You are clearly the one with brain damage here as you are unable to comprehend that if the judge orders you to provide documents matching certain criteria, then you have to follow that order regardless whether the documents are forgeries or not.

What is worse, you assume there to be "hacking" which I never mentioned. You don't need to hack into a company if you are already employed by the company.

The documents were found from compromised computers. That alone is enough to discard them as evidence. Get your brain damage fixed and then let's talk.


So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

According to your logic, if I forge "overwhelming" amount of documents under your name, then it magically becomes evidence that you forged them? Are you freaking kidding me? You expect any judge to believe that? You must be tripping.

What exactly is cryptographic proof anyway? What does it prove? In the court of law, it only proves that you have an access to a certain private key. Are you saying that if you have keys to my home then all of sudden magically you built the house? Again, you must be tripping.

And finally, if you weren't so terrified about BSV actually being successful, then you wouldn't waste your energy trying to scare people away from it.

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.

Get this through your thick skull --- if someone forges a document under my name to set me up, that is not the same thing as me forging that document under my name.

Are there forged documents in this equations? YES.

Did Craig himself forge them? NO.

Who forged those documents then? Possibly Craig's ex-employee or someone else who helped him at it.


What is here so hard to follow? Ah, of course, it completely and utterly destroys your narrative, so you froze and just repeated by copy-pasting documents which WE ALL KNOW ARE FORGED. Except, you want it so hard to be the case that Craig was the one who forged them, that when confronted with a fact that it was his ex-employee, you just repeat yourself wishing it becomes true if you repeat it enough.  Go seek help, really. You need professional psychiatric help, it's really that bad.

You don't seem to know how courts work. That's okey. Let me explain.

If the judge orders you to hand over all documents matching certain criteria, then you are obliged to hand them all over regardless of their origin and circumstances. So for example, if your ex-employee has forged a document in an attempt to set you up, you are still obliged to hand over that document. Failure to do so is what gets you into trouble. Craig simply followed the order. It's was not his duty to decide whether a clearly forged document is relevant to the case or not. Now your fallacy lies in the fact that you assume it was Craig who forged the document in the first place while it was actually a rogue employee.

Willful ignorance is one hell of a drug.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world knows that those forged documents were not forged by Craig but instead of the rogue ex-employees who wanted to liquidate his company. You honestly believe a document that was found from the computer of a rogue ex-employee and which seemingly appears to be forged by Craig actually proves that Craig forged it? You have to be living in a fantasy land where wishful thinking has replaced common sense  or alternatively, you're a simpleton who's mind freezes when it has to deal with recursion, so like a true NPCs that you are, you fall back to "aussie man bad" if you can't comprehend the recursion.

Let me conclude what you just said:

"everything you say to irrelevant, just try me and I will discard it no matter what"

I wonder if you feel silly now.

EXACTLY.

At least someone here has some brains.

Everyone be fearing the big bad datacenters, unable to realize that they can't do ANY HARM. Centralization paranoia is the most ridiculous fear that has taken over the whole cryptocurrency space.

What can a big bad datacetner do besides settling your transactions? Did anyone say 51% "attack"?

Let me tell you something about the so called "51% attack" --- it's purely fictional. In the real world, there is law. You obstruct the normal behavior of a computer network --- you go to jail. That simple. There's nothing easier than to track down a big datacenter that has gone rogue like that. They will lose their equipment, their investors are going to lose money. So stop with the centralization mantra already, you will just expose the fact that you have no understanding how BitCoin as an economic system is designed to work within the rule of law.

Please read again my original reply to you as I made it perfectly clear why I was replying to you by cluster-quoting. Now you are just refusing hard to admit it. Typical keyboard warrior psychology.

As I have stated, there is no proof possible to be delivered on an Internet forum to a person who does not want to admit being wrong. But you are one arrogant lazy piece of work, I must admit that, because you are so lazy that you expect me to chew your food for you. To a person capable of rational thought, my background alone should make them think "hmm, maybe the social media and the popular opinion is wrong", but instead, you just keep doubling down like a true gambler until the bitter end. Good luck, don't kill yourself when the chickens come home to roost though. There is nothing more pathetic in this world than a suicide because of material loss.


Is there ultimately just one ISP? The answer is no. That is also the answer to your first question.

The second question is too incoherent so it can't be given a sensible answer.

Also the third one.

But please elaborate, what's with the centralization paranoia? Tell me why a handful of datacenters shouldn't take care of settling BitCoin transactions?

Didn't you read what I wrote? I did it for laughs. But you keep responding because you are actually butthurt because I exposed it that you're weak (resorting to cluster-quoting).

What's your problem with centralization anyway? Don't you know that centralization into data-centers is actually good for BitCoin? Everyone keeps bashing centralization without even knowing what it means and what are its implications. This is exactly the thing that bothers me about these wannabe technical experts who have never taken even the basic course of programming. Boo-hoo go whine to ISPs that they are so centralized. You see your fallacy already? Centralization is part of professionalization, which in turn contributes to lower transaction fees and more use cases.

We both know that you don't actually have any evidence at all. I at least have the empirical evidence while you solely rely on proof of social media. That's the curse of non-technical wannabes. They fall for every trick in the book, because they lack the common sense and technical expertise to develop their own understanding on the matter.

You will notice that in any online debate, a person who has been pushed into corner will start replying to you in parts quoting each part separately. It's a sign of weakness. They think that if they cut the post into smaller pieces it's easier for them to make it seem like they've nailed it.  

When you start seeing this, you know that the starter of it is already defeated, but is unable to admit it, so they will indulge in cluster-quoting to save face. I'm doing this for the illustrative purpose and for laughs, but it's really established already that the dialogue has come to a dead end.


If it's not spectacular then why hasn't it been done in more than ONE instance? Keep saying to yourself that it's "not really spectacular" when it very clearly is.



No, you are. That's called building a strawman, which in your case is "the religious argument". If that was really the case then TCP would have kept evolving too, making it practically impossible for high speed networking hardware to be developed. A protocol must not evolve. If you had any knowledge of the technicalities of building distributed computer systems then you wouldn't even dare to propose such a comparison. That's the main problem with BitCoin in general. Completely computer illiterate people have made it their business to discuss these matters, bringing ridiculous comparisons to religion and what not, to compensate for the fact that they lack professional vocabulary.


Yes, I've got empirical evidence. I can't prove it to you if you refuse to open your eyes. I could present any fact to you but it's ultimately up to you to either take it as a fact or keep hiding your head under the sand.


Which only proves the fact that one should do their own research and in case of a controversy, the least you can do is to discard your existing bias and listen to what both sides have to say. Have you done that? It seems to me that you just keep clinging even harder to your dear belief, which is typical of course.


You would love that, don't you? Too much truth in too short time can get highly discomfortable, to the extent where an excuse for "moderation" can be found from any bush.

BSV is quite spectacular in a sense that it's THE ONLY ONE that has no block size limit at all and works perfectly well. "simply another big block fork" does not apply here, because even BCH has block size limit, they all do, except for the BSV. Quite an achievement for a mere scam, don't you think? Based on pure technical decisions alone I would bet on BSV any time. If there wasn't for BSV we would not have a single public block chain remaining that complies to the directives of the original whitepaper. Both BCH and BTC have deviated from the original design so much that they are no longer recognizable as BitCoin.

Your scam argument does not hold either, because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi. You may believe otherwise but history is full of examples where people have been fooled by the (social) media. Popular opinion is typically the wrong opinion. You should know that as the majority is always wrong when it comes to making investment decisions. Being part of the majority in this question is like being part of the majority back in the day where people believed the Earth was flat 

---

Oh and by the way, in 2011 people also thought BitCoin was a joke. I told everyone in the university and in my social circle about BitCoin and they laughed. They talked shit behind my back about me "he invested so much money in this dumb internet thing called BitCoin" and they rejected my business ideas with the excuse "I don't think this BitCoin thing will ever be anything". THE MAJORITY WAS WRONG THEN AND IS NOW. I got the last laugh then and I get it now.

It's a shame that someone hearing these stories directly from the guy who got it right back then still hasn't learned their lesson and chooses to believe the popular opinion rather than the person who has a track record of being right, making correct predictions and having all the academic qualifications necessary to make educated decisions.

I've been interested in Bitcoin since 2011 and working as a software architect for 15 years, I've got master's degree in software engineering and as a professional in my field I can confirm that BitCoin as defined in the original wrightpaper is simply a brilliantly designed economic system. Today, unlimited block size is only available on the original BitCoin (BSV), which further validates the point that on-chain scaling is possible not only in theory but also in practice. While BTC has been talking the talk of LN since ages, BSV has been walking the walk and actually delivering on the promise of the whitepaper. Calling something as disruptive and hard-working a scam only proves the wishful thinking of creator of this thread.

Is your mind able to handle recursion? If not, then I know where you're coming from and would not suggest you to read the next sentence. Otherwise, I'd ask you the rhetorical question "What if the story of a lie is a lie itself?" But nobody is really that stupid that they would not think about that, right? Right?! So, again back to what has already been established: Craig-deniers want Satoshi to be someone else (anarchist bank hater).

They don't want to believe Craig is Satoshi because Craig is not an anarchist and actually likes the banks and the rule of law. Bias so blindingly bright here I've got to wear shades 

If you want to see people rather living in a lie than admitting the reality, you'd better read this thread.

In 2020, anyone still thinking Craig isn't Satoshi deserves to be left behind. 

Member from early 2012 reporting in. BSV is the BitCoin I signed up for in 2011. It's the only one out there that keeps the promise of the whitepaper. Now with the block size limit removed it serves as empirical evidence that Satoshi's plan for scaling actually works. Blockstream bois got it all wrong after all. Time to start admitting mistakes.

This topic is about saving messages and multimedia on the block chain of BitCoin. As much as you have the itch to discuss Craig Wright here, it is still offtopic and should be avoided.

If he's such a criminal then why don't you sue him? You're all talk and no walk. Disrespect.