How does this factually prove anything about Satoshi?

The US copyright office will award you the same copyright registration if you pay the fee. They simply act as a record keeper of who files copyright registrations. The validity of any given copyright claim and disputes over ownership are matters for the federal court system, not the copyright office. The copyright office doesn't care and they aren't making a judgment as to who Satoshi really is.

That's faulty logic. The supply can't be infinite since it's literally limited to the amount of circulating bitcoins. Right now, that is ~17.7 million bitcoins.

What you're pointing to is that the supply is still inflating and will continue to do so throughout our lifetime. That's true, and it's why I hesitate to call Bitcoin "deflationary" at this time.


Bitcoin takes things a step further than Gold. We can't know what the true gold supply really is -- we can find new areas of supply or new cost-effective ways to mine currently unreachable gold. There is no theoretical limit to the amount of gold. With Bitcoin, there is a predictable limit that we are constantly approaching.

Another day, another 51% attack on a non-Bitcoin POW blockchain. These little altcoins with such fragile fundamentals are fascinating test cases to study miner incentives.

I'm thoroughly unsurprised at J Toomin's response. He went off the deep end a long, long time ago.

Most wallets still don't support BIP70?! I guess I wouldn't know. I've been using Electrum as my everyday wallet for years now and never missed a beat when Bitpay implemented BIP70.


That does piss me off. They charge everyone an additional fee ~ equal to the cost of sweeping the output in the next block, but they never sweep anything immediately. I think they're making money off the "network fee" -- and of course, giving small blockers the middle finger.

The other thing that pisses me off is their refund policy. Whichever direction the price moves, they screw you on the exchange rate. If the price goes up, they give you less coins back. If the price goes down, you get your coins back -- minus another "network fee" of course.


I'm not positive, but I think that only works for prepaid phones (not bill pay). Bitrefill also charges obscene markups on a lot of their cards -- and seemingly no markup on others -- so it's worth looking closely at the price.

There are narrow conditions where traders may be considered by the IRS to be engaged in a business, but that only applies to those trading securities (not cryptocurrency like Bitcoin), and trading activity must substantial, continuous and regular. None of that is indicated by the OP. For more info on these conditions, see here.

Most traders -- even day traders -- are considered "investors" by the IRS. Their capital gains are considered unearned income, not business income.

Sidechains employing Confidential Transactions and other obfuscating techniques like Dandelion routing could also provide another avenue to superior privacy -- assuming there is enough traffic on the sidechain network. I'm not sure what type of consensus change would be required to add CT to Bitcoin -- plus transactions are still 3x the size of standard -- so I'm not sure we'll ever see it integrated into Bitcoin.

Blockstream's Liquid is a start, but I'm not that comfortable with the federated consensus model and we're obviously not seeing huge transaction volumes yet, either.

Their days are numbered. Companies like BTC-e and 1Broker weren't immune from US federal agencies, and Tether isn't either. The DOJ is only six months into a criminal probe of Bitfinex and Tether for market manipulation. That probe was launched nearly a year after the CFTC began investigating them for the same thing. Sooner or later, both Bitfinex and Tether are probably going to have seizure notices on their domains.


If volume goes to other stablecoin markets on the same exchange, it certainly doesn't hurt them. I noticed that Binance promotes other stablecoin markets like USDC and PAX when you press the "Trade" button on your balances page. I think subtly pushing traders towards safer stablecoins makes sense for exchanges because a Tether implosion will be bad for everyone. The bigger they are when they go down, the worse the collateral damage will be.

How exactly would that copyright be enforced? Can you explain?

I think this is just another instance of Wright saying, "Look, I'm Satoshi!" A small subset of people will believe him without any further research, and that's all he needs.

He's obviously trying to pump BSV, but I strongly feel there's something else at play with all his fraudulent behavior. Maybe he's just mentally deranged.

It was suspicious, but Bitmixer voluntarily shut down. This is definitely the first time that we've seen authorities seizing the domains and servers of a mixing service, and putting out press releases about it.


They were based in Europe, which seems like an odd choice for a Bitcoin mixer. I sure hope other mixers are housing servers in countries that are less friendly to European and American authorities. Belize, BVI, Bahamas, Seychelles, the Cook Islands -- so many better options out there.

What were these guys doing operating out of Luxembourg? They may as well ring Europol while they're at it.

I think we can gather from his fraudulent behavior and utter lack of evidence for being Satoshi, that there is no tulip trust.

The narrative you just laid out is exactly the one he's trying to build. It'll convince gullible people to buy BSV for the inevitable flippening.

I can see that he's trying to pump his altcoin, but I still have to think there's more to the story because it looks like he's building himself a world full of legal troubles. All these frivolous lawsuits really show contempt for the court systems; some judges don't take kindly to that.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. And what makes you think he can meet all of the other requirements needed to succeed in any legal action?

Let's table the discussion about how Craig Wright would obviously face legal disputes over original authorship if he tries to leverage the copyright.

More fundamentally, who could he even take legal action against when -- according to him -- he himself already distributed the the source code under a free software license a decade ago? He has no grounds to extract rent now.


What exactly have you verified?


In other words, he's done a bunch of hand-waving and nothing else.

In the free open-source software world, code talks. CSW brings nothing to the table at all.

His legal arguments are completely bogus, too. This is all going to blow up badly in his face one day.

It doesn't make sense to remove all stablecoin volume. If a stablecoin is redeemable for dollars, and people are using it to hedge like dollars, then these volumes are obviously taking away from real dollar volumes.

There's lots of fake volume present, but this is the wrong way to analyze it.

I disagree. The current guidelines are extremely clear.

I'm all for passing new legislation that makes things easier on taxpayers -- like the Soto/Davidson H.R. 7356 bill, which would allow altcoin like-kind exchanges and a $600 annual tax exemption on capital gains realized through spending coins on goods and services. But this has nothing to do with a need for clarity, just a need for better tax treatments.

We're just supposed to take his word for it?

Anyone is free to claim they're Satoshi, but I prefer the "don't trust, verify" ethic. Craig Wright looks like any other wingnut filing a copyright claim.


That's what we're all trying to figure out. The copyright claim doesn't give him any authority or recognition, under the law or otherwise. His logic is probably something along the lines of, "If I say it enough times, some people will think it's true."

That's my guess, too.

The tulip trust story further creates a narrative where presumably Craig Wright will sell the BTC (and buy BSV) once the trust is released. That will probably dupe people into buying BSV for some time to come.


That's not entirely true. Lots of other countries comply with US copyright requests because they are member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization, an agency of the UN. There are 192 member states who have signed WIPO treaties that enforce copyright law internationally. This is why websites in many foreign countries regularly respond to DMCA takedown requests despite the DMCA being a US law.

None of this matters, though, because the source code was distributed by Satoshi under a free software license. He doesn't have any rights or means to extract rent. Even if a copyright registration granted those rights, he would be vigorously fought in court regarding the copyright ownership and I strongly believe he would lose.

That's quite the misleading image.

BCH was a hard fork of Bitcoin -- unlike Bitcoin, it is literally incompatible with the original protocol. BSV was a hard fork of BCH, so it's an even further perversion of what Bitcoin used to be.

The only protocol compatible with pre-Segwit Bitcoin is... Bitcoin.

I don't think unit bias is the only factor at play here. It may not even be the primary factor.

It has to do with latecomers feeling like they "missed the boat." They've been hearing about Bitcoin for years and feel the early adopter days are already over and the biggest gains already realized. They're looking for the next big money-making opportunity, specifically something that is not Bitcoin. These types of investors are buying based on greed and aren't paying attention to the fundamental reasons why Bitcoin is superior. I don't think changing decimals around is going to change their perspective.

Interesting timing, considering the recent rise in price.

Does anyone remember when Circle exited the Bitcoin brokering business? At the time, they and Coinbase were the two biggest onboarding platforms in the US. Almost directly after they cut off their services, the 2017 bubble erupted.

I wonder what'll happen this time, now that they seem to be getting financially squeezed again.

It's not a proper SOV yet. How could it be, only 10 years from inception? Most people are unsure exactly what Bitcoin even is, and are still skeptical that it will even exist in the coming decades. So, naturally it's highly volatile because its future is viewed as so uncertain.

However, we can look at Bitcoin's monetary properties and see theoretically why it might serve as a better form of money than anything seen before, given enough time and adoption.

All forms of money (including longstanding forms like gold) are a matter of faith. It's impossible to predict whether humans will put their faith into one form of money or another -- you would need to see the future to know that. What we can do is look at Bitcoin's properties and extrapolate from its market growth what may happen in the future. The more certain Bitcoin's future becomes, the less volatile it will become.

Gold goes back even further than that. It was being used in jewellery by the Egyptians around 5000 BCE!

I agree that it's crazy to assume that Bitcoin could replace gold, especially this early on. However, I do sympathize with the idea that Bitcoin has superior monetary qualities to gold -- namely, a completely predictable and transparent supply.

I think it has the potential to become a traditional store-of-value asset like gold in due time.