background

All his statements are contradictory, in fact some don't make any sense at all. He's trying to be "scandalous" in order to stay relevant, he stopped caring about people calling him out on his bullshit.
Just ignore.

With the hash power that Jihan and Roger used to defend BCH they could have easily destroyed BSV as well. But they're not dickheads like CSW, and in this instance I regret it. BSV is a stain on cryptocurrencies.

Anyone can code anything they like.  How many more times do I have to say it?  You are the one saying people shouldn't code softforks/activation dates/code that disconnects other clients/"wishy-washy scale factor"/anything even remotely to do with "other networks", or LN as most people tend to call it/etc.  Anyone can code those things.  There are no rules that state people can't code what they like.  Any other dev team can add such code to any client they are developing.  It's not like one dev team have the exclusive usage rights on code which does things that you don't like.  But whoever writes it, the code doesn't mean anything unless people run it.  

And just in case you call flip-flop yet again, I'm not saying that "no one can prevent" changes when it comes to consensus.  Lone extremists out there on the fringes are definitely not in a position to effect change.  As such, the singular "you", as in, specifically, YOU, can't do anything about anything.  You're a speck in the wind.  You literally don't matter in the slightest.  You don't have any numbers behind you.  Because you don't have any numbers behind you, you are limited to running the code you want to run and deciding which chain(s) you wish to follow.  But if a large proportion of those securing the network disagree with what a dev team are doing, they would be in a position to prevent change by simply not running the new code.  No one can prevent a dev team from coding what they like, but they are more than free to continue running the code they already have, or run an entirely different client if they so choose.  Those securing the network do not have to accept changes to the code.  That's why devs can code whatever they like and still not be "in charge".  Do you need me to repeat this a few more times?  Can I explain it to you any more simplistically?  Do you need a drawing to aid in your learning?  I'm pretty sure I say it to you often enough.  Yet it still somehow doesn't sink in.

If I don't personally agree with something, I wouldn't tell people not to code it.  I would certainly tell them why I think their ideas are terrible/stupid/dangerous/etc, sure.  But if you code it, you have my blessing.  Not least because there's nothing I can do to stop you, but primarily because I believe in permissionless freedom.  Anyone can code what they want and if you express views counter to that belief, I'm naturally going to give you a hard time.  Complain about insults all you like, but it'll keep happening because you are so quick to state what you think people "should" do.  It's none of your business.  You're free to code and run what you want, but you don't get to interfere with what other people are coding or running.  And no, before you ask, I don't see a risk of bad code being run as a result, because I feel confident that people, for the most part, recognise terrible ideas when they see them.  I'm happy to let the market decide, because it has a pretty good track record of making sensible decisions.  You can make your excuses for why other clients have failed.  You can pretend it's some sort of sinister collusion.  You can say it's all "social drama".  But at the end of the day, it's meaningless.  The only thing that matters is what people run.

For what must be the hundredth time of explaining it:
 
Your problem is not that Core are "in control" (because they aren't).
Your problem is not that consensus has "been bypassed" (because it can't be).
Your problem is not that we "don't have a level playing field" (because we do).

Your problem is that whenever someone creates code you actually like, very few people choose to run it.  It's not a conspiracy.  People just don't agree with you.
Your problem is that whenever Core creates code you utterly despise, lots and lots of people choose to run it.  It's not a conspiracy.  People just don't agree with you.



No one needs permission.  Bitcoin is permissionless.  Again, anyone can code anything.  Code means nothing unless people run it.  Stop denying reality.  This is how it works.



Insanity is rarely considered helpful.  



No thanks.  Leave no FUD unchallenged.  It applies to you and Craig "Scammer" Wright in equal measure.  Shine a spotlight on the bullshit and call it out for what it is.  If he ever decides to disappear, we'll let him disappear.  Until then, the more he lies, the more we'll refute it.  Ditto for you.

anyone can code what they like. they can write code on paper, . they can use their finger and write it by pushing their finger through the dust on their computer desks. they can hand write it, type it, draw it..

but the ACTIVATION that affects the network. should not be that CORE can activate anything they like to affect the whole network but other groups cant.

no one disagrees that writing code is/is not allowed.... so stop trying to meander the discussion to be about the writing of code.
its about the method of activation my point has always been about the method of activation and how a certain feature that only garnished 35%, didnt just get sidelined and then cor went away and re-wrote new code that could be (without controversy) more universally acceptable.. instead of listening to the community.. they decided to use force and threats.. PRE feature.. to fake vote for a feature, just to activate their feature.
in short
if core stuck to bip 34 or just bip9 for thir sgwit1x they would have lost.
but their 148+NYA+bip9 that is NOT the same as 34.. is what core group done to bypass and twist and force their code onto the network.
and now as you say because nodes are following core. those core nodes can now EASILY kick out any opposition thus not giving much/any hope of diverse groups from forming to offer something that could be a true opposing free choice option in the future.

for months you have been poking at me when i have discussed cores method of activation. and you have always meandered it to sound like core deserve and have the right to dictate NETWORK rules. and then hypocritically then said how your happy that anyone not core has to seek permission.

anyway. mr flip flop. you have kept up your flip flops for months now and not progressed your research or understanding one bit. yea there have been times it appeared you finally cottoned on to the reality.. but days later you flip back and pretend the opposite occured.. hense why im saying instead of spending yt another 6 months of YOU flip flopping. please take a step back have some coffee, do not go reading your usual reddit/twitter sources and instead do some independent research, learn the cod, learn what bitcoins ethos/innovation/creation was about 2008-2013. for get the social drama of 2013+ and learn what tru bitcoin was before core. and truly have a independent thought about what, why and how bitcoin was initially created for.. then go pick a narrative of either your flip or your flop that fits the CODE, the network stats, the blockchain data..(not the social drama opinion groups) and stick to a narrative that fits whats important to the network(not core social group mantra)

then and only then will i find you less of a yawn, having to correct your core centralist mindset.
i know you wil always disregard my corrections by just throwing a bottom of the barrel personal insult.
hense why i just simply say dont take my word for it, do your own INDEPENDENT research.. but so far you just reply back with the standard scripted echo chamber remarks that dont sound independant at all.
(in short, you have become a boring echo chamber sounding off the same remarks as people like icebreaker, carlton,lauda and that group of core centralists.. even shorter.. nothing original)

lastly you keep implying that CW is some influencer.
you also seem to get emotional that when i say my opinion, that you think i am some revolutionary force trying to trojan horse the network.. what you dont realise is bitcoin is code. so unless you see code, dont treat it as an issue.
this forum is not bitcoin code. (something you need to learn in context of your recent meta category post about this forum)

the point being. stop spending months on social drama and concentrate on the code and those that write code. which in bitcoins case is core.

so yea you will continue to see me poking at core because these last couple years its been the core group that have been writing the code.. it doesnt magically appear. its not some self typing AI.. its wrote by core and lately only core. and thats the problem. lately only core.
emphasis: no diversity/decentralisation away from the core roadmap of 2015 that only want to lead things to stifling bitcoin to promote other networks to take over and "de-burden" bitcoin of its utility

so before pressing reply to have yet another social drama meander/flip flop.. try your darn hardest to chill your emotions, take a break, have a coffee and do some research. try to talk about the bitcoin network, not the core defense strategy. because i got your point months ago you want to defend core. even though they have admitted many things you 'pretend' your defending that they didnt do(further proof you lack the research of the group your even trying to defend)

again please take some time and think about "bitcoin a decentralised diverse network". and less about "core needs defending"

lastly, if you want to reply saying im insulting you, you waving the victim card will fail. people can read your post history and see your whole history of actual pokes and insults and social drama every time people dare to even question core code. so remember who is the instigator. hint: you

Those securing the network choose what activates.  This is the crux of your inability to comprehend.  "Other groups" can make changes if users agree and activate those changes.  BIP91 is a prime example.

According to Charles Hoskinson, Craig Wright is a sociopath who brings negative effects to this space. Given that so many reputable people question his claim of being Satoshi, and given his divisiveness, I tend to agree. I hope his SV coin falls out of the top 50 coins and eventually goes to 0.

again throwing nodes off and doing REKT's BEFORE an activation..
try to stick with one narrative

I'll leave the narratives to you.  You're the storyteller, after all. 

I've made it abundantly clear that users were given multiple choices.  Users could have opted to run a client flagging bits to express support for a 2mb base weight.  But instead, many of them opted to run the client that disconnected nodes flagging those bits. 

Since you think users are just "sheep", you instinctively apportion full responsibility to the devs who wrote the code.
Since I think users made their own judgement call, I naturally apportion full responsibility to the users who ran the code.

This is why we're never going to agree. 

do some research
core devs call their users sheep by saying how their followers dont need to choose options due to "compatibility" "inflight upgrades" "consensus bypass" masf uasf and all the other buzzwords THEY invented for a controversial fork

im the one saying users should not be. and that bitcoin should be diverse
by the way. if you done research you would know it didnt take a mass community adoption of nodes doing the cull, to cause the cull...
.. which is another thing your not understanding.
you keep thinking that the cull pre activation would only have happened if there was a majority adoption for a cull..
seriously do some research


and before u dredge up more mis-understanding meanders from your past scripts. .. no compatibility* does not mean a node is a full node after activation while not having to upgrade. its a node set that it will accept pigeon english stripped data as valid oxford english without doing a full grammar check.
hint the data a 'compatible' node gets is not the same as what a fullnode gets, they are just set to just blindly accept.
why do you think the bahavior of 0.8-0.12 is so much different to 0.13-0.14 and why nodes released after august 2017 are treated as a whole different tier to the others.

*(compatibility, stripped, filtered, downstream, no witness, signature validation bypass... whatever new sweep under the carpet buzzword core devs use to mean the same thing)


blockchain data, CODE, stats =in my favour
stories, narrative flip flops, social drama = in your favour

if you dont wanna do independant research, dont want to listen to opposing discussions. then there is a ignore button.
just quit your flip flop social drama meanders. as its not just boring. but not original.

trying to blame me and others who have not activated code on the network as if non devs are some how some malicious attack force is the most hilarious part of your arguments. especially when you get emotionally insulting about it.. but after time, your jokes do become stale
bad code gets wrote by bad devs. so when there are controversial things that people yars later are still fighting to get resolved. then obviously there is an issue.
EG the reason people think LN is the only solution is because thy have just given up thinking core devs will sort bitcoin out. so the only optimism they have left is that some other network will do something different.

If he had been the real Satoshi, he would have long ago been kidnapped and his private keys collected from him. He is just an imposter gaining popularity for feeding the public with wrong information. Real investors don't make noise, their works just speak for them.

Which begs the question: Why hasn't some maniac kidnapped Craig so to practice their torture techniques of choice, fine tuning the procedures so to be ready when they nap the real Satoshi in hopes of extracting his private keys.

twitter.com/DrCSWright --> Dr. Cock Sucker Wright.

Why would satoshi himself need that ???

Craig Wright is nothing more than someone who wants to be known to the world by instinct by claiming to be the creator of bitcoin. this obviously looks stupid if to believe it, don't you think why just now he just appeared to claim it. especially after the debate with the founder of Bch who told him to provide evidence with the blockchain signature if he was right to shatosi

I see this thread has taken some tangents. Regardless I have been watching him, no different than I have been watching that islander drug burnt retard McAfee trying to find some spotlights to shine on himself too.

I feel that both these clowns are attempting to fill the natural void created when Satoshi himself went silent.

Back to Craig Wright now.

I wonder if the courts will "not be amused" regarding his evidence play. They shouldn't be amused. The courts are the only voice of reason in this wild west where sherrif may not notice or care.

Who are the actual crypto sheriff?

The crypto world. Yes, you the reader. You the developer's. You the investors.

What can be done about these disruptor's efforts.

Imo, let them sink their own ships. But don't ever give them any credit for anything. Don't even give them the time of day.

But the community of crypto enthusiasts. Whether just a fan boy or major developer or miner or investor. They need to move past who Satoshi may be. It doesn't matter to anyone really, short of notoriety and as a recognised founder.

I just feel that the technology should be nurtured to drive itself. It doesn't need a figurehead to make it work.

It surely doesn't need Craig or John in the mix to screw things up.

M2c.


-CTS-

Anyone can call himself Satoshi because no one knows his true identity. There have been many different people who have declared their name Satoshi to attract and want to become famous. I believe that Satoshi might actually be here on a yacht and he's enjoying life.

Craig is a straight up pyscho, this guy would sell out his own mother for a dollar.  I'm glad that Vitalik and Roger and speaking out against him.   Guy is never to be trusted, he is worse than John Mcafee.

The latest drama in the crypto space is John Funking McAfee vs Cock Sucker Wright.

I did smile smugly when John "liar" McAfee decided to post his letter from his lawyer at the last minute before the big reveal suggesting that disclosing the identity of Satoshi would hinder his extradition case.

I guess he pulled a Trump Tax excuse. Lmao.

At least he was smart enough to bail out of the lie, unlike Crank Wright.

Craig Wright, the man who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, has been accused of copy-pasting a “Hello World” program. The incident happened when Calvin Ayre, an affiliate of Craig Wright and owner of CoinGeek,  responded to an article which featured Vitalik Buterin urging the BCH community to ostracize Craig Wright. In a response to the article, Calvin Ayre proclaimed that he sided with Craig Wright since he has 20 different degrees while Vitalik had none.

In the replies to Calvin Ayres post, a Twitter user with the handle CowOperate said that Vitalik is at least capable of coding a “Hello World” program. Craig Wright then entered the conversation and claimed that he had taught in both C/C++ and MASM and posted a screenshot of a “Hello World” program. However, another Twitter user named Laurent Raufaste was quick to spot the plagiarism. It turned out that the code, except for some changes to the wording, had been copy-pasted from a “Hello World” tutorial for UNIX assembly programming.

A “Hello World” program is a term given to a simple computer program, which is usually aimed at beginner programmers that are trying to learn a new programming language. The general idea behind it is to create a program that prints out a message that says “Hello, World!”.

https://www.colormatehaircolor.com/ammonia-free-hair-colour (https://www.colormatehaircolor.com/ammonia-free-hair-colour)

If the saying bad publicity is better than no publicity is true, then there's a method to his seemingly bizarre behavior. I mean, he's established connections with billionaires and seems to have convinced enough dupes. Perhaps the rich people backing him also see his claims as potentially lucrative and want in on it too.

I can not understand if he really Satoshi, then he must have some evidence that he really Satoshi. Well, then his words would have seemed reasonable and truthful. If you make such loud statements bother to confirm your words. And so he just looks like a liar. After all, if you created such a great product as Bitcoin, you should have saved any working sketches, notes or other information. In addition, I am sure that Bitcoin is the result of more than one person’s activities. Show these people, let them confirm your words, check them on a polygraph.

No need to go to such extend because everyone knows that he is not Satoshi. He has been exposed many years ago so I don't know what people are still interested everytime he opens his mouth. Satoshi is gone, hiding somewhere and we may not even know the truth behind his man/woman/group.

I see that ignoring him will be better for btc, he has become a suspicious person
especially after his problems with the Australian government that pursued him
he lies and tries to earn fame and money to tackle his problems.

Is paying for the domain name with visa in 2008 or tax records some evidence?

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/evidence-and-law-f8f10001efa5




The latest:  https://youtu.be/5rgaU3sd-zE

Lol. The guy had his beloved bchsv coin delisted from a lot of exchanges simply because of a foolish claim of being satoshi nakamoto. Obviously he's not being taken very seriously and binance's chang peng zhao even called him a fraud. I don't think this guy will be seriously relevant in crypto today.

This is the latest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoT2NV3qwqI

* Shrugs *

the same thing as the way you think, and I'm not sure whether CSW is satoshi, Considering that so many people question his claim as Satoshi, if indeed he is satoshi then he must dare to say who he is in some media or news from the crypt. who is Satoshi Nakamoto to date and his whereabouts is still unknown.

https://ambcrypto.com/wright-is-wrong-timestamps-indicate-satoshi-nakamotos-location-and-refute-csws-claims/

One of the worst combinations is someone that is wealthy and is a pyscho.  His money allows him to reach a wide audience and sadly I have seen many people fooled by his act.

Time for a new thread?

Craig is a fraud. Its that simple. One of crypto's greatest advantages is that you can easily prove who you are by sining a message with your private key. And if that private key has been associated with SN, then that would end the discussion right there. Very easy, yet Craig hasn't done so as of yet, not even when asked to do so in front of court.

I do not really care if he is Satoshi or not. nothing gonna change for me and especially for him. even if he is real Satoshi why would people like to know that? people have a lot of talks and discuss other things and he will just be a topic for a few hours or maybe days, But in the end he will fade away as he is not contributing anymore in the community or with bitcoin development and by the way thymos will surely know about Satoshi then any of us do.