Bitcoin Forum

London scandal "Pumpkin Craig Wright" admits Satoshi Nakamoto plagiarized his work!!! (#post_update)

---

One of the planned panels caused considerable controversy and confusion in the cryptocurrency community at the CC Forum which started yesterday in London.

The event is about Blockchain, AI, digital innovation and one of its participants is Craig Wright, if this is not enough, then a panel was planned in which only Wright was to participate.

Even more interesting is that the conference organizers directly agreed to Wright's claims and gave him credit for trust, releasing it under the title:

"What was your goal as Satoshi when you wrote the Bitcoin manifesto"?

Opposition to Wright's speech at the conference was made by Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin, who said:

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

Vays claims that until the last moment he did not know that Craig Wright was to be present on the panel and undertook to "defend Bitcoin on the stage against cheaters."

He also said he was the last Bitcoin maximalist and that if he refused to go to the conference, it would only hurt the participants.

Currently, the London event page (https://cc-forum.com/agenda/) does not show the title of this panel. Nevertheless, there were speculations that Wright would speak on this subject.

However, the official site (https://cc-forum.com/) of the event still shows Craig Wright among the panelists, additionally, we have another Bitcoin hater Roger Ver there too.

https://i.imgur.com/W93FQYA.png

The panel moderated by Max Studennikoff is to bring together such persona as Nouriel "Dr. Doom ”Roubini, Craig Wright, Brock Pierce, Bobby Lee and Tone Vays.

I was sure that after the lost court case, where he was called a total liar by the judge, he will hide somewhere and just can't believe he starts again to sign his stupid story and many people involved in crypto actually help him, as the organizers of this thing in London. Will he ever stop or keep continue no matter what?

---

London scandal "Pumpkin Craig Wright" admits Satoshi Nakamoto plagiarized his work!!!

It had to end like this. During Craig Wright's "Faketoshi" speech at the CC Forum blockchain in London, there was an uncontrolled outburst of public outrage. In another room, Nouriel "Dr Doom" Roubini, shouted to Roger Vera that his Bitcoin Cash is shitcoin! Oh - and I think we have a new meme - it's "Pumpkin Craig Wright".

The atmosphere reached its zenith during Craig Wright's Fireside Chat session. Tone Vays then took the microphone to condemn the conference organizers' decision to include Wright as one of the speakers.

https://i.imgur.com/nyGb0Wo.png
https://youtu.be/9L_1LmdXVbw

According to Vays, Wright admitted that Satoshi Nakamoto plagiarized his 2008 document and the university would not release it until Wright won the case in court:
https://twitter.com/ToneVays/status/1184420133093232640

Tone Vays continued, claiming that documents published by Wright as evidence allegedly attributing to him the creation of Bitcoin were largely false. Vays said that there is no place for Craig Wright at such conferences.

In response, Wright stated that Vays 'vain ideas' were irrelevant and that his company's patents would generate profits from the largest technology companies in the world. Then it will depend on the individual decisions of people whether they will use the Bitcoin SV cryptocurrency supported by Wright.

https://twitter.com/swissborg/status/1184444664847450113

At the moment, an audience member has entered the action. She called Wright a "mole" who tries to overthrow Bitcoin and shouted threatening with her finger:

Farmer Craig! Pumpkin Craig Wright! Go back to your farm, to your pumpkins and tomatoes (...)

Many bitter words like "everyone hears what they want to hear" appear under Tony Vays' tweet. Is this the voice of Craig Wright's supporters or is there really more to it then? Here is the video he requested in his tweets, Vays. See and rate for yourself:

Tweet: https://twitter.com/ToneVays/status/1184420133093232640
YouTube Video: https://t.co/vEU9OrBgJx

What is your opinion on this subject? I invite you to the discussion.

---

https://bithub.pl/opinie/craig-wright-jako-tworca-bitcoina-na-konferencji-w-londynie-srodowisko-wrze/
https://bithub.pl/wiadomosci/skandal-w-londynie-dyniowy-czlowiek-craig-wright-przyznaje-ze-satoshi-nakamoto-splagiatowal-jego-prace/

I don't think it matters at all what Faketoshi will do or say in London, lies remain lies even if it is repeated a thousand times. This is a man who clearly has an unstoppable need to be in public, even when it is beyond doubt that he is not telling the truth and that he is trying to take on others' merits.

Why he was invited to the conference is a question for the organizers, but controversial people always get attention, and I think that's why he's there. In the end, to be honest, this whole parade is actually a money factory, nobody does anything for free here - if there is anyone who claims to be Satoshi (even if they are proven to be lying) he will always find his place in conferences like this.

Those who had been into crypto for a long time knows that Craig is a big joke. He could not even prove that he is satoshi. I don't even know why people are giving this man all the attention he wants and he even gets invited in such a conference, knowing that he is a fraud.

Exactly. The only reason Craig Wright is still pushing his ridiculous and blatantly false narrative is because people keep talking about him. There are loads of people out there who claim to be Satoshi with no evidence, but nobody knows about them because we don't talk about them. It's a self fulfilling cycle. If we could all just ignore him like we do with other frauds, he would cease to keep popping up all over the place. Just let the courts clear him out.

I had never heard of this conference, and yet here I am reading a post about it which wouldn't have been made if CSW wasn't invited. He has achieved his purpose of stirring up some attention.

Still, a conference with known scammer Ver, known scammer McAfee, and known scammer CSW as the keynote speakers. I'm sure it must have been incredibly interesting - really sad I missed it! /s

This is one of the craziest bitcoin conference ever. We have 3 people who are invited as part of the panel that are not worthy to be there. First we have Roger Ver, a bitcoin hater and creator of bitcoin cash. The second is John Mcafee the clown of cryptocurrency whose prediction are always out of place. And lastly we have Craig Wright the fake Satoshi. This group of people are an eyesore and has a bad reputation in relation to bitcoin. The event is a mess, I guess this is a stunt to push Craig Wright as the real Satoshi.

While Craig Wright was in fact the author of the whitepaper and all of Satoshi's posts on bitcointalk.org, I feel he should give more credit to his partner in crime Dave Keilman who died a horrible death before BTC's rise to popularity.

 Maybe you should give Dave more credit and at least get his name right.  Here, let me help you:
https://i.imgur.com/ft3Zwoj.jpg?1

This conference is indeed a circus and I don't know why people are still buying it. As they say, bad publicity is still publicity as so Craig Wright.


I'm sorry? I think I didn't get you right.

Craig Wright has millions and I think he can influence anybody he wants so he can be recognized as the Bitcoin creator and maybe even given the official recognition as such by the conference organizer. Remember the adage that a lie often repeated can be the truth? In the case of Craig Wright, all he has to do is to show up, speak a little and then maybe the whole world will start to believe that he is NOT that liar convicted by the court. No, he will not stop as long as he is not in a prison and the bottom line is there is nothing we can do because we also believe in democracy and freedom of speech. This man is emerging to be one of the most popular yet hated cryptocurrency personalities. The only thing that can stop him from claiming to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto is if the genuine one will show up somewhere.

While it is true that lies remain lies even if they are repeated millions of times, the danger remains that there might come a time when everybody is speaking of it, believe in it, and even proclaim it as the pure and unblemished truth.

And this is what I fear in this conference in one of the main centers of Europe. What will the crowd hear in this conference? I am sure there will be a big crowd in this conference even if the speakers are made up of lie-peddlers. After all, the likes of CSW, Roger Ver, and McAfee are still considered institutions and pioneers in terms of crypto development. I am afraid that the people who will listen to these brain-washers might accept at least a tiny truth from their gospels. A conference such as this might be enough for these manipulators to inject a a few termites inside the brains of the people.

what conference is this, and who are the organizers?

the organizers are the real villains here, it's impossible to feign ignorance about the facts concerning such a cast of questionable speakers, Tone Vays in particular

Yeah... Who organized this thing?

Not sure why you would do something like this unless you where really good friends with Craig Wright, it completely just ruins the reputation of your panel and reduces you to a laughing stock.

It doesn't matter though. All will soon be clear after the case is solved and he ends up being proven as not a creator of BTC.

did you? i didn't expect anything else from him even for a second. that is in his nature to continue scamming with audacity. this is not the first time he is publicly being embarrassed. the biggest one (even bigger than the  court thing) was the first days he made the claim and tried to forge a digital  signature and was caught. and that was 2 years ago (maybe more i can't remember how long he has been scamming :D)

Well why craig and roger ver are in this event well maybe roger ver is eligible to that event since he was the one of the who started bitcoin start ups but craig wright? What is his achievements faking documents? Whining all over the internet? Or just being a clown? He's not worthy to be called satoshi nakamoto at all and he must be in jail for falsification of documents

Indeed, he keeps on deceiving people by claiming himself as someone else just to get the benefits he wanted but too bad for him because most of us doesn't believe anymore because of some proofs and evidence. I can't blame other people if they really think that it was Satoshi standing in front of them because most of them are still lack of knowledge about bitcoin and its history. Why can't we just accept the fact that Satoshi hide his/their real identity because of a specific reason and if you are wondering why, no one knows. Well it just happened but i'm hoping that they finally understand now that it is not good for bitcoin because why would a fraud represent bitcoin, isn't that a shame?

What does Craig get for doing all these?

After 50-100 years later if he keeps doing this while this forum is active he won't be successful in providing proof. Ver and Craig are just the kind of politicians that tells stories that they know ain't true but insisting it is for they benefit thru it and they go thru all the troubles, this includes playing trick to Tone Vays and all who knows exactly the truth.

Is in the OP but, please here you are onemore time:


Official site of the event - https://cc-forum.com/

Agenda for this event - https://cc-forum.com/agenda/

I don't know, maybe Max Studennikoff invited such speakers to shock the crypto community and draw more attention to the event, but this is probably not the way to advertise?

I can understand that such advertising works best and the news spread like lightning, but it only harms us all when such people are invited and allowed to speak at such events because they spread misinformation and simply lie, like Faketoshi.

TBH, I can't stand seeing him on stage, especially when he says he came up with BTC http://emots.yetihehe.com/1/wnerw.gif http://emots.yetihehe.com/1/zly.gif

Wright & Ver are charlatans & we already know that but I’m more interested in what kind of losers are paying to go & see them speak.

It's really sad but my friend who is into cryptos not less than I am, totally believes that Craig is Satoshi, no matter what happens around the world. Moreover, he says it'll soon become evident that this is the truth. I don't know, this friend of mine is usually very good at cracking people, but this is the idea I cannot accept. It just does not make sense to me. I think it's good that people boycott events where Craig is considered a respectable person. This kind of pressure from the public can help others to make their mind, as well as perhaps to change the way Craig behaves.

This is not true and every crypto enthusiast with a little imagination knows already about it. Both real BTC creators are dead now and I truly believe that was Hall Finney and Dave Kleimann.

CW could be around Dave Kleimann during the early years of BTC and mined together, so he knows a lot about the creators and now uses this to his advantage, but I am sure he is a total liar and everything he created is BTC fork shitcoin called BSV - BULLSHITTER VISION!!!  ;D ;D ;D

Craig Wright can claim whatever thing he wishes to, we all know the truth. They can put up with any sort of drama just to sell his name to the crypto community, that's so fruitless adventure.
Right now we should focus on advancing this technology further and gaining more adoption but seems Craig is more interested in titles he know nothing about and that's shameful.

Its the newcomers in crypto who is going to be massively be denied of the truth. Most of them will be more gullible to probably keep investing that BSV not even thinking why Wright forks his BTC is he is indeed the real satoshi.  If he speaks a lot in public about him being the real satoshi, he could be making it appear like its been stolen from him and that he is the Hero for creating blockchain. WTF!

Interesting that you would have a problem with Satoshi Nakamoto attending a crypto conference.

You would not and it would be the most known and attended crypto conference ever but only if you invite the real Satoshi Nakamoto and not CW or RV.

A fuckton of money. Who knows how much BSV he's sitting on. The only way it can achieve any semblance of success is if people buy his story. He might need it once this (https://cointelegraph.com/news/report-craig-wright-must-forfeit-50-of-bitcoin-in-court-case) is finalized.

I don't think he's tricking any of the speakers. Ver, for one, supported his claims in the past but went full 180. McAfee also claims to know the true Satoshi, and teased his reveal for a while, but ultimately didn't say anything. CSW was probably only invited because he's popular, and there's no way he would attend if his claims were in question.

Craig Wright is indeed ridiculous because he always considers the creator of bitcoin while everyone already knows that bitcoin was created by satoshi nakamoto, this action can also make many people confused which one is right, hopefully Craig Wright can stop to commit such crimes because it can make the name is destroyed.

I'd love to see a live coverage of this conference just to see how many people actually believes Craig wright is satoshi.
all of these fakesatoshi fiasco could've quickly ended if he actually provided a proper evidence confirming that he is satoshi
that's why everybody thinks he's a joke and just a fame whore.

This guy again. It's the first time I'm hearing this guy again this month, I thought he stop. Maybe he already invested so much in his agenda which he is afraid to backdown now. This thought just crossed my mind that what if when he told everyone that he's a fraud (which most of the community thinks anyway), he'll be written as one of the biggest lier in the whole cryptocurrency history. No one will believe him and no one will ever trust him again.

are you trying to tell us that you who have been around ever since (at least) 2013 have been gullible enough to fall for all the lies that CW have been telling you?

That would be great, let's all watch and we will slam here during live session. As far as I know he has to pay Millions of $ to pay taxes for other case. Maybe he's doing this so his projects can be known. He's a big joke to this industry, he should be paid for doing this as we all know he is not the Bitcoin creator he can't even answer some questions during his interview with regards to blockchain. Lol

This guy is trying so hard to prove that he is Satoshi. Satoshi chose to stay anonymous, why would he change his mind now?

By the way, is there a way to prove who actually is Satoshi?

I think it is hard to prove.

The people who organized the event obviously wanted to get all the controversial people in the Crypto currency scene on one stage to draw more people to the event. They obviously just want to spice things up to get some media attention and people like Roger Ver and Mr. McAfee and Craig Wright would provide the entertainment for an event like this.

You will also not find Bitcoin <BTC> supporters there, so I am of the opinion that the people invited, might also be behind the organizing of the event to revitalize a dying horse ---> Bitcoin Cash  ::) 

This is insane yet it will surely not affect cryptocurrency. He's really trying to prove something despite the fact that we already know that he's pretending. I'm sure that the real Satoshi is just laughing at him. Let him do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't affect Bitcoin. Let's just let him ruin his own reputation through claiming such thing.

We cannot speculate what the real satoshi is thinking right now. But it seems that there's a purpose why he keeps on insisting the he's the one who created bitcoin in the first place. In the point of view, the reason why is the popularity that they can get when they've proven it, plus, they can establish large business structures to be implemented easily. But since we already know that satoshi isn't the person who wants fame, it is better to just utilize what he have done for us. And make it better for our development.

Carlton Banks told me that the anti-Bitcoin trolls have not yet brought their "A-game". Their A-game won't be in the forum, but in the real world. A lot of people will be tricked, misinformed, and lied to in that conference.

until proven otherwise, Craig Wright may well claim that he, and no one else, is the Creator of bitcoin. 
hell, yeah! well, the risks of exposure are minimal, but the benefits can be gained quite a lot. 
you are invited to all sorts of events. Autographs, fans, accusation of plagiarism and forgery.. the scandals, intrigues, investigation... 
and all this together increases your recognition!! you're getting popular!! and maybe this is the point, huh?!

He wants publicity and to be famous. Craig Wright wants this to be use on his personal and possibly monetary  gain. Until now he cat prove his ownership of certain wallet owned by the real Satoshi. I think he was facing some lawsuit too. BTW, there many satoshis there claiming to be the real one but no one has solid evidence to  show and convince the majority.

I stumbled upon a tweet by Tone Vays (One of the speakers at the conference) And it said Craig Wright finally admitted that Satoshi plagiarized his Bitcoin Whitepaper 😂It's quite funny because this is the same guy that claimed to be Satoshi himself. Just after losing the court case, his story has taken another direction. Craig never stops with the satoshi drama. At the very least he gives us something to laugh about especially now that the market sentiment is bearish.

@MicroGuy - Perhaps you should have a re-think on that one ... start here:

- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1184242265864187904

"Craig Wright - The TL;DR Fraud Timeline Summary -No Blacknet whitepaper -Handfuls of plagiarisms -Contempt of court verdict -Didn't write Bitcoin whitepaper -No fibre to Bagnoo -No Bitcoin email to Dave Kleiman -No early paper with 90% overlap with Bitcoin whitepaper 1/10"

- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/mylegacykit.html

...

"Craig, go back to your tomatoes!"
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1184456046456311809

...

SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.0

Etc., etc.,

Liar continues to lie no matter what

A link to that video can be found on youtube, via these tweets ...


:)

I mean, it was fun the first few hundred times when he made his claims, but now, it's just getting embarrassing. When will this man stop lying to everyone? Nobody even believes him, what's the point?

it's pretty obvious, although I am guessing when saying that


note to everyone: WindFURY will take something from a private message and tell everyone about it

Great resources and if somebody still is not convinced if CW is lying or telling the truth, should check all these links and read all provided examples that he is an imposter.

I wonder if finally after this storm against this event they will let him speak there?

If anybody has any links, please share, it will be interesting to see which new lies and excuses he came up with this time.

No one gonna believe his lies. Some people started believing his fake emotional story about creating Bitcoin, but after the shameful loss in the court, no one believes this Kraig Wright anymore. But the sad part is, some famous names in the crypto like McAfee, Roger Ver will talk at the same stage with faketoshi! This is a shame. It means they don't care about reality, they only endorse money! Roger ver just earned another hater.

It is just claims without any proof and anyone can come up with those claims, there are no substantial proof till now despite of all the claims till now and everyone knows how to prove for everyone to trust some one coming forward with claims like these, just sign a message from the early known bitcoin address and for everyone to have a concrete proof he need to sign from a few address to have a concrete evidence until then this is all bullshit.

The organizers of this event are doing wrong. Such scammers and liars as Craig Wright should be eliminated from these kinds of conferences. In my opinion, this is another PR move to attract more people, but in my opinion it is very stupid and not professional

Craig might be a lier and an impersonator but we just can't write off people. Look at Roger ver. As controversial as he is, He still gets invited to several panelists. Like other users said earlier today. The organizers of the event wanted to badly spice up the conference and invited some high profile people. I believe we haven't seen the last of Craig Wright, He should be back soon either because of his claims as satoshi, court proceedings or even conference panelists.

I'm only telling everyone because I believe you're correct, the next ATH will prove it, and when the next group of newbies arrive.

Plus I didn't believe it to be sensitive info. But sorry.


I don't believe we spoke privately, and then I told everyone about it.

My position is that Craig Wright should be ignored by the crypto communityspace and even more criticized as his continued claims that he is Satoshi are ridiculous and it's so obvious that he is only after promoting himself. Still I don't understand why he was invited to the conference. Maybe to attract media attention..

Then here are the Bitcoin Cash SV people saying that "Bitcoin has sold out because Blockstream". I believe those trolls don't look at their own "leaders", and what their motives are.

Never thought I'd see the day when Satoshi Nakamoto was called a scammer on bitcointalk.org.

I have some evidence that CSW is the author of every Satoshi post on this forum.

yes CW is a fake
yes Bsv is not even a blip on the crypto radar. but i find it funny how you want to make it into a thing


another funny thing is that you feel that everyone not being a teachers pet to core must be a troll for another group
seems that strange mindset you have is not original, and is becoming too common to just be random coincidence.
you have been programmed well

i find it absolutely strange (but obvious tactic) that you actually with to give CW some airtime, fame, standing in th cryptosphere instead of just ignoring him and letting him fad away. its obvious because you want him. he is your vessel and tool to push all core opponents into even if they are actually not part of. purely to ensure core dominance and tyranny on the actual btc ntwork

maybe you should look at your leaders, because we all (independent people) know you love the idea of leaderships and believe bitcoin will fall without a central group deciding on bitcoin

you really should spend some time on independent research and not chummy messages in a close minded/cabin fever environment.
yes if you talk only to core pets you will only hear a law of averages that core is X thus you end up believing X because its all you want to listen to

P.S i have no leaders and never even touched bsv. but if you live in a world where groups have and need leaders, then you need to learn what bitcoin was really designed to do, before the core subversion tactics.
by this i mean look at and be critical of core, not appeal and ask for friendship from.

bsv is a nothing crypto. its meaningless and harmless. it could not impact bitcoin even if it tried. however core has too much power over bitcoin, and yet you love them.. think about it... rationally

oh. and goodluck showing no connction between gmax, wuille, luke jr, matt corralo and chums and their millions funded by banks via blockstream founding. really good luck trying to disprove the devs never got paid by corporations
(but as usual instead of being core critical you just want to shoo core opponents into some group that they are not in, purely to try to make it appear that they should be ignored not an original tactic. again ur programmed well)

but enjoy your secret chats with your chums and leader. by the way you got a bit of brown on your nose

If this is true then why don't reveal all these pieces of evidence and stop all of this nonsense once for all.

Just do what the community asks for, which is solid proof that he indeed is Satoshi and nobody will call him a liar anymore and even maybe he gets his real status again.

You really don’t have any though, do you!

Only a fool will even believe in the guy’s story of being a fan when there is every indication out there that he is such a liar. Till now, he has not still been able to meet up with courts demand which I am wondering why he is even still walking freely because to me now, I already term him as a criminal.

His purpose was actually to pump bsv then which is why he is claiming to be satoshi, but fortunately, most people have already known him to be who he says he is, but I am so surprised that something of such is still coming up again. Well, I don’t think that I am even interested in having anything to do with the Craig and not even his project, when the real satoshi is ready to speak up and show his identity, it would not be difficult for us to know.

Hey MicroGuy, I think I've seen you a bunch of times before, maybe ... gambling? Yeah, probably there..

No one has said Satoshi is a scammer. Only that CSW is a fraud. The link to the two has not been proven. Or there is no link.

Whatever evidence you have, it's most likely not proof. If he were indeed the author of every post, he should have no trouble getting back his account by providing proof to theymos. He should also have no problem providing this proof publicly, in the form of a signed bitcoin message from several of the first hundred addresses of the blockchain (from the first hundred blocks) including the genesis block, as well as signing a GPG message using the public key that's available ever since he first started posting.

https://bitcointalk.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc

It can not be a private viewing, that makes no sense anymore. It has to be public and published for everyone to verify.


The alternative is what he said "I walk away from a billion dollars, or I'm called a fraud." ... I think he accepts that he is a fraud. He can plan his disappearance and exit now, then cash out some of his coins. But he won't. Because he can't.

It is really unfortunate to see fights like these, grow up and have the patience to listen to everyone, if they want to walk out they can do that rather than having a fight so the entire world could watch, there is huge population outside who does not understand what is going on nor invested in the crypto market and all they see is two or three factions fighting out in the public which will not help anyone.

Craig Wright likes these controversies and no one can accept his claims without any proof and he should stop calling himself the creator until he can provide any solid proof, everything looks like a child play and it is ridiculous.

The people that get listened to are those with the biggest platforms. That's why banks now control the development of our once precious currency.

It's unfortunate to have to link to CoinGeek 'content', however CC Forum is being slow to upload the conference videos. (The link will be replaced if/when CC Forum uploads the video to youtube).

Here is the video of CSW presenting that he plagiarized Satoshi and at the same time effectively admitting that he is in fact not Satoshi ...

- https://youtu.be/oSXk_xFBJPU?t=736

He doesn't even attempt to back track on it, even the interviewer seems surprised and the body language speaks volumes.

Completely moronic.

You cannot enforce patents on open source software.

If indeed he is the real Satoshi do you think forking their own coin helps?

This guy is a blatant lie and he will have to pay for it. There is no faction here, its him that create a faction. What he is doing is exactly the opposite of what satoshi did in the past, you can't expect that to happen when the Satoshi swear to disappear butt Craig came close to declare he is superman.

I have been programmed well to think that Bitcoin never bilaterally split to "Core and Cash"? That Bitcoin Cash isn't Bitcoin? You want me to open myself to lies?


Tyranny? "Bitcoin" has split to all different forks. There's a "Bitcoin" for everyone, right?


What you call "our leaders", they are not, are the most competent developers to maintain the protocol. That's why the community/market follows them.


Independent research. About the lies you spread that Nick Szabo introduced Craig Wright as Satoshi? That lukedashjr said Bitcoin bilaterally split?


OK. You enjoy Bitcoin Cash and browning your nose with Roger Ver.

Ok, I am totally confused now.... Faketoshi has all along claimed that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto and now he is saying Satoshi Nakamoto stole his ideas for Bitcoin.  ::)  CW even said that he would flood the market with all his coins and kill the Bitcoin price, when he gets access to his coins. <delivered by Courier>  ;D

This snake oil salesman is painting himself into a corner with all his lies now, because he cannot even keep track of what he said previously and how this will be used as a counter argument to expose those lies in the future.  :P

The whole event was a "clickbait" strategy to get more attention.  >:(

He might be playing a Borat-like character to divide the community further. There's also probably a hidden anti-Bitcoin group behind it.

Tin foil hats on. 8)

1. pre 2017:
segwit was not bitcoin
cash was not bitcoin

the both are not the original bitcoin. so they bilatrally split. its exactly what a fork is: 2 or more directions .. if there was no split/fork it would be called a knife (cutlery analogy) if you think that segwit is still the original rules then you really need to do some research
if btc in 2017 stuck with the 2016 rules and didnt change. and cash forked off then yes you would have half a point that its not bilateral. but btc also changed when cash did. so it was a 2 way change of the rules. DO YOUR RESEARCH
also it was gmax that called it a bilateral split. he tagged it that name. its his buzzword (good luck trying to continue denying it)

2. and now your just flip flopping. so lets just use the 'dollar' analogy. there are many dollars(canadian, australian,etc) but the main one of concern (usd(btc)) has now become a centralised power house of control. btc has leaders and censorship
the byzantine generals problem was solved by blockchains invention. yet ou wish to deny that its important to stay decentralised and instead have a central leader. you really have not learned the real utility, function, beauty of what bitcoin/blockchain actually does


3. in the very same point as you saying they aint leaders. you then say people follow them.. do you know what the word leader means
leaders.. followers.. its simple english

4. and there you go again with the centralist mindset of if you dont like btc centralisation 'f**k off'. seems you prefer to have leaders and control rather than an open network without leaders.
you cant even have the rational mind that people can have independant thought. instead its if they dont like camp A they must be in camp B
you really have been brown nosing and think brown nosing is the only possibility in crypto.

and again i have no leaders i dont need people giving me pre-existing speaches/ideas. my thoughts are my own. but it is a mega shame you have nothing original. your thoughts are straight out the playbook of the chums you chat to in private.

you even have wasted 2 years of avoiding doing research just to be spoonfed what your thoughts should be. hense you have been programmed.
goodluck with your adoration brigade of core devs, but when they get older, bored, retire or unhealthy to continue .. where will your loyalties be

for you to even think that if i dont like the centralist core devs automatically makes me anti-bitcoin. just in of itself proves you deep down think bitcoin needs the central control of core, you actually believe that core and only core is bitcoin. (facepalm) your own words play against you by your loyalty shining brightly to a central group

have fun

clickbait - yes
trying to stay 'involved' in something he is not involved in - yes
CW flood the market - no
if the true hoarder of satoshi stash was to come and spend the coins, guess what. its a temporary price glitch. meaning a great discount day to buy more. if it ever happens(not by CW)  be ready to stock up

snake oil salesman - yes
purpose - its not to prove he is satoshi, but to create just a shadow of doubt that he isnt. its all he needs to stay a little safer from prosecution.

You have to watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LsDehf2Wgw one more to understand correctly what CW said.

CW said that he has evidence (again) and this time this is his Thesis which was published on the university in 2008 and will be published publicly after the case.

This Thesis is his Bitcoin work and people now can believe that he is the real Satoshi or that Nakamoto has plagiarised his work (Thesis - Bitcoin).


There is already a link from TheBSVLounge channel:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LsDehf2Wgw

I remember MicroGuy, too.  Not exactly what I'd call a trusted source of information (http://cryptolife.net/goldcoin-the-scam-that-keeps-on-giving/).  It's hardly surprising someone like that would be defending Craig "Scammer" Wright.

And onto my distrust list he goes.

It's hard to understand what Vays is really doing there when you look at these Tweets he looks pretty like a CW best buddy.

https://i.imgur.com/HxhXBme.png,https://i.imgur.com/CmE39NP.png,https://i.imgur.com/60VibMv.png,https://i.imgur.com/SNPfvD5.png
https://twitter.com/meatportmusic/status/1184420446969716736
https://twitter.com/Diegoioisp/status/1184424144231948288
https://twitter.com/Diegoioisp/status/1184421250061553665
https://twitter.com/meatportmusic/status/1184472386806128641

WTF ??? ??? ???

"But my patents!"

How does Wright keep getting invited to these conferences? People are boycotting them over it, and it's just embarrassing for everyone involved. How is this still happening?


What's with the "farmer" and "pumpkin" references?

I think all answers are provided in the OP or my later posts in this thread.

Many posts from other members also answer or provide an opinion to your concern about CW involvement in this London forum.

A member of this forum with your position should at least read the OP before jumping into the comments section.

Really try to read this thread in full (is not so long) and you won't be surprised by my answer.

Not at all. I read the OP, watched the video, and then searched the thread. Why is she calling him a farmer? "Go back to your pumpkins and tomatoes and grow a super farm"...? Is she just deranged?

I just thought maybe there was more to the story than the ramblings of a crazy person. I guess I was wrong. It doesn't seem meme-worthy at all...

Oh sorry then, my fault.

She called him a farmer and told to get back to grow a super farm because CEO of the Frontier Network, Eric Van Der Kleij chose to end the fireside chat by asking about Craig gardening habits.

“I actually used to have bonsai trees as well, and they’re all dead now,” he started. “I had some really good old bonsai trees, and bloody nChain and all the travel I have to do, every single one of them is dead. My tomatoes, they keep bursting and things like that, because I’m not there to do things. And the gardener sucks, because the last time, he actually mowed by pumpkins". “That’s probably not advisable,” Van Der Keij concluded.

I hope now this is for you more obvious why shy told him something like this.

https://coingeek.com/craig-wrights-week-at-cc-forum-angelina-lazar-and-pumpkin-mania/

No offence to the OP but we already have this thread isn't it? SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.0). Do we really need another topic and give CSW that attention again?

You tell your friend CSW that you are in possession of these evidences so that he will make use of it. He is in very bad need of evidences right now. Every single one is appreciated even if it does not hold a single drop of water. After all, he has not yet produced even a single piece after all his claims and self-proclamation. Do it please. And good luck!  ;)

csw will find ways to create attention any way he can, forever. its what he does, as he apparently has no real talents for anything else but doing his clown shows. his antics are too varied and too stupid to contain in one thread.

i actually dont mind. its awesome comic relief.

I agree this is comedy gold. Actually I've seen the video like two days ago and give telling that Satoshi plagiarised his work? It gives me a good chuckle.  ;D

And people are going to invite him in conference because the more he open his mouth, the more people will realised that he ain't Satoshi, and the more that he is exposed 100%.

So good that Bitcoin doesn't need speakers, conferences, promotion and all that.

Today, Bitcoin is Bitcoin. How do you determine which is it? You do you research.


First lukedashjr, he said you troll. Now, gmaxwell? Hahaha.


It was sarcasm, not flipflop. But truthfully, no one cares anymore. Go to your Bitcoin.


You said they are leaders, not me.


Why did you skip the part about the lies you made about Nick Szabo, and lukedashjr? 8)

I think you would have to read my post one more time or watch the video to understand him correctly.

Of course, I don't have any interest in defending C.W. but better to explain this one more time because many people can be confused.

Looks like a boy who cried wolf too many times. Unless he presents easily verifiable cryptographic proof, no one is going to believe him.

1. btc 2018 is not the same rules as bitcoin 2016.. neither is bitcoin cash. hens 2 different directions from the 2016 version. hense why gmax called it a bilateral split. again for emphasis. gmax named it such. not me. again lets get it right. the word bilateral split begun by gmax's utility of the word. it is not a word i invented or started using. the reason i laugh so much is that you want to deny it occuring yet it was the devs that caused it, named it, mandated it.. not me. i simply informed people of the devs actions. if you have an issue of the use of bilateral splits then take that up with those you follow.


2. anyone can say 'troll coz troll' but thats just empty rebuttle of throwing around names without backing it up. luke backed out of his signed agreement to help the community implement segwit+2mb base in 2015-6. and then went on to say he had no big involvement in core to be able to do anything.. and then went on hypocritically disproving that excuse by doing the mandated fork deadline to get what he prefered 1mbsegwit.
which as we all know he achieved. so the blockchain data itself shows that me highlighting the events is not a troll. hense he cannot actually rebut the history. so he just says 'troll because troll' which is empty of substance. he and gmax just hate being called out for their activities and treat publicising thier agenda as an attack so its the 'attack' they consider the trolling not the content/details, as it hits them personally. although the community still should know whats going on. by the way block data shows more truth than luke/gregs selective wording does

3. see there you go again.. 'go to your bitcoin' very naive, immature and lacking of understanding

4. you said followers too you deny there are leaders but who do followers follow. who leads the followers. .. its simple english
for there to be on there has to be the other

5. do you really want to put your head in the sand that CW's first public appearance was at a conference with nick szabo... come on. they even made a video of it. but hey be ignorant. it seems to be your gameplay
as for luke., gmax... if you think no one should hold the devs accountable, no one should be critical/criticize them. then im guessing your next act is to make a bitcoin bible announcing dves gods?.. people SHOULD be critical of devs and hold them to account. anyone with trust/hope, praise are just people who have no understanding of whats really important

enjoy writing your bitcoin bible of your gods and how you want your flock to follow them.
meanwhile many independant people will continue to try to ensure bitcoin doesnt continue on the centralist path your gods wish to lead

What choice do you leave us?  

You keep saying we can't have soft forks because you don't approve of it.  But we can and we will.  Not your call.
You keep saying we can't have flag day activations because you don't approve of it.  But we can and we will.  Not your call.
You keep saying we can't disconnect incompatible nodes because you don't approve if it.  But we can and we will.  Not your call.

All the lack of understanding is coming from you.

Stop telling us what we supposedly can't do and we'll stop telling you to piss off, how about that?  You are welcome to be a part of this network, but if you can't abide by what other users are doing and are willing to spend the rest of your life complaining about it, it's only natural people are going to get tired of your shit and tell you to go away.  Try being less obnoxious and maybe we'll learn to tolerate your presence a little better.

Who needs cryptographic proof when you've got rusty staples? :P

Craig Wright Relying On ‘Coffee Stains’ And ‘Rusty Staples’ In McCormack Case (https://bitcoinist.com/craig-wright-relying-on-coffee-stains-and-rusty-staples-in-mccormack-case/)


He's digging his own grave. I don't see why people get so upset over him being invited to conferences -- give him a little rope and he'll hang himself. He's pathetic.

Let's pretend you're telling the truth, and that he said it. Is that how you determine "what is Bitcoin?"

It was Roger Ver who was spreading the propaganda that Bitcoin bilaterally split to "Core and Cash". Do you follow what him?


What are you talking about? You are inventing stories, like you invented the story that Nick Szabo introduced "Craig Wright as Satoshi" to the world.


What is your Bitcoin?


Followers of Bitcoin follow the most competent people to maintain the protocol.


Did Nick Szabo "introduce Craig Wright as Satoshi", like you said, or not?


There's a Bitcoin Bible? Haha. 8)

Franky1 is a consistent shill and over the top liar who abusively exploits many people's lack of experience with technical matters to make claims which are flat on their face untrue.

If you take the very first release of Bitcoin by Satoshi and fix the BDB database problem with blocks >500KB then it will (very slowly) sync and accept the current Bitcoin blockchain. It will reject all those fraudulent fake bitcoin chains, such as "bitcoin cash".  It's been a couple years since I conducted the experiment, but I'm aware of no reason why it would be different now-- it's possible there there were other bugs in the original code which have since been triggered. It's so slow, however, that it's really a pain to test.

If you take Bitcoin 0.8.0 released in Feb 2013 as is with no fixes at all,  it will (very slowly) sync and accept the whole current Bitcoin chain. There are existant 0.8.x nodes running that are happily in sync with the current network so there isn't any ambiguity there.

The word "bilateral" there refers to _hardforks_ that won't just allow themselves to be reorged out if they're a loser in terms of hashrate.  Many of the early insane blocksize cranking hardforks didn't have that property. If the original Bitcoin had or subsequently ever achieved more hashes then the hardfork would simply be erased, potentially unconfirming days/weeks/months of transactions.  It comes from this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1649899.msg16601830#msg16601830l).  The word "bilateral" there means two directions: The chain forks off in an different direction *AND* cannot go back.  Bitcoin rejects Bcash blocks (because, among other reasons, the first bcash block warped down the difficulty for their forktime 'instamine') which is what makes it a hardfork,  and Bcash rejects Bitcoin blocks (because they didn't contain the instamine) which makes the hardfork bilateral.

Franky1 somehow takes that and fraudulently claims that Bitcoin was somehow changed to accomplish this, but it wasn't: Bitcoin was written from day one to reject bcash blocks. Suddenly changing the block difficulty is a violation of Bitcoin's consensus rules and always has been.

Anyone who tells you Bitcoin's consensus rules were changed in incompatible ways is misleading you, if they claim they were changed in incompatible ways since 2013 they are trying to tell you an over the top absurd lie... probably with the intention of defrauding you into buying some shitty altcoin they are shilling.

Fixing a bug that made blocks getting randomly rejected in a way that prevents consensus even with copies of itself could be argued to be a consensus change by the overly pedantic (like Luke-Jr)-- but even if you accept that pedantic definition there has still been no incompatible consensus change made since 2013... and changing the system to not spontaneously burst into flames is not remotely similar to the kinds of changes altcoins like bcash have made (e.g. significantly abandoning POW consensus, handing a massive windfall to early miners, etc.).

Franky1's consistent lying is part of why he's banned from the technical subforum.  I don't know why the rest of the community on BCT tolerates him shitting all over so many discussions.

Address format things are just UI, they're invisible to the blockchain itself.  It's like asking if a photocopier would accept italic type or something. :)

I'm having a difficult time figuring out what you are attempting to ask.

The text you are quoting has nothing to do with address types, it is about the old versions having problems "involving large blocks" (see the text you quoted).  In my post two messages up, I state "If you take the very first release of Bitcoin by Satoshi and fix the BDB database problem with blocks >500KB then" -- referring to the same thing.

Versions prior to bitcoin 0.8 would get stuck when blocks are over about 500kb in a manner which is random and different on different nodes (even running the same software).  If you fix that bug, then they process everything else fine.

The proof is in the pudding. Don't be like CSW -- don't be all talk.


Thanks for mentioning this thread. I encourage everybody to post all new, incoming information about how Craig is a fraud in that thread so it can act as an all-in-one resource to help people understand the severity of his deviousness. MicroGuy is encouraged to make his case there: we will listen to what he has to say if he can back it by substantiating evidence.


... And he's managed to do it again in this thread (take the subject off course and make it about politics). I don't delve into Development & Technical Discussion much other than to read on occasion, but I can see how it would be annoying having conversations constantly derailed back to the same overly-trodden rut that never goes anywhere.

^^^

Strange. Some people on Bitcointalk have this weird habit of doing the conversational equivalent of a massive punch in the face, while they tell you "hey, why so aggressive?"

what on earth could their motivation be? :)

But if there was an ideal topic for him to derail, it's this one.  I mean, clearly he can't "read the room".  It's basically post after post of "CSW = bad" and yet he wants to be the lone voice saying, without a hint of irony, "but... but...  Core are teh bads" and it's so totally against the tone of the thread that no one could ever take it for anything but the fantasy it is.

In my view, it's better to quarantine him to topics like "CSW = bad: number 472958bajillionandtwelve" rather than spoiling a topic that has the potential to be considerably more informative and useful.  I don't see much worth protecting in this topic aside from gmaxwell's rebuttal. 

Good topic:  report him
Crapfest:  let him flail about harmlessly like a loon

because the "bc1" part is not stored on the blockchain.

wallet software glues it onto the front of the address. it's a wallet standard, and so it's never part of any blockchain data

Indeed, the more chances and venues we are giving to this man, the more he will be making small and big mistakes that can show more that he is just another fake and not the real thing. As one saying goes, the best way to catch the fish is not through its tail but by its big mouth. Oh sorry, Craig Wright does not actually have a big mouth but just enough to let the bait in with the hook and sinker. Actually, I am still inclined to give CW some credit as a good entertainer, this industry will never the same without guys like him giving us some jokes for free. And he can take me to the court with that.

I don't think that's true. Everyone who was going to be convinced of the truth based on evidence is already convinced.

Did you know that email advanced fee fraud scammers who's messages sound like an obvious "Nigerian" scams are believed to more successful than scammers who use more plausible and less well known story?

Most people won't fall for an email scam, you'll make it a dozen messages in with them and they will realize something is wrong and they'll abort before they pay you and you'll waste a lot of time.  If, instead, you spend your time focusing only on the prospective victims who are ignorant enough to have never heard of a nigerian-scam-email and foolish enough to fall for one-- you'll manage to scam more people.  A scammer doesn't want to maximize the number of  people they could scam in infinite time, they want to maximize the rate of successful new victims and every person they talk to burns up their time.  They want to maximize the number of people who fall for it HARD and hand over a lot of money, a person that is saying "hm, maybe.... he might be satoshi, just maybe" is of fairly little use to scammers like wright except as a useful idiot to increase his credibility for others.

Wright actively exploits that competent people with integrity AND competence (like, say, Bitcoin developers) all know that he is an obvious scammer.  He's never going to win that audience over and so he acts in ways to make himself more obvious and more offensive to that audience.  Then when all of those people are saying "this dude is obviously a scammer", he's able to exploit that while pandering to ignorant people: "see how sure they are? obviously they're biased and covering up the truth!".

This works especially well because the cryptocurrency space has attracted  many people with a reflexive distrust of "authority".  That audience is a prime scam target because you can just manipulate them to see whatever is in their own interest as 'authority'. They have problems cooperating to identify and protect themselves from scammers because anyone who starts successfully getting the message out is 'authority', etc.

That's a page from the "Roger Ver Trolling Cookbook". Be aggressive, and make other person look stupid while winning the debate, be cute and play the victim when losing.


Debating trolls is good for your learning process. I never knew what bilateral meant by gmaxwell until franky1 went on a misinformation rampage about it in this topic. Now everyone knows. 8)

I am not so sure about this and see a slightly different picture. In my opinion, the fan base of CW keeps growing with every new event or announcement.

This is enough to look at the latest BSV price and we can clearly see that the price started to grow from the day of the London forum panel, despite the hall crypto market was in red.

All other cryptocurrencies are correlated to the BTC and copy the moves exactly, only BSV and a couple of others (which we can count of one hand fingers) look like BTC is not influencing them so much as other alts.

This is scary and should be not ignored. BSV is looking strong lately and I am sure this is only the beginning.

That's true, plus I believe their trolls must be very convincing if newbies thank those trolls, and liars for "helping" them discover "Bitcoin", https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194581.0

Where are the Core trolls? Stand up, and memefy. 8)

I don't think your observation conflicts with my understanding.

There are something like 4 billion people who use the internet.  If 1% of them are vulnerable to being conned by wright and immune to sanity then he has a total addressable market of 40 million potential victims--- he's a long way from that now.

But also be careful with your growth estimates, paid shills and fans can look pretty similar.

When I read your words I started to think about this and came to the conclusion that maybe you are right because this looks like the same strategy which is used to win elections. They don't concentrate and waste resources, time to convince opponents, but they do everything to recruit as many people as possible who are indifferent or do not know anything about this or are unsure.

It is much easier to convince someone completely indifferent or not having their own mindset than an opponent to change their opinions. Given how few people know and use cryptocurrencies, we must assume that they know even less and worry about C.W. and his aspirations to be Satoshi. It may be true that these people are the target of the CW campaign and they are to ensure his success when he gets their votes and support.


I was afraid of this and thought that C.W. will finally do a bounty or other airdrop to convince more people to his altcoin but I don't think this will happen because they don't have the resources needed. He is talking about money and that he doesn't need them but all he does is about money, so I think he is sitting in debts and always struggles with the money problem.

The best proof for this theory are his problems with taxes in the countries where he lived until now and he had to run away to avoid even bigger problems, such as the seizure of property or even arrest. Of course, there is a big possibility that they will or hired already some very influential shills from the crypto community to vouch for C.W. but as for now, I don't see anybody who matters and is trusted in crypto space to be doing this.

The more we talk about him he is getting popular, let him die in oblivion if he is a scammer rather than fighting and talking about him, the truth will come out one day but he is getting more acceptance in the general public, i never had a deal with him nor invested in his coin and hence i cannot tell that he scammed me, the fact is no one will believe his claims unless there is solid proof rather than words.

I think that the majority of members here have a similar point of view as quoted above.

I agree with this statement fully and only can repeat that I also never have dealt with C.W. nor invested in his altcoin and because of this just cannot tell that he scammed me, but the fact is, no one will believe his claims unless there is solid proof. PERIOD. Not some Thesis from university or any other bullshit only signed transaction from early Satoshi address or signed transaction from early Satoshi address.

Yes, you are not wrong I repeated twice because it has to be clear that something like to be or not to be a Satoshi Nakomoto, just can't be taken lightly and without best evidence possible.

“That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.” ― George Carlin

::)

Well, at least he came up with something new. Claiming that he was Satoshi was getting old. New claims about Satoshi stealing his invention is actually refreshing. at this point.

I do hope your being sarcastic ?


What part of any of this do you think is OK or beneficial to this industry ?

The  #faketoshi  fraud  TIMELINE
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/mylegacykit.html
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/ponsdeserres.html
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/jimmy007forsure.html

::)

I don't understand FakeSatoshi wright, he said he was Satoshi, now he said Satoshi plagiarized his work, I think he is confused about something or he's trying to repair his name, all these are publicity.

Crazy, insane, mentally ill people become Jokers. Somehow they make it out of their asylums and wreck havok on the city, then Batman has to come out and fix it.

"Gentlemen... we're history."
https://media.giphy.com/media/z4ULMssv6ulxu/giphy.gif

"Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K."

...

Bitcoin SV's Craig Wright wins an auction, who wins the BTC BSV debate? Crypto drama in London.
- https://youtu.be/BJdcbuYQXlM *NSFW*

...

"All you boys seemed to have learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."..."

CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.

;D

I have already explained this during the discussion in this thread, so it will be enough to read the thread before commenting.

Anyways, taking into consideration that the thread is already a couple of pages long and not everybody has so much time to read all of this, here is my quoted answer:

Joker is much much better than Craig Wright. Joker has at least created a body of fans even if he a super villain. Craig Wright on the other hand has not a single fan, only haters. Craig Wright is not joker, but he is a definite joker. And the joke is that he is serious in his jokes. Everyone thinks he is joking when he claims to be the real Satoshi and Bitcoin SV is the real Bitcoin but he is not, he is serious about it. And that is the funnier joke.

Continuing the pumpkin man (complete joker) naritive ...


::)

But I don’t see Batman yet. The main thing is that Jokers do not go too far when they will be unstoppable

As an OP of this thread I want to ask everybody to stay on the topic and not go too far with BTC - BSV debate or no to post stupid jokes or summaries because from that is only one step to a spam contest.


Thanks for sharing this because I haven't seen this video. You can see that this is a well-thought-out strategy to turn the failure of the Pumpkin C.W. into success.

As you can see they are trying to show that it only helped them, and did not hurt, as everyone thought.

This is a completely new strategy because some time ago, he would sue the woman who called him that in public, to the court without a second thought.

I think there is a bunch of advisors who control the C.W. campaign these days.

---

https://i.imgur.com/NaxEqOl.png
https://youtu.be/2YpMqB2ePOI?t=178

Maybe not the newest video but sums everything almost half a year ago nothing changed. Maybe only one thing C.W stopped (I think) to file lawsuits against anybody who calls him Faketoshi.

Another Faketoshi popped up lately.

Joerg Molt recently hosted the conference of the SIMS Institute at Symbiosis International University, where he was presented as "co-founder of Bitcoin". His speech turned out to be extremely embarrassing and embarrassing for both the audience and the organizers.

https://i.imgur.com/r20kxAE.png
https://twitter.com/i/status/1190829563695321088

Andreas Antonopoulos, known to everyone, was also "soaked" in the Morg case. He was presented with him in a joint photo on Twitter. Antonopoulos claimed that the selfie with "Faketoshi" was crafted and that he did not know a person named Joerg Molt. Moreover, he added that not only shared photography is an obvious lie, but it is also the claim that the German has 250,000 BTC and that he is "Bitcoin co-creator".

https://i.imgur.com/eplR4tX.png
https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/1191007637355323392/photo/1

---

Now back to the main subject because it turns out that Craig Wright may be bankrupt - he is unable to pay the settlement amount of 500,000 BTC from the Kleinman case.

https://i.imgur.com/EHboZUo.png
https://twitter.com/alistairmilne/status/1190894527101440000

The Kleinman case has been going on for some time.

According to recent findings, the parties focused on concluding the settlement and extending its implementation until the end of October.

However, as it turned out, this contract was broken by the self-styled creator of Bitcoin. Does that mean that Craig Wright is bankrupt?

---

https://bithub.pl/wiadomosci/kim-jest-joerg-molt-i-co-ma-wspolnego-z-powstaniem-bitcoina/
https://bithub.pl/wiadomosci/craig-wright-jest-bankrutem-samozwanczy-satoshi-nakamoto-nie-ma-pieniedzy-na-splate-kleinmana/

1. can bitcoin version0.1.x->0.11.x verify signatures of SEGWIT. - NOPE (thus the 2016-2017 change)
2. bitcoin nodes are suppose to fully verify full block and full transaction data. but it wont
3. will a bitcoin node version 0.1.x->0.11.x store FULL BLOCK DATA of all block information of 2017-2019 - NOPE
4. old nodes are given a stripped version that lacks crucial things to be able to verify a transaction was signed properly
5. can bitcoin version0.1.x->0.11.x relay ALL transaction types of bitcoin - NOPE
because bitcoin <=2016 and bitcoin 2017 => are different

as for trying to say that bitcoin 0.18 is the same as 0.8.x or bitcoin0.1.x ... but then go about explaining that lots of changes are needed to just make 0.1.x work. shows that bitcoin has changed.

saying that the code needs to be changed to work means its not the same thing.
and also you have not been honest about how many likes of code are needed.
its involving using an entirely different database structure. so is not a simple change a variable thing.

an your foolish attempt to hide the changes to bitcoin by saying about 'address formats are just UI based' is you misleading
segwit based addresses are technically at code level and inside blockdata level different than legacy
the way addresses are treated are different. both in how they are verified (using a different txid. different signature methods and even where in a transaction the signature sits within block data

heck bitcoin 2009-2016 had no possible way to make blocks over 1mb.. yet 2017-2019 blocks are over 1mb
so even looking just at the size of blocks shows there are changes done

but good luck with your hiding the facts

anyone can take a look at the raw data(not UI representation) of a legacy tx and rawdata(not UI representation) of a segwit tx and see there is major differences

but hey gmaxwell does not like being called out on his lies so bans his opposition. just like a bilateral fork banning opposition that dont like his and his buddies code ideas

consensus suppose to be where no upgrades can be done unless high majority consent to it
core didnt get high majority so thy banned the opposition to get a fake majority by not counting the opposition

EG
imagine
hilary 50%  trump %50
trump asks for a recount but to only count the trump ballots
suddenly election results show 100% trump

oh and this quote
actually core nodes were banning non core nodes HOURS before cash nodes even made a block with a different difficulty..
blockchain data shows that bitcoin cash did not even make a block until hours later. because they were banned from the core network

but atleast thank you for admitting there was a bilateral split AND a hard fork. you deserve another 50 merit for atleast clearing that matter up.. i hope windfury atleast acknowledges that too. (he your number one fan gmax)
(50 merit will be added to gmax in a week after the 30 day waiting period expires)

a)  No one gives a flying fuck when BCH mined its first block.  If any forkcoin announces a launch date without changing their network magic, whether their first block has been mined or not, their nodes can and should be disconnected from the BTC network.  If you can't understand the reasoning for that and the risks it would present to the network if it wasn't done, then you clearly aren't technically astute enough to comment.  That, or your overwhelming bias is preventing you from forming a conclusion that's even remotely sensible once again.  It's honestly difficult to tell with you.  Are you a zealot, or just ignorant?  Maybe it's both.  I'm honestly past caring.

b)  Even if people did care about when BCH mined its first block, the amusingly long time it took was primarily due to their non-existant hashrate at launch.  Hence the need to further alter consensus rules with their Emergency Difficulty Adjustment.  That chain would have been dead by the end of the first week if they hadn't altered it.  The end result, whether being disconnected before or after mining their first block would have been the same.  They were the minority chain.  It would never have unfolded any differently, no matter how much you try to blame one dev team for everything.  But by all means keep living in the past at the only point in history where you think your worthless opinions meant anything.  

c)  If you want to change consensus unilaterally with a hardfork, why should you expect to be permitted to remain connected to a network that fundamentally disagrees with you?  Say you went to the cinema with friends (an unlikely scenario given that I doubt you have that many friends, but still) to see a movie, but then you decide that instead you want to watch 8 movies in a row.  Do you think that everyone else has to stick around until a deadline you've arbitrarily chosen to have a vote to see if everyone agrees with seeing 8 movies?  Or is it more likely that the others will simply give you the finger and leave you behind because you're clearly an arsehole for thinking they need to listen to your stupid ideas when they absolutely don't have to (but you do strike me as exactly the kind of person that would try to force them to anyway, given how obscenely obnoxious you are).  Get a clue.  Just because a forkcoin announces a launch date, it doesn't mean I have to wait until that date to disconnect their node.  You don't get to decide that and have a great big "fuck you" if you think you do.

Off topic, but it seems ... this looks like one of those faketoshis trying to get fame by getting a photo with Antonopoulos ... so, franky1 is debating with gmaxwell ...

I like segwit, because it works.

Who would you believe in? The person who lies, or the computer scientist who has actual experience from working on the network, for better or worse.

windy..
gmax in this very thread acknowledged the bilateral fork
gmax also stated that people need to change old versions to be compatible with bitcoin 2019
thus bitcoin 2019 is not the same as bitcoin 2009

you just need to look at the raw block data to see the structural changes of the data
so if you want to believe gmax. atlast acknowledge what he is saying not what you wish he was saying

if you tak out his personal bias and his name calling. (the only bits you love about him) atleast start caring about the code and bitcoin and start researching BITCOIN not the social opinions of gmax

i personally dont care about gmax name calling m. because 'franky1' is not my birth certified name so it does me no harm. all i care about is the direction gmax and his chums are taking bitcoin in. as thats all that really matters.. bitcoin.. not devs

devs come and go, get bored, get paid off, change/lose their morals. so try to atleast care more about bitcoin. not a dev

We do care about Bitcoin.  That's why we keep debunking your terrible ideas where you keep trying to turn it into some sort of voting democracy crap.

We do care about the code.  You have no code.  Stop talking as if you have all the answers, when what you have in reality is absolutely nothing other than whiny desperation and bitterness that the world isn't as you'd like it to be.

We also care about personal freedom.  Something you have illustrated time and again that you would happily trample all over to get what you want.  You are not, and will never be, in a position to tell us what we can't do.

yawn
1. bitcoin and blockchains was built on consensus . it was built on solving the byzantine generals problem. however you dont want consensus or a solution to byzantine generals problem. you instead want a tyranical monarchy centralist system and sub system that doesnt even use blockchains...
sorry but thats not really you showing care for bitcoin.

and by the way. im not telling people how to think. im just displaying information and opinion and saying people should do their indpendant research
however gmax is very much into cencorship, removing opposition to hide the fact that there is an opposition to his plans. and also he is telling peopl what to think by not advising people to do theor own research.

but if you want to ignore code and block data. and just blindly trust Greg McCensorship Maxwell. then atleast just admit your more interested in giving greg a hug then you are about a decentralised payment network
and dont keep flip flipping about decentralisation if you flip back to not wanting voting or other candidate software having even utility.

you really have drunk too much of the gmax coolaid.

2. before you resort to the standard play the victim card of how im trolling you and your friends and how i supposedly meandered the topic to be about segwits bilateral fork...
just remember who actually mentioned it first to poke the bear...
by you and your friends pretending core is the center of bitcoin and should remain the center is not a decentralised mindset
by you caring more about gmax's reputation then the coins code/security. shows you care more about social entertainmnt than bitcoin itself
but as gmax has actually shown. there was a bilateral fork and the rules and code and even the verification mechanisms have changed from that of bitcoin in 2016 and 2013
but hey. i bet you will favor gmaxwells side and go with the similar analogy that todays internet is the same internet as 1995
sorry but that dont play in any playbook

but have a nice day in your fanclub.

P.S
i do not assiciate or favour ver or faktoshi. my currency of preference is btc
i have never used bitcoin cash not bsv. so dont even bother trying to shoo me into other camps.
just because i want bitcoin to actually be decentralised and actually use consensus as it was intended does not make me anti-bitcoin. it just makes me anti-core and its corporate business plan

[i expect standard script replies of how im a troll how i victimise innocent people how im worthless, useless, how im shilling, how i am in the altcoins camp, blah blah blah. so hr is a pre-yawn to your normal scripts.]

No, the reply is that you don't understand consensus.  You never have.  You like the notion of consensus, in a purely theoretical sense.  But in practice, running live in the real world, you hate consensus.  You can't stand the fact that anyone can code what they want and that people can run it, because it means they can run code which does things you don't personally approve of.  All the things you'll happily spend the rest of your sad life complaining about.  If you had the power to just snap your fingers and magically prevent anyone from coding future softforks, I know you absolutely would without hesitation.  That's just who you are as a person.  If you don't agree with it, there's no conceivable way it should be allowed.  You are wholly incapable of respecting the choices the users on this network have made.  You are wholly incapable of respecting the right of devs to code what they want.  If you don't like what we're running or what devs are coding, that's a 'YOU' problem, not an 'US' problem.

doomad. yet again soo many topics and so many times you flip flop and even now you still toeing the core party line
 with your standard scripts

however
consensus is where a feature activates AFTER majority approval. a feature then AFTER activation causes the minority opposition to not be in sync with the network .

consensus is NOT about throwing opposition to a feature off before a feature even activates, to then fake a majority to get the feature approved.

are you really clueless or just loving cores power on the network and want core to be the centralised point of the network
(its rhetorical, as your repetition of using core defence scripts makes it blindingly obvious)

again you have not said anything original nor anything that even vaguely or directly sounds like caring for the btc networks security. instead you just state the standard scripts that allow core to slide in updates without consensus and without people needing to opt in for it to activate.

its time you spent less time on core friendly chat groups and started to think about btc security .
core devs get old, retire, move on. so kissing their ass wont be a good life goal for you as it has a time limit and a cost to it.

you would be better off actually caring about the networks security not 'human leaders'

I see you using the word, yet you evidently still don't comprehend its meaning.  Consensus is people coming together to build the chain they want to build.  If you don't want to build the same chain they do, why do you care if they include you or not?  Consensus has never and will never mean that you can block a feature because you don't like it.  If enough people want it, they'll find a way to make it happen and they will build that chain with or without you.  No one is waiting around for your approval.  That's just not how it works.  If enough people agree with disconnecting nodes, then yes, consensus absolutely is about that.  That's the code people chose to run, so those are the rules the network enforces.  Literally the definition of consensus.  Learn it.

Stop getting confused between the way things are and the way you'd like them to be.  Every single last argument you present on consensus is based on the way you'd like it to be, not the way it is.  You desperately want a consensus where nodes can't be disconnected before having a vote, but that's clearly not the consensus we have.  Ergo, you do not understand consensus, because you keep telling us we can't do something we've already done.  By every measure of logic and reasoning, you are wrong.

consensus is about consent
CORE NODES didnt need to give consent to activate segwit because of the bypass trick of not needing to consent/opt-in that they implemented way way earlier. aka 'the backward compatibility'

but the NETWORK did need consent by nodes that were not backward, compatible.
hense why they didnt get their november-december 2016 activation

however core, before getting fair high majority network consent from all node brands to activate segwit, core pushed the opposition off the network. thus not needing their consent by just not counting the opposition TO FAKE CONSENSUS

even when you flip flop you admit your love for the idea of not needing consent anymore
you absolutely nearly orgasm that core can activate stuff 'soft' by not needing consent

look at you above talking about the network NOW not needing consent, because everything can be done soft NOW
but what you fail to realise is the network NOW is not what bitcoin WAS
your trying to deny the past where satoshi solved the byzantine generals issue

you even talk about the stuff such as how you admire how luke JR announced the way to slip things in without network consent. which just proves when your not flip flopping how you actually know that consensus has changed and become not required in recent years

you whole heartedly keep on trying to sway history into cores favour.
and that is your failure.
you care more about cores control than having an actual decentralised network

and dont even try to twist the word core distributed nodes to be the same as decentralised. as its not the same thing.

but dont bother replying as this has just been the same rebuttals every time because your scripts dont change. your favour to core is very loud, and i feel gmax should just get it over with and give you a hug already as it seems its what you want and need from him.

maybe one day your scripts will change. and i dont mean another flip flop. i mean one day you will actually realise bitcoin is more then core. and you favouring core as the sole 'reference' has been your failure

and more of a failure how you know all this but aftr a week or two you somehow pretend to have amnesia and revert back to the same scripts of core favour and pretend your version of history is right.. even though blockchain data and cod itself can disprove your version

anyway have a nice day.

In your imagination.  Here in the real world, I don't need your consent.  I find it repugnant that you think I do.  Consensus is where everyone can run what they want and the people who agree build a chain together.  That's not me reading out a "script", it's just how it works.  I could explain it to you a million times and you still won't get it, because you are obsessed with the fantasy in your head where think you matter and we somehow need to have your approval to do things. 



Then run an older version.  Keep living in the past.  You don't need anyone's consent.  But you can't prevent us opting in to new features via softfork when it's not your call. 



You're the one who desperately wants to control things.  Every single post I make regarding consensus is with the intent of preserving freedom.  Every single post you make about your warped and misguided thoughts on consensus is with the intent to take freedom away. 

Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to implement features via softfork.
Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to set an activation date for a feature to go live.
Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to disconnect nodes running incompatible network magic that could damage the integrity of the network and lead to users losing funds.

You can't.  Because you want to stop people having the freedom to do those things. 

we are two different people. but yes it is repetative monotonous droning as for 2 years now doomad has been repeating the same scripts and i have to keep reminding readers of stuff that is not core centric favouring.

doomad just leaves it a couple weeks and then repeats the bear poking via windfury restarting it.
its far more likely that windfury and doomad are the same person. where windfury strikes the first poke and then awakens the bear then uses the doomad name to come to the defence

their strategy is not original or new hence why it seems monotonous

you are so flip floppy..
you dont opt-in via softfork consensus bypass..
your just no longer having the opportunity to have an OPT whether in or out.
EG tyranny instead of consent

it used to be features did not activate unless majority consent is reached of a multibrand single network. now its just follow cores desires or find another network.
people dont get the oppertunity to stop a bug from being added or a feature that could ruin bitcoin be added.
but hey 'its core' so you just want them to do as they please unhindered, and let the community be slave s to cores decisions.

thats what you keep salivating about and love about how bitcoin has changed over the last couple years. the recent non requirement of consensus

but have a good day.

Newbies, again the question. Who would you believe in, the person who lies, or the person who has actual experience from working on the network?


Core tyranny? Where?? Segwit almost didn't activate. Its activation started with the UASF, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

You guys are simply trolling each other now -- your conversation hasn't had anything to do with CSW for quite some time. franky indeed was the first to derail the thread and make it about "consensus," but you other 2 had the chance to just ignore him. I know sometimes its hard to ignore a troll but all 3 of you are equally as guilty of highjacking the discussion by this point. Can't you just keep your battle limited to one superthread about Core vs. Others?

windfury as usual poked the bear first.
its the usual crowd of core fangirls that trigger it.

but as for this topic of CSW.. he isnt even a btc topic. he is an altcoin topic. CSW has no power over btc
so bringing him up as a btc topic but wanting to avoid and ignore something that is btc related. and pretend it never happened is  more like the centralists who are trolling

people can call me as many names as they like but all they are doing is showing how centralist they are. its like people calling out trumps failures and how he rigged elections to get in power, and all the trump fans want the public to do is only look and talk about hillary(CSW analogy), who is not even in power and to believe trump is the good guy even though many can see he is a over power reaching creep

once you start to tell people to stop criticising those in power and only criticise those that have no power. you know the politics of a system is screwed up. we should all be critical of core, not follow them like a religion

He did not. He was purely talking about BSV supporters, but then you jumped in and made it about you.


Then report the first post as being off-topic. No need to respawn a boring, thoroughly tired debate that inevitably goes nowhere.

windfury categorised the 'anti-blockstream/core power house' people as bsv fans.. his troll
windfury brought up the word bilateral split first
windfury then tried again pidgeon holing those that oppose core centralisation as CSW/ver fangirls



enjoy wanting just one central team running a networks rule decision making.
if only you could put aside the mindset that core centralisation and bypassing opposition as a good thing. and instead see what a true decentralised network of old btc had and should have, meaning no central 'reference'

btc is a core distributed network, not a diverse decentralised network. distributed not the same as decentralised
even windfury says it, though he hasnt really got the technical ability to realise what he is saying, when he promotes stuff like the UASF to realise what it actually does. uasf didnt even technically need user assistance. it was just a fake buzzword acronym that was used to set a mandated opposition cut-off

have a good day

P.S i have never used bch or bsv. i am critical of cores over reach because i care about btc(many should be critical and not just sheep to core)

::)

My post you're quoting and your comment above it don't make sense.


Newbies, the reason why the Core developers are, "the Core" developers is because they're the most competent group of people who have the best interest of Bitcoin in mind.

BUT, listen to franky1, and learn the hard way.

wwzsocki please lock this thread and create a self moderated thread,  the subforum mods here are clearly too busy to deal with the constant derailments.

I thought that the fight will finally stop and these off-topic posts, but I have to agree that this too much and I will close this thread today.

I just want to say THANKS to all members who posted here in this thread and for so long maintained a really nice discussion about such an irritating topic like Faketoshi.