Craig's new book is a joke. Just a bunch of his Medium posts bundled together.  It's not written by CSW - but fine u bring it up CSW isn't responsible for the contents of his own book? In your eyes he's just never made an error, has he. Quote from preface of CSW's book: I haz never made an errer [sic]. |
|
|
|
For what? Explain me, for what seek Satoshi?
Explain you en King's English o broken English? |
|
|
|
This law is made by poor human Craig is soon to be a very poor human. Rest assured that CSW already has a human exit strategy in place ... |
|
|
|
Answer my question now,
Why do you need to know who Satoshi Nakamoto is?? What's the requirement??
Finding Satoshi has just became a wide goose chasing game which is leading to nowhere! Let's stop here! It makes no sense to find Satoshi or the creator of bitcoin! You have his creation so make use of it!
"A rumours not a rumour that dosn't die!"
"What?"
"Nothing!"
... - https://youtu.be/K7yez4lXjBI?t=42"If my memory of her has an expiration date, let it be 10,000 years..."- https://twitter.com/pmullr/status/1158304740767391745  ... "Woman in blonde wig : Actually, really knowing someone doesn't mean anything. People change. A person may like pineapple today and something else tomorrow.""Woman in blonde wig : Somehow I've become very cautious. When I put on a raincoat, I put on sunglasses too. Who knows when it will rain, or when it will turn out sunny?"Yes, people change, for even the Zodiac Killer stopped killing due to perhaps becoming a born again Christian. In the same vein, stop looking for the Zodiac Killer even though my best guess is that he's now a renown goat fucker on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
Bump the CSW bully thread.
|
|
|
|
Fraudtoshi aka Craig Wright is caught plagarizing. Yeah I know it might be the 1321864348943646th time https://twitter.com/Zectro1/status/1169703880705200128-> One of the papers Craig Wright is presenting at his conference tomorrow, "A Proof of Turing Completeness in Bitcoin Script," was almost completely plagiarized from C. Böhm, "On a family of Turing machines and the related programming language" Thanks, bud. I'll include the above in my new book, The Tale of Two Cryptos which starts off with ... It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
The more high tech we have, the more high touch tech we will want.
Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation of the blockchain.
If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth of how I broke my nose several times and stitched it back together. |
|
|
|
...snip... Remember when Craig announced that he was working on true fungibility and mixing for BCH? I do!  Jep - but that's not against tracability IF YOU NEED IT to prove against regulatory instances where your ownings came from. Otherwise you ll get rekt or blacklisted anyway Mixing (on or off chain) is probably the worst way to do privacy, anonymity, or to prevent traceability etc., This only provides plausible deniability, at best. What people don't currently realize is "Oblivious Transfers", won't even add 'true' fungibility. - SWIM - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FungibilityDefinition of oblivious;
1 : lacking remembrance, memory, or mindful attention
2 : lacking active conscious knowledge or awareness —usually used with of or to
Synonyms;
clueless, ignorant, incognizant, innocent, insensible, nescient, unacquainted, unaware, unconscious, uninformed, unknowing, unmindful, unwitting This is a very interesting topic. If a solution was found, a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible.
Originally, a coin can be just a chain of signatures. With a timestamp service, the old ones could be dropped eventually before there's too much backtrace fan-out, or coins could be kept individually or in denominations. It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions.
The challenge is, how do you prove that no other spends exist? It seems a node must know about all transactions to be able to verify that. If it only knows the hash of the in/outpoints, it can't check the signatures to see if an outpoint has been spent before. Do you have any ideas on this?
It's hard to think of how to apply zero-knowledge-proofs in this case.
We're trying to prove the absence of something, which seems to require knowing about all and checking that the something isn't included.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge_proof I see you cited satoshi and wiki, however, you failed to understand what satoshi meant, i will try to help, I cited the (5) reference, about the 2 colored balls ( https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demonstrate-how-zero-knowledge-proofs-work-without-using-chalkias) This example requires two identical objects with different colours such as two coloured balls.
Imagine your friend is red-green colour-blind (while you are not) and you have two balls: one red and one green, but otherwise identical. To your friend they seem completely identical and he is skeptical that they are actually distinguishable. You want to prove to him they are in fact differently-coloured, but nothing else; in particular, you do not want to reveal which one is the red and which is the green ball.
Here is the proof system. You give the two balls to your friend and he puts them behind his back. Next, he takes one of the balls and brings it out from behind his back and displays it. He then places it behind his back again and then chooses to reveal just one of the two balls, picking one of the two at random with equal probability. He will ask you, "Did I switch the ball?" This whole procedure is then repeated as often as necessary.
By looking at their colours, you can of course say with certainty whether or not he switched them. On the other hand, if they were the same colour and hence indistinguishable, there is no way you could guess correctly with probability higher than 50%.
Since the probability that you would have randomly succeeded at identifying each switch/non-switch is 50%, the probability of having randomly succeeded at all switch/non-switches approaches zero ("soundness"). If you and your friend repeat this "proof" multiple times (e.g. 100 times), your friend should become convinced ("completeness") that the balls are indeed differently coloured.
The above proof is zero-knowledge because your friend never learns which ball is green and which is red; indeed, he gains no knowledge about how to distinguish the balls.
This example cannot be applied to bitcoin since it is interactive. You convince just the colorblind friend and nobody else. And, by the way, even in this case, there is no way you show him are there any unspent coins inside those colored balls. This is what you failed to understand. You will say that you provided the link for Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof and Pairing-based cryptography and it's further implementation to ZCash protocol. I will say that this is not needed. 0-conf is not needed in Bitcoin. From Bitcoin whitepaper:   And another quote from satoshi on this forum:  Bitcoin TX's may be fast, bitcoin can even scale(BSV), however, they are not instant and were not designed to be so. Failed delivery, rerouting, damage in delivery (malicious maltreating included) or simply delayed all arise with Bitcoin transactions.  Cool tournament, by the way. I have not failed to understand what the real Satoshi meant (who is most certainly not CSW). I also do not require your help in any matter whatsoever either ... Bitcoin TX's are not fast, they are in fact more or less instant, when broadcast. Transaction throughput (network confirmation time etc.,) is largely what governs scalability. Not block size. It is mostly the 10 min. blocktime which directly hinders throughput / volume of congested bitcoin transactions. Changing this "Set in Stone" value obviously would alter the economic distribution model, something which is far from acceptable. This is why Hal said off chain transactions were important to scaling bitcoin and for mass adoption. Good luck with the BSV big blocks 'sand pit'. All BSV will do is increase centralization of it's own network / protocol. I made a quote on this forum in this regard very early on in BTC days, something to the effect of "It does not matter what you do, eventually you will run out of space."Better, faster, more private blockchain's are coming. ... Oh wait, actually you could request that your BSV 'fraudtoshi' leader (CSW) create a new account on this forum and drop me a PM ... Ask him to tell me what Satoshi told me that he/she/they wanted to build for bitcoin before I left this forum ? It would also be preferable if the message was signed with Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key ... - https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/satoshinakamoto.ascI will wait until May 2020, although I will most certainly continue to wait longer. - https://youtu.be/vA2vCG6WwQA- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg188#msg188BitcoinFX, can you pm or email me, I have a couple questions about back in 2010.
Is/was that you CSW ? Fishing for Luckies ? lol and ... How to be a "Faketoshi", better than any other "Faketoshi" !?!- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148607.0Jesus this post somehow sent me down the rabbit hole and i ended up here https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3413928&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=444and just got worse from there.  SA, now that's a blast from the past. Here's a quote from just below the fold ... I like how quickly Bruce went from crazy Bitcoin guy with way too much ambition. To full blown rapist-pedophile. I'll give you one guess as to who was instrumental in getting Pedo Bruce ousted from the crypto community. Hint: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39476.0. |
|
|
|
You would'nt ask such Thing from Satoshi, would you?
I think you'll find that is exactly what this community would, and does, ask of anyone asserting themselves to be Satoshi, that they sign a message with one of his keys. While that doesn't necessarily prove without doubt that such a person is Satoshi it would transfer the burden of proof to us to then show that they are not the original owner of the key they signed with. So, seeing as Craig has not provided such cryptographic proof, what evidence do you have which would even serve to show he was aware of Bitcoin prior to 2013? I'll answer that for you. You have zero evidence because there is no evidence. You are merely choosing to believe what you want to believe and that is solely derived from Craig, himself, making claims without proof. Believing in claims that lack any evidence whatsoever is otherwise known as 'blind faith' and is not a healthy or reliable way to define the world around you. There is no 'evidence' even if anyone signs with such old keys (it just proves, one was just able to sign - nothing else) - also not any proof for the 'community' where it appears that there are very different ones with different views and backgrounds & understandings to CONCLUDE who might be Satoshi and who not - guess we cannot fix that.  "The keys may be old but they still work." |
|
|
|
I do know Jujitsu. I'm a Brazilian Jujitsu brown belt with more than a decade of experience.
I also have several years of wrestling experience as well.
imo you should wrestle craig wright over who has ultimate sovereign control of BTCcash!!  Lol weeee Craig is a light weight. I'd rather have Roger beat the living shit outta me. |
|
|
|
is there a million bitcoins at Wright - is unknown, but the fact that they were with he - 100%
he either lost his keys or came up with the illusion of Fund to protect himself from burglars
Show me irrefutable evidence that Craig owned 1,000,000 BTC at some point in time and I'll pay you $10,000.Let's up the ante, eh? From the desk of What's Wright is Wright, I'm officially pulling a [Matthew Neal] Wright (reference below the fold), namely I'll pay anyone ... wait for it ... $1,000,000 ($1M) if you show me irrefutable evidence that Craig Steven Wright owned ~1M BTC at some point in time. If proven and I don't pay up, theymos has my permission to ban me and my multiple sock pockets from this BBS, whereupon I'll be forever chastised from the crypto community. Ref.: I made a huge bet with money I would never have had to give away if I lost to intentionally prove a point about people's insane amount of trust to strangers (no escrow? millions of dollars?), that Pirate was not a scammer (which he is) and continued to increase that amount for the pure comedy of it. What started as a horrible prank soon ended up a sad display of people's greed and desperation. I have since realized that almost any prank is acceptable, except ones that involve people's money. Despite the numerous individuals pleading for me not to pay those who would not have paid if they lost, I had decided to settle with all of the betters anyway and as of writing this have settled with almost all of them, the rest being paid slowly as I am able to.Related link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=107543.0. |
|
|
|
Why would he go to such lengths of creating contrived measures in order to verify his history rather than going to the simple route? Why act in such a way that makes it seem like he's lying countless times, even going to the lengths of trying to sue others, even going to the lengths of fabricating evidence?
Either he's trying to do some long-winded swindle which is lost on anyone who isn't a diehard CSW fan... or we can apply Occam's razor and pragmatically assume that he is, in fact, not satoshi.
This: https://www.healthline.com/health/pathological-liar#what-is-it. |
|
|
|
BSV and BTC have the same old history - true so far
But the crime actions (incl altering protocol to more allow such) stay on BTC - so what is your point? I guess even criminals stay away from BSV. I wonder why.
Hey, isn't changing the block size altering Bitcoin? When do you stop? 1 TB? 1 EB? How big do you want your blocks to be? Heck, why not just absolve the whole concept of a blockchain and just have a single block? Make it a full-body sun block ... |
|
|
|
Exactly how Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin will be according to ALL his early pennings. Now if you'll excuse me, back to improving my invention I call The CSW Device ®™ |
|
|
|
Can't face your cult is based on fraud, poor you.
|
|
|
|
Proof by Metadata is Proof of Troll What is your anno trust Level again ?  Proof by Craig is a forgery. What is your anno trust Level again ? "I just farted my anus trust level. It smells like Nirvana Crypto Spirit." |
|
|
|
 "These documents I gave to my team of lawyers to submit to the judge as proof that I'm the one and only Satoshi Nakamoto were all falsified by me. But I still stand my statement of losing my virginity in a cornfield outside Monkey's Eyebrow, KY." |
|
|
|
Just saw Spoetnik being added to the list. Well, definitely my vote goes for him. If you have been here for more than 4 years you will probably vote for him because of his posts were on a whole different level. You're probably a legendary member if you voted for Spoetnik.
I had quite a few back-and-forths with Spoetnik back in the day. Wonder what happened to him. He was humorous when he wasn't just unleashing vile bilge. Sometimes he could be a bit too wordy for my tastes -- seems to be a common theme among our trolliest of trolls. I didn't vote for him because there's a few better contenders more worthy of my vote. I had the pleasure of speaking with Spoetnik directly on the phone a couple years ago. |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wizsecurity/status/1161338703710568448"WizSec Bitcoin Research @wizsecurity In a deposition, the creator of Bitmessage has confirmed that the supposed chat messages between Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright are forgeries." The defense tried to install doubt by claiming CSW could have had a pre release version or a hacked copy from the dark web, not sure the judge will buy it. That's quite a lot of forgeries that fraudtoshi would have been the victim of while sending his peices of evidence to the Court When a judge uses the following quote it basically means that you are fucked: “Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” EDIT: SOURCE HEREHere comes the boom !  Indeed. "Judge in Kleiman case denies Craig Wright's latest motion to get the case thrown out, emphasizing that Wright is not credible."WizSec Bitcoin Research @wizsecurity - https://twitter.com/wizsecurity/status/1162058429432655872- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/265/kleiman-v-wright/Page 4 ... "Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion (1808)  "My underwear was made from BioSteel, of which I own the trademark, a high-strength fiber-based material made of the recombinant spider silk-like protein extracted from the milk of transgenic goats." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
