Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy.
Remind me, where exactly did I promise proof? All I've ever stated is that I have empirical evidence, more than enough. So stop making stuff up on my behalf. Usually when people say they "know" something "for a fact", they can provide some sort of proof or even evidence to back their claim. That's all I wanted to hear. Thank you. We have now established, that this is all just a wild speculation and wishful thinking pushed to the extremes what you are indulging in  I also find your conclusion to be humorous. Let me state this again then --- since people were trying to liquidate Craig's company and since the forged documents were found from the computers of the ex-employees who wanted to liquidate Craig's company --- we have no basis to even suggest, that Craig himself forged those documents. The judge in this case, on the other hand, goes to the same synagogue as Ira Kleiman. That said, you have to be a moronic imbecile to still think that Craig forged those documents himself.
Again, you are relying on Craig's version of events, and I am relying on the judge's words that Craig acted in bad faith throughout the entirety of the proceedings. Surely Craig would have known the documents he was submitting to the court were forged and warned the court ahead of time. So why didn't he? I rest my case.
That's great, we'll let you know the verdict shortly. |
|
|
|
ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO. Do no wiggle around.
Your question is if somebody else forged Craig's documents does that mean Craig is guilty of forging the documents? Of course the answer is no. The only problem is you are taking Craig's word that he didn't forge them, and I am taking the judge's word that he probably did. Why would Craig submit forged documents to a court proceeding if he didn't forge them? Makes no sense. Upon submission, he should have said, "you know what your honor, you are requesting I submit documents, but the only copies I have available are forged, so... just thought you should know." As for the evidence, I have plenty of empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You want it? Go get it.
You're like a less charming or diplomatic version of Donald Trump, but with all the ego. |
|
|
|
|
Its a total power grab for whoever wins the popular president vote, not governor vote. This also includes Donald Trump, should he win the popular vote. So in no way were you right. You were just spreading misinformation, I suppose because you've sunk to the depths of becoming a full-on troll. Hard to explain otherwise.
|
|
|
|
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.
What is a "forged forgery," and why would Craig present it as evidence at his trial? Surely he would know if a document he was submitting to the court was forged or not prior to its submission. He presented it, and only afterward was it shown to be forged. Then he said, "Oh, I didn't alter it, someone else must have."  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.
What a cowardly load of bollocks. We can come to the exact opposite conclusion as you based on your ethereal "empirical evidence." That's no evidence at all. Its simply your assertion which you insist is meaningful without any sort of rational basis. I don't care that you have already stated that you have the evidence. I said produce the evidence. Now stop squirming and produce the evidence or prepare to be ridiculed indefinitely. ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...
Still waiting on you to answer that question BTW... Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy. Assuming this is what you're talking about, there's absolutely no evidence that Craig didn't forge the documents he submitted to court. We already know what the judge thinks about the chances that somebody else forged the documents, so why bother clinging to this non-point unless you are afraid of addressing my previously asked question: What evidence supports your assertion that Craig is Satoshi? You claimed you know it for a fact. Stop worming around and answer the question. |
|
|
|
You just pwned yourself, bro. Case closed.  That is hilarious. Can you not read the other non-highlighted sentence in the text you posted? Or the rest of the first one??  You're giving the benefit of the doubt to a con artist for your own financial gain. That is who you are. "CASED CLOSED" what a hack Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW... |
|
|
|
I assume that Catapult and snapshot is postponed because of whales wanting to buy cheaper now.
As an original stake holder and someone who has been here for a while, I can tell you: don't assume that. Don't assume the price is "cheaper" now without a reason for NEM to be widely adopted in the future. There's literally hundreds (or thousands) of other coins to speculate upon, rendering the art of speculation nearly useless. That time has passed. Either NEM will see some sort of actual growth due to an increase in real-world utility or it will continue to flounder. |
|
|
|
[I post a bill]
[you flip out and post a source for the bill I didn't even use and claim it discredits it as you project your imagination on me as usual]
Thanks for more evidence of your mental illness. Now I am responsible for sources I didn't even use when I post directly from the Virginia legislature. Not insane at all.
Just speculating on why you posted what you did since you didn't really clarify. By the way, since the whole 'SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDER' has been debunked, maybe edit the topic so others don't assume it's true? Just curious. Where is the debunking documentation?  Just read the article. Executive order isn't even mentioned other than in the headline. It's just a list of bills. The headline is just clickbait. Do you ever find it odd how some people can have such an austere, one-sided belief system to the point where they just ignore obvious lies in order to keep espousing their initial viewpoint? I enjoy entertaining opposing viewpoints for the sake of actually bettering my understanding of the reality of any given situation. TS missed the real news that Virginia actually passed the bill about awarding all electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, amid certain conditions of course. It's a total power grab -- for which ever president wins the popular vote, provided the commonwealth of states signing similar laws into practice is active. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/482766-virginia-house-passes-bill-to-award-electoral-votes-to-whoever-wins-the |
|
|
|
Just seems like your problem could easily be resolved by opening a self-modded thread.
My ideas aren't so weak I need to remove opposing points, unlike you and Twittyseal who rely on self moderated threads so that your ideas are never challenged. Dude. That's exactly what you are requesting: that an opposing viewpoint be removed. As for the off-topicness of the viewpoint... here's your OP from that thread: So how is Twitchy's post off-topic? What do you define the topic as? Its not like you're discussing earth-shaking ideas here. |
|
|
|
Dude, leave the legalities to the professionals.
He's not discussing "legalities." He's discussing common sense, something which you are sorely lacking. You don't seem to understand how courts work.
Neither does Craig. He knowingly submitted fraudulent documents and tried to lie to a federal judge, and you are sticking up for him for your own financial gain. That is who you are. |
|
|
|
|
Just seems like your problem could easily be resolved by opening a self-modded thread.
|
|
|
|
Nice proof of forgeritiies and hackerities - proof of twitter lawers and prejuries
- Nothing of substance
Evidence submitted to court is "nothing of substance" only if you remain willfully ignorant to what it means. You're not even trying. Every comment you write is just "No," followed by incomprehensible nonsense. Don't you have anything better to do than troll this forum? Shouldn't you be busy building the new internet or uploading things to your blockchain? Craig lies everywhere he does, kind of like you. I guess you learned from the best. |
|
|
|
The "hack" I've developed for no longer wanting to see certain threads is to open the thread, search for my name, and remove all my posts from it. Then it will no longer appear in "Show new replies...." I gambled my way to 648 Bitcoins on a roulette site. Then I continued to play...
But I bought a now sold Canon supertele L lens for around 42 Bitcoins when I was still on the way up on former game. Bitcoin price was around $225-$250 at the time, early 2015. We children had been given 25K each by my father from his mothers heritage. I gambled away most of it in the mentioned game.
Damn, what a strange story. I hope you at least took some awesome pictures. |
|
|
|
If you're so smart then why aren't you rich yet? I bought into BitCoin when it was trading at 4$ each. Got discouraged by tons of Bitcoin-deniers back then just like I am discouraged by Craig-deniers right here. Turned out pretty well for me in 2012. Wouldn't have to work a day in my life, but I will, because I love my job so much (developing video games). It's laughable what stunts some of you guys are willing to make just to keep denying the possibility that Craig might actually be Satoshi. You are ignoring someone, who invested in BitCoin in 2012, became rich thanks to that, has master's degree in software engineering and 15 years of field practice as a software architect. Not only that, I have provably predicted 2 BitCoin bubbles in the past in this very same forum (the threads are still here) and I was first to start encoding images on the BitCoin's block chain with https://cryptograffiti.info/ which I single-handedly developed in the beginning of 2014. It's incredible that you are willing to ignore and reject all that just so you could keep on believing the popular lies about Craig. Simply incredible. In the world of reasonable people, my personal achievements in life alone are enough for someone to take my words seriously. I know this, because I have turned MANY people from Craig-deniers into Craig-belivers in person. It's because during in-person conversations it's much harder to ignore the other person's credibility in the field of discussion. And I know for fact, that I have credibility, so don't try to pretend my personal achievements are nothing. We all know, that in the real world, all of this matters. You can talk whatever you want, but if you don't have achievements backing up your words then you are a big zero. But here, we apparently don't have many reasonable people and thus we see manufactured conversations, in which the real purpose is to brainwash unsuspecting fools into believing the lies and not to figure out what the truth is. The good news is, Craig will prove in multiple courts this year with real evidence (not digital signatures which are not even real signatures in terms of law) that he created BitCoin, and when that happens, I expect some of you here to PM me an apology. Most of this is quite pathetic. TBH I did enjoy the cryptograffiti site, but then you pointed it to the BCH blockchain, which made it useless, and now it points to the SV blockchain, which makes it even moreso. I take it you won't be producing any evidence required to support your ridiculous claim that Craig is Satoshi any time soon, that's a shame. But please, keep droning on about your self-described personal achievements, maybe some of us will be wowed into believing Craig is Satoshi. "I have found that Dr. Wright intentionally submitted fraudulent documents to the Court, obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurious testimony. No conduct is more antithetical to the administration of justice." - Judge Bruce Reinhart |
|
|
|
|
Q: What's the difference between a slow, clunky database and a centralized blockchain?
A: Nothing.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys. I am kindly asking for your support in reporting this post for plagiarism. Here is the plagiarized portion of the post, written today: Validating Nodes; AKA Sybil Systems
There is no such thing as a validating node in Bitcoin. Bitcoin scales using SPV, but even with what some people in the BTC religion call full validating nodes, only miners matter. In particular, nodes were designed to preclude Sybil systems. Bitcoin is a proof-of-work system. Nodes are defined in six steps in the white paper. Any system that does not complete all of the six stages is not a node in Bitcoin. As such, any Raspberry Pi system is alluding itself. Your Raspberry Pi will never find a proof-of-work. Any such system is by definition a Sybil.
Here is the original content, published Nov 14th, 2019: Validating Nodes; AKA Sybil Systems
There is no such thing as a validating node in Bitcoin. Bitcoin scales using SPV, but even with what some people in the BTC religion call full validating nodes, only miners matter. In particular, nodes were designed to preclude Sybil systems. Bitcoin is a proof-of-work system. Nodes are defined in six steps in the white paper. Any system that does not complete all of the six stages is not a node in Bitcoin. As such, any Raspberry Pi system is alluding itself. Your Raspberry Pi will never find a proof-of-work. Any such system is by definition a Sybil. You can check the original post ( archived) to verify that its a word-for-word copy/paste with no accreditation or references. I have already reported it but am requesting additional reporters. Thanks for your help! |
|
|
|
Where is mr. master degree and empirical evidence to comment on this ?
He's probably resting. Shilling so hard for a scam takes a lot out of oneself. When he returns, he'll completely ignore all of this and keep focusing on trivial, unrelated matters. Probably will continue to insist we throw common sense out the window and take his word for everything. After all, he's a computer engineer with 15 years experience, doncha know. |
|
|
|
selling information is not a fraud, especially an attempt to sell it
You don't have the information -- that's why its a fraud. Nobody believes you. If you did, use it yourself and prove us wrong. Until then you are just another con artist. |
|
|
|
Having the private keys may may not provide conclusive proof of ownership.
But it certainly is more convincing than providing none.
It certainly seemed to matter when Craig was signing messages for Gavin back in 2016. Why would he bother doing that if private key ownership didn't matter? |
|
|
|
but I recieved few negative ratings in the profile for the recommendation to buy.
No, you received most of your negative ratings by attempting to run your 100 BTC for the genesis block private key scam. Your rating from gmaxwell was for spreading lies and had nothing to do with recommending people buy BSV. |
|
|
|
Ugh. I tried to read this but could only get about a quarter of the way through. It is too infuriating. He's basically trying to re-define bitcoin in a way that maximizes his control and influence over it, un-ironically under the pretense that he is Satoshi. To think that people could still believe Craig is Satoshi in 2020... In the eyes of most rational people in the community, the issue had been settled by December 2016: he's not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
