True, his claims are fake and I agree, but I ask simple question: - How can you know exact identity of Satoshi Nakamoto? You need to know someones identity to say that stated identity is stolen or not. Satoshis PGP is known and signing with the genesis block means they are Satoshi or have access to Satoshis most private data. So the best proof is: Sign a PGP message Sign a Genesis block message A lower standard of proof would be: Sign an from an address that mined an early block. Convince Theymos to give your bitcointalk account back. Signing may not give conclusive proof of being Satoshi but signing means that there is a high likelihood that they are Satoshi. There are not many hackers capable of such feat. Not signing means that there is a high likelihood that they are NOT Satoshi. It means there is NO proof. It means that they are as likely as the rest of the worlds population of being Satoshi. |
|
|
|
One thing I have to say here is that we don't know real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, so in fact we can say that Craig Wrong created new fake identity, and community named him Faketoshi. In case of Anastasia we knew her identity, and that is not the case here. Craig Wrong is still a thief and a liar, don't get me 'Wrong'  The similarities are there: Fake Anastasia claims were made before DNA. DNA ultimately proved it to be a lie. Fake Satoshi claims were made before chain analysis. Chain analysis ultimately will prove the lie. |
|
|
|
Gangs by their very definition are Organised Crime Syndicates
That is only one very narrow definition. The word "gang" has different meanings and also is used differently in different countries. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gang  |
|
|
|
The WO gang can be a subsidiary of CoL (The Cult of Lauda) if you reach consensus about it. This is my offer. Talk to your fellow members.  No, I wouldn't do that, I respect you, but I worship kittens, not you WO will not be a subsidiary of CoL, WO freedom forever  So now we will have 2 different gangs split up from your gang LOL CoL is a separate gang from Kitty Cult Sounds like a pussy alt gang. I'm no expert on the topic but I believe some of the gangs are forked from others. |
|
|
|
Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)? This is not a matter of “opinion”. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact. Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?” So no, he shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct. So... You “100% believe” that Satoshi endorsed the cryptographic competence of someone who does not know how to verify a forking digital signature!? See also: The Same Standard Applies to MeLet’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture. And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did. Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence: | achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature. What would Occam say about that? —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam? While I wholeheartedly agree with what you said and the conclusions. Gavin should have been more careful - he fell for the ruse. As a result his reputation too has been tarnished. But Gavin wouldn't have been appointed as Chief Scientist for his forensic or detective skills. It would have been because of his passion for the project, his programming and project management skills. Someone who is honest themselves is more likely to be trusting of others. History shows very intelligent people fall for cults, cons and scams. The definition of a con man is: a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true. https://www.lexico.com/definition/con_manGavin was gullible, was used and was duped. As a result he gave traction to a hoax and lost a lot of respect from the community. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that if I was in his position that I wouldn't have fallen for the tricks. Errors in logic are not always immediately detected. Hindsight is great and when a situation is stage managed there is limited time to make a proper assessment. Not everyone figures out how a trick is performed in a magic show. Even if you are an expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0CC99hVK8https://www.cryptologie.net/article/350/how-gavin-andresen-was-duped-into-believing-wright-is-satoshi/ |
|
|
|
|
Different people use their trust lists for different reasons.
Mine is purely based on:
Included = I want to see your opinion.
Not included = meh
Excluded = I don't want to see your opinion.
Nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
|
|
DENARIUZ LTD is missing £19 999 800 from its accounts.
DENARIUZ LTD has an issued capital of £20 000 000.
It certified in 2014 and in 2015 that all 20 000 000 £1 shares were fully paid up.
I spent an hour or so researching this and it would look like at least in this instance the money is owed to himself... It looks like shoddy paperwork - don't know why he decided to include DeMorgan (one of his companies) as a shareholder and then remove it without explanation - but I think at worst the missing money is owed to himself. Likely it never existed in the first place. It would appear that his companies Cloudcroft and DeMorgan were just set up to take part in an Australian tax rebate scheme, and aside from the occasional story involving Wright, their existence has been scrubbed from the internet. As a matter of fact, the website for DeMorgan has somehow been excluded from the Wayback Machine. From one such story on Wright, from 2015: After the stories first broke, Biddle reported that Wright had deleted his Twitter account, his YouTube account, and his blog. More suspiciously, the Web sites for DeMorgan and Cloudcroft, two companies in which Wright held large stakes, also disappeared. In a YouTube video that I saw before it was deleted, Wright touted Cloudcroft’s Tulip Trading, a subsidiary operation running a powerful supercomputer known as C01N. On its Web site, Cloudcroft had posted a letter of endorsement from the Australian computer manufacturer Silicon Graphics Incorporated (S.G.I.), which said that it had built and tuned Cloudcroft’s supercomputer. The letter, and other related information on Cloudcroft and DeMorgan’s Web sites, immediately struck some online-hardware experts as bogus. One asked, “Did anyone call SGI and ask them if they sold this guy a ~100 million dollar system? It’s kind of hard to miss.”
Soon enough, someone did. On Thursday night, ZDNet reported that S.G.I. denied having any relationship with Wright. “Cloudcroft has never been an SGI customer and SGI has no relationship with Cloudcroft CEO Craig Steven Wright,” Cassio Conceicao, S.G.I.’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said. Basically, even though I don't think he ripped off anybody with his CO1N and Denariuz companies, what his filings with these companies does suggest is that he has a long-standing reputation of just making shit up out of thin air. If a company has equity it should reflect in the assets held. It should also be able to prove the source of that equity and account for it accordingly. If a company does not go through formal winding up procedures then the assets are forfeited to the crown.   This is why it is relevant:  Also mentioned here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.237.18.pdfIt would appear that his companies Cloudcroft and DeMorgan were just set up to take part in an Australian tax rebate scheme, and aside from the occasional story involving Wright, their existence has been scrubbed from the internet. As a matter of fact, the website for DeMorgan has somehow been excluded from the Wayback Machine. Companies can ask to have their content removed. I'm not sure how they requested it considering the companies are under administration instigated by the Australian Tax Office. There are still copies available:     |
|
|
|
I think that similarity is quite obvious.
P.S. Picture description says "Fig. 23. The proud pose of a patient suffering schizophrenia with delusional ideas of greatness.".
I believe Craig to be quite sane and aware of his actions. I'm no expert in mental health but I doubt that he suffers from schizophrenia. My honestly held opinion is that he is quite aware of the deceptions and has been getting away with some of it for years (with exception being his contempt of court conviction in Australia and company shutdowns by the Australian Tax Office) - supporting a very comfortable lifestyle of luxury. |
|
|
|
I don't think theymos, or anyone else for that matter, knows who the real Satoshi is. All we can do is verify a message signed with the PGP key or any of the known early bitcoin addresses.
So far, no one has done so.
I was also in the 'sign a message' camp, but even if it's done eventually, it's still no concrete evidence that we're dealing with the 'real' satoshi. Private keys can exchange hands, either on a voluntary or non-voluntary basis. As long as nobody signs from any of those ancient 50BTC reward addresses it's safe to say that the real winner is the market (i.e. the holders of Bitcoin), which I add a whole lot more weight to than finding out who or what satoshi is. In other words, people shouldn't want x/y/z entity to ever sign a message. This however also means that losers such as CSW have free game to claim that they are the inventor of Bitcoin. Rather this than the price crashing hard. You are contradicting yourself. One one hand you say, that private keys can exchange hands and it would be no concrete evidence, on the other you would believe somebody who signs with one of the ancient Bitcoin addresses (with the private keys nessecary to do this - which could have exchanded hands). Sure it would be no 100% evidence, but what else would Satoshi have to prove he is the real one? If somebody signs his PGP or with one of the old addresses, most people would believe him. No doubt. These are some of the ways Satoshi could validate themselves. PGP signature from Satoshi Old bitcoin address signed message In depth detailed knowledge of bitcoin Demeanor and writing style Knowledge of private messages sent to various contributors Convince Theymos and others that were part of the early core team. Someone who genuinely wants to verify themselves does so patiently and welcomes public scrutiny - knowing it will be met with skepticism. |
|
|
|
You 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.
LOL it is funny that I quoted the law regarding discovery verbatim and you claim I don't know how the courts work.  (A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/cv_rules_eff._dec._1_2018_0.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
