Bitcoin Forum

CSW has provided zero valid cryptographically assured proof, to date, whatsoever that he had anything to do with the creation of original Bitcoin (BTC).

He has presented a plethora of invalid, fully debunked, refuted claims, outright lies, forgeries and untruths ...

The Faketoshi Fifteen (Times Two)
Craig Wright’s most epic lies, frauds and forgeries 2013 — 2020

- https://mylegacykit.medium.com/the-faketoshi-fifteen-times-two-76e8060905b4

- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html

Therefore, CSW is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.

Whilst I support free speech ... must we continually tolerate fraudulent and abhorrent behavior, against Bitcoin (BTC), the developers and this community ?

CSW Nonsense AGAIN
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5311202.0

So, you want to get sued by a scammer?
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5311388.0

Starve the beast - CSW
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5311468.0


Yes or no ?

I think we all agree on that (with exceptions of course).

If you want speech to truly be free, you have to protect speech that you don't like; that's offensive; and may not be true.  Anything else is just censorship, and I think any claims that BSV is bitcoin or that CSW is Satoshi should be countered with facts (or requests for proof in the case of the former).  I don't think any censorship needs to be employed here--and remember, this is a forum where outright scammers aren't even banned, much less bald-faced liars.

Forum has ban for ban evasion so how about this case as MCW was banned by theymos as continuously troll

[CENSORSHIP] Matthew N. Wright (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=273066.0). If the Bitcoin SV (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2371095) is under the ownership of MCW, it can be considered as ban evasion.

I did not call for the BSV threads to be deleted. I called for them to be locked.

Archived to history is not censorship.

"Self-preservation keeps the crowd alive".

The forum mods do already ban forum accounts and delete other peoples on-topic posts here.

::)

As much as I'd like the BSV-BS to stop, I'm with The Pharmacist on this one. And from what I've seen, I don't expect theymos to censor this. Bitcointalk gives anyone the freedom to be an idiot.

The one thing I'd like to see though is protect Newbies from this, maybe by some sort of default-Ignore for certain users. For instanstance, let's say when someone is ignored by users with a total of at least 10% of all earned Merit, then the user becomes ignored by default. I'd be interested to see how many users would fall in this category, but only theymos can get that data.

99% of people know that he isn't satoshi and that he's a fraudster but I don't like the idea of silencing BSV because of him. People should either just ignore him and BSV or keep calling him out on his obvious bullshit.

I get the impression it would just cause drama.  People could construe it as a form of martyrdom and try to use that as an excuse to drum up support for the "persecuted" chain.  And from a purely practical perspective, anyone who does want to discuss that chain will just post new BSV topics, so mods would have to play a constant game of whack-a-mole to lock them all.  It's not worth the hassle.

However, if it was possible to implement, I would support a banner or warning at the top of any forkcoin threads which states something along the lines of:

This altcoin is a fork of the Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain.  Coins on this chain are not bitcoins and cannot interact with the Bitcoin blockchain.  
Any claims regarding this coin being the "real" or "true" Bitcoin are to be considered opinions rather than fact.

Yeah, I'm sure Craig and Co would just seize this opportunity to cry about how they're being censored or attacked. Wouldn't really be fair to those invested in the coin either regardless of Craig's shenanigans or what you think about the coin itself.

Better yet, treat it as any other shitcoin - ignore it, or argue with the shitheads if you're so inclined. The existence of those threads has zero impact on Bitcoin. CSW's shenigans in general might, but adding labels to those threads or even removing them won't change that.

I know we aren't going to change the minds of anyone who has already been indoctrinated.  I'm just thinking it might stop more users falling victim to it.  If it prevents even a few people from being conned, it can't be a bad thing.

I sure would like a welcome message (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036308.0).

There is also the flag system specifically for warning noobs about dangerous projects. I believe BSV ANN threads already have banners due to being created by a known hypertroll.

Edit:

https://meem.link/i/3729jn7e.png

As we all know the creator of the main ANN thread has been famously banned multiple times (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5211434.0) in the last couple years, yet the account remains active...

Then there is a guy who gets paid to copy/paste Coingeek articles and BSV announcements in that thread -- he's also been banned for plagiarism in the past.

And then there's a few trolls that are somewhere in between genuine forum user and crazed goon (an unpaid intern kind of goon).

So be it.

The next best thing to do is for high-ranking accounts to avoid commenting in the thread whatsoever. The accounts persistently commenting in the thread have only a handful of merits between them and hardly any bumping power. If everybody else refrained from commenting there, it would gradually fall into obscurity where it belongs.

I think that's the responsible thing to do for anyone who wants to minimize them without cutting them out completely. Just let them habitate their space here with their feverish walls of text and let them out themselves as the dishonest fools that they are...

It would also show everyone that bitcointalk.org is taking a stand against unethical and dishonest people like Craig Wright.

That's not the forum's mission:

I was one of the members here talking about locking CSW threads over on the STARVE THE BEAST (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5311468.msg56160355#msg56160355) thread
I get that locking and censoring freedom of speech goes against the forums mission.

As much as I hate to say this, but would it be an idea to give CSW his own board dedicated to his fakery?
Discussions could continue inside the board.

All threads would be filed into the board and the "FACT" threads would be pinned to the top.
Like BitcoinFX's OP. All discussions could easily be pointed to, checked against the pins and
it could act as a central knowledge base for the Lies and Thruths.

[Tongue in cheek] It would be extra work for the MODS I know, but shure they have it handy anyway ![/Tongue in Cheek]

No. Unless there's going to be a "Nonsense" board for all Satoshi wannabees, but even then I don't think Admin wants to decide what to classify as nonsense.

Who finds any of this acceptable ?

Just lock the threads already !

Jesus, this is some self-serving cult shit.

Guy practically thinks he's the next messiah ready to raise people into cyberspace heaven, chained with their infinite-size blocks to store their consciousnesses

It is very strange that Craig Wright and BSV are not popular on this forum yet they keep shilling their shit coin in this community with the hope of the adaption. They don't realize that they not going to convince this community on BSV over BTC.

I am glad most of the community spoke out against any kind of censoring of threads. We can't just lock and remove the topics we don't like. We can but it sends the wrong message. And who decides what is likeable and what not? Who cares about BSV, their coin, their team, and those who support them? Put them on ignore or punish them if they break any rules.

Leave the threads as they are and delete posts that break forum rules. That sends a much stronger message than deleting them. Ignoring them is the best remedy. Don't give them any importance, because they shouldn't have any.

This is Bitcointalk.

   

 ::)

Should we not draw the line at "hate speech" or worse ... !?

Hate speech and racism become meaningless terms the more you expand them to encompass anything you don't agree with. These terms can simply mean people are fearful of a transparent debate and analysis on what is optimal.

A death threat would clearly be a reason to ban someone if it wasnt a throw away comment on a thread like I'd break your face if you said that to me in person.  That kind of thing is not a legitmate death threat to me.  Your example appears to be far more concerning.

I'm not sure locking threads gives the correct impression.

Why not just make sure there is a concerted and consistent effort to visit any threads making provably bogus claims or baseless claims and debunk them conclusively? Better that members are educated so that they understand themselves how to identify the truth so should they encounter the same lies or deliberately misleading information elsewhere they will know how to process it correctly.

Repeating conclusively debunked information as true = trolling or really deliberately lying and spreading misinformation.

Of course claims like I'm satoshi would require corroborating evidence that can be independently verified. Since such claims could easily be leveraged to scam or cause direct financial harm to those duped...then it would be reasonable to require evidence for that sort of claim or face a ban. The same as if you made an account called theymos-mobile and claimed to be admin.

This forum has big problems with the truth in general,  so best to demonstrate that on something this important you don't  wish to just hush things up, you actually want to demonstrate they are undeniably untrue or unsupported by any evidence to the point of being ludicrous. The last thing you want is for people to think we fear such claims.

It's already being noticed that bitcointalk is descending into an echo chamber on certain inconvenient matters. Certain claims should require strong corroborating evidence or you are banned for repeating them.

Another one is people rolling up and screaming trolling at independently verifiable evidence.
Should be warned then banned. This is clearly intentional protection of scammers and those that have demonstrated they are clearly guilty of financially motivated wrongdoing. To be allowed to claim it is trolling when there is independently verifiable evidence to prove it is true,  is also posing a direct financial danger to other members.

The notion we should ban or freeze some members threads or speech for being provably untrue but not others is just as corrupt as anything bsv is attempting or worse.

It is very simple !

It should work like this: where there is direct financial risk posed

If something is independently verifiable as true and people consistently claim it is trolling or false  or visa versa = BAN
If people make claims that have direct financial implications for other members that they are unable to prove conclusively or present strong corroborating evidence = must not repeat again until they can prove or bring strong corroborating evidence or they are BANNED.

Prior to ban there should be a clear and transparent debunking so it can be used as a satisfying and educational explanation for the ban or locked thread.

Transparency is key, as is open debate. I would never support silencing anyone until that has taken place and the thresholds stated above have been met and a formal warning with explanation given that is robust.

The truth is very important. But when the admin here permit and condone lies a defamation of members I wouldn't really be pushing for all truth to be valued unless they feel like it. In this case something may be done because it is something they happen to care about.

That's really messed up, how did you react during the call? Did you inform the police or any other responsible authorities in your country about it?
It sounds more like an attempt to silence you and your activities than a death threat. An attempt to scare you and make you stop whatever it is you are doing that they don't like. If someone was really out to hurt you, I think there would have been something much more serious than a call. Luckily, that is not the case.

It is indeed "messed up".

However, the tweet is quoted from Cobra (who is the current bitcoin.org administrator). A link to the tweet was included.