Can't wait to see the video of this. Some of these tweets are pretty damning. https://nitter.it/bitnorbert/status/1570743058203037697#mFile CSW claimed was from 2008, using a font not introduced until 2012. https://nitter.it/bitnorbert/status/1570746535000043520#mFile CSW claimed was from 2008, metadata showed creation date in 2015. https://nitter.it/bitnorbert/status/1570752651259949059#mEmai CSW claimed he sent to Kleiman in 2008, headers show sent in 2014 (and Kleiman died in 2013). Also some input from another user: Next is the "coffee stains" whitepaper, claimed to be an "early draft". Even though this is a scanned document, the lambda glyph from the OpenSymbol font has been substituted with a glyph from the Segoe UI Symbol font which didn't exist until 2009 and later.
So what happened was: Wright, not wanting document metadata to tell on him, converted bitcoin.pdf to an editable Word document, replaced the name in it, printed it out, put coffee stains on it, and scanned it in again.
However, because the computer Wright used didn't have the OpenSymbol font installed on it, Word substituted it with a recognizable modern font, so Wright *still* got caught with his pants down backdating this document. Nothing but lies and forgeries. |
|
|
|
it is still an electronic device that may break down or be maliciously altered by firmware you didn't properly verify, and you will lose everything it contained. That doesn't make it any less of a cold wallet, though. Paper wallets can similarly be damaged or destroyed resulting in total loss. No matter how expensive it may be, it is unlikely to outlive and outperform in terms of security a piece of paper or metal plate, which can store information written or etched on them indefinitely. I agree, but that's not really relevant to what is considered a cold wallet. My completely airgapped laptop, which does not even have a WiFi module, Bluetooth module, etc. because I ripped them all out, is very much cold storage. All things being equal, non-electronic media for storing information is safer than electronic; it is going to be more difficult for hackers to access them remotely, let alone maliciously alter them. All things are not equal, though. Yes, completely non-electronic means will be safer for storage, but at some point you will want to spend those coins, and the process of importing that seed phrase or private key introduces a number of risks which do not exist in my airgapped computer set up. Don't get me wrong, I use both methods frequently, but I don't think it's right to say that only paper/metal back ups can really be considered cold wallets. |
|
|
|
Mind editing this into the OP? Done. I didn't see the part where he says he needs 100 people to do a cryptographic signature in the video I watched, but maybe that was him saying he's already done it in front of Gavin (which was proven to be incorrect) so how many more people are needed? Here it is: https://youtu.be/_zkweFcpQMs?t=13936He is essentially saying that as soon as he signs a message, that no one will go to he effort of putting together 100 witnesses who will all attest to him being Satoshi. Because for some reason a handful of easily fooled or easily bought people is more reliable in his mind than cryptographic proof.  As a bonus, here is my favorite snippet from the video: https://youtu.be/_zkweFcpQMs?t=11926He doesn't want keys to be required to "access the blockchain", but rather wants judges and law enforcement to be able to do this. Well, that certainly sounds like Satoshi to me. As we all know, the first line of the Whitepaper clearly states "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another with the approval of judges and law enforcement." Edit: Actually, here is my favorite snippet: https://youtu.be/_zkweFcpQMs?t=10087I wrote this when I was drunk. You wrote this? Yes, when I was drunk. Because it says it was written by Kleiman. .....silence. Lol. Why not just sign a message and publish it for anyone to verify? I think we all know the answer to that one.  Will be interesting to see what today brings. From bitnorbert's tweets, Hodlonaut's team has already started out strong with video evidence of previous CSW lies. |
|
|
|
I would not consider either of the above sources to be especially credible, however, it appears that Mashinsky may have sold CEL tokens over a period of several months. Agreed, but I'm certain more credible information will come out in the course of these bankruptcy proceedings. As noted above, the sales by Mashinsky may have amounted to insider trading I don't see how they could be anything else. He not only used insider knowledge of when CEL would pump, but he owned and operated the company which was actively pumping CEL using depositors' coins. As someone who may consider investing in a company similar to Celsius, the CEL token concept is something that would turn me off, and I think is a generally bad idea. I am of the same opinion of any coin/token a centralized platform releases. CEL, BNB, FTX Token, KuCoin Token, etc. They all offer incentives like lower trading fees on that platform or more interest if you hold x amount, but the underlying purpose is singular - encourage users to leave their money in the hands of third parties. They should not be trusted. |
|
|
|
I understood that they somehow "lost" certain funds. there is no clear confirmation as to how this happened It is as I explained above, here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409430.msg60846298#msg60846298They took the coins which users deposited to their platform, handed them over a single individual, and that individual then deposited them on another exchange under his own personal account. When the user in question was arrested for helping to run a scam, his private accounts (which included a bunch of funds belonging to individual HotBit users) were all seized. I'm not sure about that scenario, because I believe that now a large number of users will withdraw funds if it is really possible from there.
Anyone in their right mind will immediately withdraw any and all assets they are allowed to withdraw as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
It's only the first time CSW has spoken, and it is already unraveling pretty quickly here. Haukaas said that he earlier has stated he received keys on a USB stick. No, says Wright, those were key slices. Later he destroyed a USB stick, but he disagrees. It's in evidence, but Haukaas is not sure where right now.
...
The USB stick destruction citation has been found. It was a USB stick from Nguyen, destroyed with a hammer without witnesses. Wright blames his Norwegian lawyers for inaccuracies and translation mistakes.
Lol. Lawyers being scapegoated for his lies exactly as was predicted. Craig doesn't remember when it was he stomped on his private keys. He was not in a good place at the time, had just come out of hospital. So he doesn't remember when it was, but knows it was just after he came out of hospital? So he has no records of that hospital admission? He has no idea when that hospital admission was, despite 20 minutes later saying that some emails couldn't possibly have been written by him because he was in hospital at the time? Lol. Judge asks Wright to help her understand why signing cryptographically is harder for him than what he's doing now.
Wright says it's harder to do because finding up to 100 people and getting them to witness is very time-consuming. Hahahaha what? Note that question wasn't from one of Hodlonaut's lawyers - it was from the judge. Seems like she is also seeing through CSW's bullshit. |
|
|
|
https://nitter.it/bitnorbert working overtime today, with pages and pages of tweets already. I'll summarize so far briefly below for those who don't want to read them all themselves. Started with Hodlonaut himself being questioned. He pointed out the absurdity of CSW's private "signing" session, as well as the broad consensus throughout pretty much the entire crypto ecosystem that CSW is not Satoshi, specifically mentioning both Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum) and Charlie Lee (Litecoin). Mentions how BSV is scamming people by calling themselves "Bitcoin", much like BCH did/does via bitcoin.com. He thanks the bitcoin community for the overwhelming support he has received. There then follows a lot of discussion regarding individual tweets, and more discussion about Gavin Andresen. It then moves to CSW being questioned. He states that he was incredibly hurt by the tweets, and for an unclear reason talks about Hitler and Nazis. CSW then seems to rant about scaling, Lightning, and Monero's fluffypony, again for unclear reasons. Then follows some weird claims, such as he wrote the whitepaper using voice recognition, that he had to dumb it down after receiving feedback from others, and that bitcoin became too expensive to mine. Everything gets a bit messy there, likely due to CSW's ranting as opposed to bitnorbert's transcription. It seems the voice recognition statement might be to try to explain why he previously used the term "Bit Coin", when Satoshi never used that term. He also goes on to deny all knowledge of a lot of things, such as the back dated blog posts and altered emails which he has previously tried to lie with, statements he made attacking Hodlonaut, and statements Satoshi made which directly contradict things CSW has said. Will be interesting to see what the judge makes of all CSW's evading of questions and just saying "I don't remember" to various things.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the gambling analogy is a good one. I thought for some time that these scams worked exclusively on newbies. That once you had lost all your money on one shiny new shitcoin or shiny new centralized platform, that you would learn your lesson and just stick to holding bitcoin in your own wallet in the future. But then with the collapse of platforms like Celsius and Voyager, I spent a bit of time on Twitter and Reddit reading about what had happened to these platforms. And over and over again I saw users wishing how they had just stuck to BlockFi or some other platform, somehow completely oblivious to the fact that every single one of these platforms has the exact same (lack of) business model, and every one is just as risky as the others. I saw people who had lost everything with the collapse of Luna talking about the next "bitcoin killer" or "ethereum killer" they were going to buy.
It is very much akin to gamblers chasing their losses. It is highly destructive behavior, and no amount of pointing out just how shady or outright scammy all these projects are seems to make any difference to these people.
|
|
|
|
-snip- Absolutely none of that is true. |
|
|
|
Well, that didn't take long: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/republicans-move-to-ban-abortion-nationwideWonder what happened to all the "Abortion is an issue for the states" nonsense which was being parroted just a few months ago? This was the very obvious next step. Party of small government? Party of individual liberty? Don't make me laugh. Republicans leave the decision to the states. Unless a state protects abortion rights. In which case Republicans ban it for them. |
|
|
|
Finished for today. Nothing of any surprise from CSW's team. Talking about CSW's lack of basic understanding of bitcoin and cryptography in general above, here is another hilarious exchange: https://nitter.it/bitnorbert/status/1569671044662689794#mAs everyone knows, signature files are completely unnecessary as long as you double check the URL you are downloading from. There is absolutely no possible way that anything could possibly go wrong or be tampered with. That's what we tell every newbie, right? "Who cares about PGP, cryptography, or even the very fundamentals of good security. Just double check the URL and then do whatever you like." |
|
|
|
It is the business model of Celsius (and with mainstream banks) to operate as a fractional reserve, however, to also operate as a solvent enterprise (that is that their net assets exceed their net liabilities). Sorry, I should have been more clear when I mentioned fractional reserve. It was always clear from Celsius' terms of use, where they explicitly stated they would lend out users' assets without any requirement to hold collateral of equal or even partial value, that they were running a fractional reserve. Recently, however, the fraction they were holding in reserve was obviously significant smaller than it had been in the past, until it reached the point that they had to suspend withdrawals entirely. 1 and 2 are very similar. Both can be solved by increasing loan volume and/or reducing interest paid to depositholders. Celsius did start to reduce the interest/reward rates they offered to users in the weeks leading up to them freezing everything. Perhaps that very action of trying to slow the inevitable prompted too many people to withdraw their coins and actually sped things up. To my knowledge, the operators were not being paid exorbitant amounts of money. As we discussed earlier in this thread, reports are that Mashinsky offloaded about $45 million in CEL tokens he had given himself prior to the collapse of Celsius. This would be bad enough on its own, but taken alongside Paragraph 16 from the document above becomes outright scam territory: By increasing its Net Position in CEL by hundreds of millions of dollars, Celsius increased and propped up the market price of CEL, thereby artificially inflating the company’s CEL holdings on its balance sheet and financial statements They used users' assets to pump CEL, and then the company owner (plus very likely other high up employees) dumped their personal holdings. |
|
|
|
Everything will be over when the bubble pops. The bubble doesn't even need to pop. The latest court documents from Celsius show that they somehow managed to lose enough money as to be insolvent during the massive bull run up to $60k. We can only guess what kind of wild gambles they were making in order to achieve that, considering they could have bought and held nearly anything and made big profits. These companies can collapse at any time, and take all user deposits with them. "Rinse and repeat" is many scammers' strategy. And it keeps working astonishingly well in crypto. It's super easy as well. Call it an ICO, DeFi, staking, yield farming, liquidity mining, lending platform, etc. Just come up with a new name and promise risk free profits, and you are guaranteed to get investors. You don't even need to have a working product or income stream. |
|
|
|
but i kind of think like once taxes are paid on that $1000 then taxes should never need to be paid on that particular $1000 ever again. just my opinion.
Which would result in tax revenues falling to zero unless there was a steady stream of new money being printed and entering circulation, leading to excessive inflation. so its not a fair thing. even with carryover rules, etc. still not fair. It's not fair at all. Which is why bills to exclude any amount of bitcoin from this system should be supported.
These early wallets moving, while causing a bunch of newbies to panic, obviously didn't affect the markets that much since the price of bitcoin is up 20% over the last week or so. |
|
|
|
Not much of interest so far this morning it seems. After Hodlonaut's opening statement yesterday, it's been CSW's turn today. From the various sources I've been reading, it's just been the usual CSW trash like trying to justify not signing a message but signing in private for select individuals. Interesting that none of these individuals are being called as witnesses. I wonder why? How could CSW say such a thing is it that he doesn't understand the basic properties of the bitcoin blockchain?
His lack of basic understanding is long standing and well documented. Another fine example was when he did not know addresses contain a checksum. |
|
|
|
You would trust that you don't get snitched on by someone you handle your coins to? Why do they need to know it's a bitcoin wallet? Hand them an encrypted USB and just say it's a back up of important documents like your passport or various financial records or contracts. and what if they lose the backup? Redundancy. You should never only have a single back up. and what happens if you travel a lot and you have no one you would trust to handle the keys to? Then use something like a safe deposit box. Now an encrypted volume with a randomly generated 128 character password with Keepass, generated in a clean computer with a live Tails CD session offline... if they crack this... then nothing is safe isn't it. If you do things perfectly, sure. But I am still reminded of this quote: The only system which is truly secure is one which is switched off and unplugged, locked in a titanium lined safe, buried in a concrete bunker, and is surrounded by nerve gas and very highly paid armed guards. Even then, I wouldn't stake my life on it. And when crossing a border, you probably have higher risk of getting stopped in an airport and being forced to decrypt than someone finding there's a file somewhere hidden worth spending years bruteforcing on. But if the latter is really your concern, it's not that hard to hide a file somewhere on a storage system without making it's obvious it's an encrypted wallet. Just use a hidden volume. Decrypt it to show back ups of important documents as above, with no evidence that a separate encrypted volume even exists. |
|
|
|
I don't believe they've come with it themselves. Well no, and they are not the first to use zero knowledge proofs or KVACs either. But neither was Satoshi the first to use proof-of-work, Merkle trees, or elliptic curve cryptography. |
|
|
|
Multi-sig, on the other hand, on m devices. Well, not necessarily. You can reconstruct a multi-sig wallet on anywhere between 1 and m devices; it's just safer not to do it all on a single device. Would it be a bad idea to represent a master public key as a phrase? There's certainly nothing stopping you, but I guess you would have to weigh the risks of making a mistake writing down a Base58 master public key, versus the risks of incorrectly transcribing your Base58 key to a phrase and doing something non-standard which would be more difficult to recover from. I prefer the first option with meticulous double checking - write it down in Base58, double check it, and then recover from your written down key and check it all matches up. |
|
|
|
Judge: Craig being Satoshi will not be considered. I'm not sure I follow why this is? Surely whether or not CSW is Satoshi (he isn't) is core to determining whether or not Hodlonaut's statements were libelous? If the judge rightly finds that CSW is not Satoshi, then any statements saying he is not Satoshi are not libel are simply become a statement of fact (legally speaking of course, since such statements are already factual). Here’s another good guy/thread to follow - very up to date This individual is employed by CoinGeek (which is a BSV shill site owned and operated by Calvin Ayre) and lists himself as the founder of a BSV based company in Florida, so expect a very biased interpretation from these tweets. There's a missing email that Hodlonaut's side hasn't been handed because Wright's American lawyer has pneumonia. I'm not making this up.
Wright's Norwegian lawyer said they'll see what they can do. Pretty late at this point. Lol. We are still on Hodlonaut's opening statement and already CSW has started his shenanigans. |
|
|
|
No, it isn't. Shamir's is poorly implemented and has a number of problems which makes it a bad solution, as detailed here and here. A better solution is to either use one or more complex passphrases, or use multi-sig. This is better than Multi-Sig, because you don't need every seed's master public key. Which is a trivial problem to overcome in an m-of- n multi-sig simply by backing up n minus m of the other master public keys along with each seed phrase/master private key. Plus multi-sig brings all the advantages of a standard implementation with no single point of failure. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
