Oh I don't think that is a serious concern. But the court could decide that to win on truth Holdo would have to *prove* Wright wasn't Satoshi and that he didn't achieve that.

You see how that's different, right?

like take craig out of it for a minute.  Would a court conclude that it was proven I was Satoshi?  Obviously not.  Would a court conclude that it was proven that I wasn't Satoshi?  Also obviously not.

Hodlo makes the case that to win on not-satoshiness he only needs to show that it's more likely than not that Wright isn't Satoshi.  If the court agrees with that standard then he will probably win on that basis.  But the court might decide that he needed to prove it by a higher standard, which it might decide that he hadn't met.  I think he actually met a very high level of proof but the court might not agree -- it's difficult to prove anything absolutely without the power of a criminal investigation:  The only evidence Hodlo got was what Wright provided, he didn't get to search Wright's home or computers, didn't get his email records, etc.

Sorry for the double post but:


Wright's conspirators and employees will be holding a live-stream to explain Wright's plans to enable centralized coin theft on BSV, BCH, and Bitcoin by introducing a cryptographic backdoor will start and open for your questions at 2PM Eastern today (as in about 2 hours from now!).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKXOdTgPvfs

I wondered that too.  I thought one of the weaker elements of hodl's arguments (though it was covered in the oral closing argument) was that he didn't emphasize well enough that at the time none of wright's supposed witnesses or even the new 71 pieces of evidence were available:  Instead what hodl had to go on was what wright had put out so far (which was obviously fake), the opinions of experts like me, the inherent absurdity of the claims (claims to be satoshi, won't provide basic proof, says he will but fakes it).

So even if Wright were to *prove* he were satoshi right now, Hodlo should still win because his statements were reasonable at the time.

But I think strategically Hodlo really doesn't want the narrow win, he presumably wants a win that says "Wright wouldn't be able to convince the court that he was satoshi and so couldn't prevail in a defamation claim" -- both because that's more useful for other cases (such as his own) and much more protective of the community.   So I think they de-emphasized that line of argument.

It seems Wright's side views this as an opening, essentially going for a "it doesn't matter how fraudulent wright looks now, at the time the statements weren't justified" although I don't see how that works out for him if the courts impression is that he's more likely than not actually Satoshi-- which I think is extremely likely.

I guess the idea is that if they court is going to conclude that they're screwed, so they're arguing for the path to success they think they have left.  Where the court thinks wright is now obviously fake enough to justify those comments, but not so obviously fake at to block defamation on the basis of truth, but wasn't fake enough at the time (mostly because Hodlo's team didn't provide as strong of a case for that as they might have been able).

So recently 50% of BSV's hashpower comes from something called "mempool.com".  Most explorers have been claiming this hashpower as "unknown" but the blocks are identified.

Take the following with a grain of salt because I don't read Chinese and haven't talked to a Chinese speaker yet.  It is apparently a Chinese mining pool that appears to have recently become BSV only.  According to its webpages it is approved by (or run by??) the Cyberspace Administration of China and claims that it's the only mining pool that can legally operate in china.

What am I failing to understand here, then? Because to me this clearly appears to saying that you can "pick any of the pubkeys" and double it to generate all 1634 addresses.    Or, alternatively, you can do the same by repeated halving.

Because the order is ~2^250, that isn't possible.  

Now, if it said that you could start at the first (in sequence rather than sorted order) and double to generate the reset or the last and halve to generate the reset-- sure, that is plausible.

You can't do 1809251394333065553493296640760748560200586941860545380978205674086221273349 operations in several hours either.

I don't have any reason to doubt that you've listed a number of points related by doubling, but the claim that you were able to wrap around and enumerate all of them from any starting position and then moving in one direction (either doubling or halving) can't be true, AFAICT.

Something is wrong here because the order of the group formed by multiplication of 2 mod n is much much larger than 20 million, so you can't generate all these addresses by going 20 million steps in either direction from any of them.

Ah you should be aware that the BSV chain is reported to contain child porn.  Not just some old non-working onion urls or whatever, but actual full on child porn due to its operators facilitating file upload and encouraging its use to bloat the chain.

In the US possession of child porn is one of the relatively few strict liability crimes-- you don't have to have intended to do it to be guilty.

Kinda ironic how much they blather on about the LAWL and their ability to edit the chain but they don't use that editing power to cure this violation of the law, nor do they even bother (or have the competence to) fix pruning support which they broke. Perhaps it's even intentional in the interest of keeping people from running their nodes.

Now I don't want to fud too much considering that so far no one has yet gotten in trouble for accidentally possessing child porn incidental to running some cryptocurrency software and BSV isn't the first (my understanding is that namecoin has the same issue, and triggers some FBI hash checking search tool)... but you might want to be aware of it.

AFAIK they haven't broken the scrambling support in the code they copied from Bitcoin Core so their block files should be scrambled with some weak encryption that will prevent dumb scanning tools from finding things in them (we added that in bitcoin to prevent idiot anti-virus software from corrupting peoples blockchains when someone inserted some twentysome byte virus pattern in the chain).

I might otherwise suggest using pruning and/or a ramdisk to reduce your exposure, but those aren't options for BSV... Not carrying it on a laptop across a border is a good idea, but that shouldn't be a problem because of the resource requirements.

Most exchanges have a serious conflict of interest against bitcoin:  https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=607

Some, however, are worse than others. Supporting BSV is pretty bad and at least most of the big ones don't do that.


In BSV anyone but miners running a node is an unsupported and highly discouraged configuration. In their view, exchanges should be using an API offered by a miner.

Since those APIs mostly don't exist it's more likely that just many of them have firewalled off nodes-- it's a good security practice after all.  Though with so few working reachable nodes the network is extremely fragile.

Also keep in mind that many obscure exchanges are whitelabeled -- so some of the exchanges on that list may be using common backend infrastructure.

It's not even unheard of for some "exchanges" to just be entirely operated out of third party hosted wallets.  However bad you might imagine that ecosystem the reality is likely worse.  People aren't kidding when they recommend not keeping assets on exchanges.

Yep, the unsustainability of BSV isn't an accident.  The original, successful, attack was removing the capacity limits.  From there they could at no cost slowly drive almost everyone else off the network.  That opens the door to adverse rule changes.

This is an attack these scammers wanted and tried to perpetrate against Bitcoin but the Bitcoin community fought them back.

As many are aware, the infamous faketoshi scammer Craig Wright has been on a campaign to use harassment, intimidation, barratry, and fraud to attempt to steal some 1.1M coins that belong to Satoshi and others.

In furtherance of this scheme his company just published code for directing the seizure of third party coins in the BSV blockchain. BSV is a scammy bitcoin knockoff that is proprietary software controlled exclusive by Wright and his agents. Users of BSV are only permitted to run the software he approves so they're able to foist their coin stealing code onto their users which would be impossible for legitimate cryptocurrencies.

Because of this I believe any user of the BSV altcoin is in serious risk of exposure to network consensus instability or outright having their assets frozen or stolen out from under them.

This would be of no direct relevance to Bitcoin users except some Bitcoin exchanges support BSV and so far whenever an exchange has gone insolvent they've pooled assets from all users in the bankruptcy. This means that if an exchange becomes insolvent due to Wright stealing or freezing BSV out from under it users Bitcoin balances may be used to make BSV customers whole.

While it's never a good idea to leave Bitcoins you aren't actively trading on exchange I'd strongly recommend getting your funds off the following exchanges ASAP (non-exhaustive list):

• Robinhood
• Bitfinex
• Bittrex
• Hitbtc
• Huobi Global
• Kucoin
• Bithumb
• Gate.io
• Poloniex
• CoinW
• Indoex
• OKX
• CoinDCX
• Pionex
• Upbit
• Bibox
• Bkex
• Yobit
• Deepcoin
• Mexo Exchange
• Wazirx
• CoinEx

This shouldn't be news to these exchanges as it's been known for some time that this was coming: https://twitter.com/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1577647343595315201

Of course, since the BSV ecosystem has been engaging in non-stop harassment of Bitcoiners including multibillion dollar lawsuits against Bitcoin developers and non-BSV supporting exchanges it's probably prudent to not to business with exchanges still supporting this ecosystem to begin with, if you care about the value of your Bitcoins'. If an exchange will support this scam just to make a bit of extra money-- what else might they do?

It didn't get taken down, litterbox urls are only good for three days.  I put a copy on my site and frontended it with archive.org-- so that should be more durable.

It's annoying that infrastructure like courtlistener doesn't exist everywhere.

That paper wasn't particularly correct when it was written--  essentially it's saying that a bad guy could dos attack all hidden service bitcoin peers AND make all clearnet peers ban all the tor peers.  And thus cause the tor using user to drop the protection of tor.  Okay, that used to be a concern but (1) the latter attack would have been highly visible and never happened and (2) "here is this benefit that DOS attacks might make you turn off" isn't a reason to not use the beneficial thing to begin with!

But worse, its completely inapplicable now -- and for many years -- because the banning mechanism they're discussing was removed.

But hey, every time I see someone promoting it I get extra information on which users are slightly more likely to be state actors trying to undermine the privacy of Bitcoin users.  So at least it has that benefit.

Kinda sucks though that bitcoiners don't even know that it's totally inapplicable and these same FUD threads keep getting repeated year after year and people that probably heard the correction don't remember.

Franky1 solved the mystery. This thread should be locked, at this point it's only flypaper for people who didn't bother reading the rest of the thread.

Some people occasionally make some good points in spite spewing some nonsense.

Listen to their good point. Ignore the rest.

No need to debate someone's unreasonable opinions when they don't seem to matter and won't ever change.

There have been numerous impersonators representing themselves to be Satoshi Nakamoto for years now, including to the US government.

It's utterly implausible that Satoshi would reveal themselves to the SEC this way and not take some other actions.  So my immediate question is which impersonator tricked Tim Draper?  There was previous speculation that he'd been bamboozled by Wright after he'd done an interview with Ayre's media outlet, but I don't know if anyone managed to confirm that.

Occam's razor says that the infinite money just comes from a kinda crooked former gambling kingpin-- they've spent a TON, but not out of proportion with what Calvin needs to be spending in order to spend all the money he claims to have.

And for Andresen there are plenty of simpler and less conspiratorial explanations-- including that it's well established that many victims of cons have a difficulty time accepting they've been had because its such an ego hit,  that the whole situation is so painful to him that he refuses to look at new evidence and so hasn't even seen what a joke Mr. Wright has made of himself since, that he now hates Bitcoin and the people involved and is happy of the harm being caused to all of us, that he's afraid of being dragged into ruinously expensive litigation with Mr. Wright himself and unlikely to get much public support given his role in creating the problem, and/or that he's financially motivated in the success of Bitcoin's competition over Bitcoin.  Any one of these would explain his continued failure to forcefully retract his prior endorsement and every one of them is simpler than him working on behalf of the CIA.

I think if we look carefully we'll find that it's an electrum wallet and that its traffic is consistent with payments he was made for 'coming out' as satoshi, we may be able to link it with his nchain salary payments on BSV and maybe the bucketshop trading he was doing under his wife's name.  Presumably someone around here has access to some of the commercial blockchain surveillance stuff.

Faketoshis' fraud has had several phases.

• Phase 1. R&D refundable credit and GST refund tax fraud.
• Phase 2. Spanish prisoner / Nigeran prince con: I am the deposed creator of Bitcoin and need money to pay back tax officials but will pay you with my bitcoin fortune later.
• Phase 3a. Blockchain impersonation:  Convince funders that bitcoin knockoff BSV will replace Bitcoin in the eyes of the public, sell 'em a pig in a poke.
• Phase 3b. Big con: Convince his billionayre funder(s) that with their support Mr. Wright convince the courts to order bitcoin developers to magically grant them >$21 billion dollars worth of Bitcoin, and has convinced his marks that this is even possible.  (and that they can intimidate and harass into the dirt anyone that stands in their way.)

Hodlonaut's trial is mostly a holdover from 3a.  His his two lawsuits against former/current Bitcoin developers are soundly 3b.  His recent exchange lawsuits might be in between 3a and 3b-- AFAIK no one has seen the claims yet. Phase 1/2 seem to be complete and he's mostly now claiming that documents he used in 1/2 are forgeries planted by hackers (even when they're recent scans of supposedly old paper documents, covered in his handwriting).

The statement you're referring to from the trial was an effort at a self-serving remark in the furtherance of the 3b scheme.  Note that 3b doesn't require Wright himself to think jacking Satoshi's coins is possible, nor does it require his funders to think he's Satoshi. The mark thinks he's going to spend a few tens of millions and get a few tens of billions. All the litigation targets are just collateral damage, but it helps Mr. Wright that they're 'enemies' that have stood in his way by refusing to go along or be silent about his fraudulent claims.  Mr. Wright's goal would just be to keep the litigation going forever while his mark foots the bill -- from the very beginning Mr. Wright's has probably just been one desperate forced move after another to keep the whole thing from crashing down around him, it's unclear what kind of consequences he may face if it fails given that he's taken money from some apparently unscrupulous people.

Intelligence agencies have been known to recruit people like Wright, the loose cannon grandiose narcissist pathological liar fantasist free agent type -- they're totally deniable as kooks and cons if things go wrong and they are easily controlled via copious dirt and their propensity for a 'fast' lifestyle.  But if it's true for Mr. Wright, we'll never know so I think it's not very useful to speculate about other than this:  Because it *could* be a state actor, we ought to fight it with all the vigor we'd fight an attack by a state actor.


Ayre. This isn't speculation, e.g. https://www.cswarchive.info/sites/default/files/2021-08/2020_04_22%20Filing%20-%20Amended%20Reply.pdf  page 4 paragraph 4b. "it is admitted that the Claimant is being funded by a third party in these proceedings, namely Calvin Ayre. The Claimant has taken out a Bitcoin SV denominated commercial loan against the Claimant's and the Tulip Trust's Bitcoin and Bitcoin SV holdings, that will be be paid back to Mr Ayre."

There should be plenty of details on nchain elsewhere in the evidence too.

There may be others, I could speculate but I'd rather just give the one I'm absolutely sure of.

Well he got money from his bamboozled sponsors to pay back AU which probably moved him to a lower priority.  If you look at news announcements for similar convictions you'll see that it took them a decade to prosecute other similar tax frauds, so Mr. Wright may just be waiting his turn.

Ayre had a bit of his own fantasist blogging about being a secret agent or something.  Likely bullshit similar to Wright's "I was offline for much of January 2011. During the time, I had travelled to Venezuela where I was working with a “Jawbreaker” team. The work was focused on stopping the trafficking of humans for the sex trade. I was in “prevention.” I did not bring people to justice, I worked with teams to stop things, permanently.".  I wouldn't put much weight into it.

As Franky1 says-- we should work smarter, and that much I agree. On that mark: The varrious more speculative theories might be true or not, but I think they're of no use in dealing with the situation unless we stumbled into some evidence that actually proves one of them-- and then it wouldn't be a speculative theory anymore.

In any case, what I really came here to post was:

Mr. Wright's "revolutionary" "2007 Bitcoin Whitepaper" << click the link
(transcribed from the handwritten version in the Hodl trial evidence)

You may have seen the first page/paragraph when it was transcribed on reddit after being shown on screen in court.  Now experience the entire uncut masterpiece in quadraphonic legible text!  Flex your faketoshi history by determining a likely true authorship date of the document based on Mr. Wrights inability to resist adding anachronistic grandstanding in support of whatever pathetic argument he was presently engaged. Marvel at how anyone could be convinced by any of this. Laugh, cry, and most of all blush with embarrassment on his behalf because, unlike Mr. Wright, your mental model of other people is more expansive than just coming up with ways of ripping them off.

(Or, if you're a true masochist Wright debunker, check out the original 78 page illegible version here or as part of the full archive.  The original also contains the *forbidden names of bitcoin* b-side content, not included in the top-post's translation into legiblease).


Don't just take my word for it, here's what the audience says:

* "Astounding, One cuil short of timecube!"
* "It should be written on the outside of a van that an unmedicated schizophrenic lives in, not submitted as evidence to a court of law"
* "Meh. Continuity errors, incorporated the cryddit 2013 timeline in the prior chapter but didn't bother including its parameters in this latest installment"

With all due respect Franky,  "he just wants attention, don't mention him" is exactly how we ended up in the situation we're in today.  It's also just not true: he flies into a blind rage about anyone speaking negatively of him-- he absolutely can't tolerate it, he has screamed at people in interviews, he even threw a book in court once.  It's part of the reason that he keeps making the same mistakes even after the public has caught on and called them out: he can't stand reading people criticizing him so he doesn't always know which lies have been blown apart.  He usually only sees what bitcoiners are saying about him once the comments have been filtered through his supporters and neutralized.

He does like coverage that treats his claims seriously-- as in that they're merely disputed rather than thoroughly disproved but that isn't what anyone here is doing. It is, however, what the media does reflexively.

Edit (to avoid a double-post):  LOL  Mr. Wright's "evidence" is out: https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/xp5qy9/fresh_from_oslo_craig_wrights_submitted_evidence/

The binary is so awesomely fake.  In particular, I love seeing that when he made strings shorter because the offsets needed to be preserved he space padded them... either because he didn't know better or because his hatred of me prevented him from using the much more plausible null character instead of spaces.