Thanks everyone! This issue has now been sorted out (at least regarding bitni.com). While the admin of bitni.com was rather slow to react, he did help me and eventually provided me with the proof of payment. Turned out that the party who was supposed to receive this payment ( https://shitcoins.club/ ) had an issue in their payment receiving software and did not credit the payment to me. While they had actually received the funds they refused to help me unless I provide them with a link to the block explorer showing that my transaction has been confirmed. Thanks to the proof of payment I received from the admin of bitni.com I am now able to give shitcoins.club the link to the block explorer as demanded. So, what we learned from all this... Bitni.com provides a rather mediocre service, which by itself fails to provide the user with the critical information such as a proof of payment. In case of problems there is not much the customer can do other than to contact the slow-reacting administrator of the service. As for shitcoins.club, they should have been able to verify my payment on their own, knowing the payment amount, approximate date and the receiving address. They chose to demand the payment proof from me instead, which was highly complicated due to the fact that the payment originated from an exchange and BEAM tokens have privacy features that make solely address based queries impossible for third parties. Whether shitcoins.club is hoping to keep the money for themselves in case I fail to provide them with the proof or whether they are just lazy and incompetent is currently unknown as I am still waiting for the funds to be credited. |
|
|
|
Never heard about this exchange but there is someone here on the forum mention this domain under Bitcoin mixer list in Chinese section. - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247254.msg54706421#msg54706421And then found this from reddit below. - https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/iirl1m/should_i_trust_bitni/According to him, he tested it then it works but for me, it shouldn't be trust because the domain is dead for a long time(aged domain), and someone claim it as a new owner of that domain. Already checked them on the wayback machine it wasn't exchanges before so for me I couldn't trust this domain. If I were you much better to stayaway from this exchange if you don't want to be scam. Thanks for the reddit thread link. I tried to search myself too but didn't find anything except that same old Chinese bitcointalk thread. I made the (~2000$) transaction yesterday and it didn't go through. Sent e-mails to all 3 support e-mail addresses and haven't got a reply in 4 hours. They clearly use deceptive marketing regarding the "24/7 support". I will give them a couple of days to reply before jumping into conclusions. edit: Got the reply from the administrator. He said he is investigating the issue now. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know if bitni.com is trustworthy? It says on the page "Need Help? Expert 24/7 support is ready to assist you." But I haven't received an answer to my question. |
|
|
|
That's what I did actually. I have 2 keyboards simultaneously connected to the PC. One is wireless which I seldomly use when I need to type from the bed. The regular one has a wire. |
|
|
|
Bending some rules here and there doesn't matter if you know you will win the case.
If you say something like this , and you call all the forged documents and lies he said under oath "bending some rules". Then it's no wonder why you support the man. P.S. - My advice is to stop spreading everywhere your academic achievements , cause after you're saying something completely retarded like you just did , and people will assume your lieying about that aswell. But at least you convinced me of something right now , and that is that all you BSV shillers , are completely in a different bubble , where you don't listen to common sense , where you simply troll and spam all this nonsense. You basically ignore all evidence , and write it off as irrelevant. Simply put you're just a cult of brain washed puppets . Even if the real Satoshi will pop back one day , you trolls will continue worshipping the shit that C.W. spreads around. You see a man in a bubble. Are you sure which side you are on? If the whole world has gone mad, then the people who are mentally healthy will look like they were insane. |
|
|
|
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?
You are relying on the judge's words who goes to the same synagogue as the plaintiff? Have a cup of common sense. As for why Craig acted as he did. I can only speculate that the clock was ticking for his advantage. Bending some rules here and there doesn't matter if you know you will win the case. 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.
I have more than enough empirical evidence that he's a fraud and not Satoshi. That's actually fine by me. I didn't come here to change your mind. I just came here to prepare salt for your wounds. |
|
|
|
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. ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO. Do no wiggle around.
Your question is if somebody else forged Craig's documents does that mean Craig should be found 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? Makes no sense. 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. 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  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. I rest my case. |
|
|
|
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. ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO. Do no wiggle around. As for the evidence, I have plenty of empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You want it? Go get it. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
maybe he did, cause he got hacked - and he told about, but common trolls didn't report or skewed
common trolls like u just don't want to know the truth
so no way u ll get it
Oh - we get it. The judge gets it too. You just pwned yourself, bro. Case closed.  |
|
|
|
If you submit documents under discovery and you believe they are forgeries then you submit an affidavit saying that you do not trust the documents or the source.
Again with the internet expert of law thing, aren't we? Your arguments are falling apart before our eyes. Stop lying in my face. If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less. Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11You don't seem to understand how courts work. If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less. Get it through your thick skull that it was a discovery. Poor baby, wants to be spoon fed with everything. |
|
|
|
If you submit documents under discovery and you believe they are forgeries then you submit an affidavit saying that you do not trust the documents or the source.
Again with the internet expert of law thing, aren't we? Your arguments are falling apart before our eyes. Stop lying in my face. If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less. |
|
|
|
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. Craig Wright was the director when that information was submitted to the registrar of companies. It is directors legal responsibility to ensure the information is correct. Craig Wright is also the signatory to this declaration to the court stating that c01n ltd (a company that was under his control) was trustee of his trust Dude, leave the legalities to the professionals. What are you, an internet expert of law? You are just producing noise (perhaps deliberately?) by posting these random snapshots from the court files. |
|
|
|
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. How about yourself? You are quick to respond here. Don't you have anything better to do? Just recently you called my life achievements "quite pathetic". I guess it's quite pathetic to become a multi-millionaire before the age of 30 by making good investment decisions then You, sir, are quite pathetic yourself. Not only are you advertising a gambling site in your signature, but you keep repeating the same worn-out misconceptions about Craig Wright. Be a man for once in your life and admit it. It's the first step, to start admitting your mistakes. Craig submitted to the court everything that matched certain search criteria given by the judge. As a result, he had to submit papers that other people had forged to set him up. You are taking a wishful leap of faith interpreting it as if Craig himself forged them. Are you stupid in the head or something? |
|
|
|
the hackers are the scammers - not Satoshi
But now the hackers got triggerd and only can REACT
Who made and still makes the pace?
You keep repeating the same rhetoric but I did not post those documents. I posted documents that are a sworn affidavit prepared and signed by CSW from an earlier 2013 case where he was the plaintiff. No hacking there. It is sworn information provided by CSW. So either the affidavit is true in which case CSW was the recipient of the 2011 MtGox stolen bitcoin or it is untrue and CSW as director of a company issued false invoices and claimed tax credits on transactions that did not occur. Stop repeating the same rhetoric! You keep talking about those MtGox stolen bitcoins which is a complete fabrication. It's disgusting that you spread an altered version of the document which has the MtGox address added to it and you keep saying that it is a legitimate document. |
|
|
|
In a situation where there is my word against your word, the background is all that matters. As for the proof, I already have it the way I like it the most --- in the form of empirical evidence. If you want to have it go get it.
Oh yes, internet bragging, let's try it. I have 20+ years of software development experience and last time I was working 9-5 I was herding software architects who would design a spaceship when the customer asked for a toaster, does that make me smarter than you? More capable of identifying frauds like CSW? Or perhaps we should just stick to perjury and inability to sign a message and other obvious signs of him being a fraud. Another gem, proving what level of maturity we are really having here:
If you don't like the self-moderated thread - don't post there. Complaining about it here is off topic. 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. |
|
|
|
The level of bias is staggering. Here's post-deleting in action. But look at what I wrote and what got deleted. I simply stated my educational background as a basis for my opinion, and it was already too much to serve the Craig-denial agenda.
Your bragging about education and experience doesn't mean shit and it's not a proof of anything. Present proof that can be evaluated by others. In a situation where there is my word against your word, the background is all that matters. As for the proof, I already have it the way I like it the most --- in the form of empirical evidence. If you want to have it go get it. Another gem, proving what level of maturity we are really having here: Do your own thinking. One side has educated professionals such as myself, the other side resorts to childish name-calling and emotion-driven moderation practices |
|
|
|
The level of bias is staggering. Here's post-deleting in action. But look at what I wrote and what got deleted. I simply stated my educational background as a basis for my opinion, and it was already too much to serve the Craig-denial agenda.  |
|
|
|
So do all BSV shillers actually believe Craig is Satoshi ? Or are they literally trolling on a completely different level ? I haven't exactly followed the hole Bsv shit-show , but how can these plebs actually believe Craig is Satoshi simply because he said so ?? There would be countless of ways to prove it , if infact he was , but he failed to provide any proof . So why do people actually believe it just cause that man is spreading this crap everywhere " I am Satoshi "  How? Maybe if you have master's degree in software engineering, bachelor in informatics and 15 years of experience as a software architect, then you can make your own educated decisions listening to the man himself rather than the social media? As a professional in my field (which many people simply are not) I can say with absolute certainty that Craig is Satoshi. So your whole assumption is wrong, no one on the BSV side is believing anyone "simply because he said so". However, you on the other hand, very much show the attributes of a person who believes the anti-Craig propaganda simply because sociopaths such as OneMegGreg said so. Oh, and most importantly, I've got empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You can't beat it with any other kind of evidence. You want to see what it looks like to have empirical evidence, then watch this: https://youtu.be/ji2p5pxURVs |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
