Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman?

[sniaou]

We were reading here many times in the past days of the falseness of the superelevation of Satoshi in the sphere at the limit to the divine.

Of course, humans are no gods.

Albert Einstein wasnt a god too not..

.. but we should talk of Satoshi Nakamoto maybe as of the Einstein of the banking.

...

Edit: typo

You need to up the dosage on your meds, Pablo.

[Pablo Elpuro]

You need to up the dosage on your meds, Pablo.

 LOL

What do you mean? Einstein is a god?

[OgNasty]

One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:

Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.

So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.

Thoughts pro and con?

I think this could be plausible if Kleiman is Satoshi.  Perhaps Kleiman reached out to Wright knowing that Wright was rich and might have an interest in buying a large amount of BTC as well as the Satoshi identity.  Possibly Kleiman was trying to cash out before he died and by saying the BTC was Wright's that would be repaid upon a later date, he was avoiding taxes and living the rest of his days in whatever regulatory nightmare would have come with claiming ownership himself.  The 2020 date could even be accurate, as I could see Satoshi wanting to sell to a believer who would hold the BTC until it was stable and not to someone who would dump at a profit and kill the idea.  Maybe Kleiman died before everything could be finalized, which would explain why he died poor.  That would also explain how Wright became the only one who knew the identity of Satoshi, and why he is trying to set up a case to prove he is the owner of the BTC (which it appears he is not, but maybe would have been if Kleiman had more time).

[Pablo Elpuro]

Back to the thema:
Gizmodo published already long ago: http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

While he was alive, Kleiman kept an aluminum-encased USB drive on his person at nearly all times. If there really is a cache of Kleiman’s bitcoins or anything else linking him to Satoshi, Paige said, “I guarantee that drive has some shit in it.” According to Paige, when Kleiman died, his brother, Ira Kleiman, took possession of it.

Paige was the compagnon of Dave. Everybody can watch him at Dave's Homepage, where his compagnon is observable even in a video. A cool person, if you ask me. Not at all another falseplayer. Paige isnt a Bitcoin-insider, its not cerain, that he knows, what Dave's USB-drive could be worth.

Thats this suspicious USB-drive.

I think this could be plausible if Kleiman is Satoshi.

Yeah

[Pablo Elpuro]

Again the same source Gizmodo:

Ira Kleiman declined to speak on the record about whether he is in possession of his brother?s hard drives. Described by acquaintances as guarded and private, Ira Kleiman also refused to meet with a reporter in person or speak over the phone, opting instead to send dozens of cagey and cryptic emails and SMS messages in an exchange that lasted several days. He claimed that after his brother?s death, Wright contacted him and told him that he and Dave Kleiman were involved in creating Bitcoin, and also alleged to possess documents provided to him by several sources that might corroborate the information provided to Gizmodo by Wright?s apparent hacker. However, Kleiman declined to provide any concrete information about those documents or their sources, and would not answer when asked if he believed that Wright had been telling him the truth.

Its what I worry about: Ira Kleiman.

[Gleb Gamow]

http://drcraigwright.net/  

It appears that the entire fiasco was crafted to destroy Matonis and Andresen.

He has apparently taken the fall in order to hand more power to those who are not Matonis and Andresen.

But the saga may not be fully played out yet...

Pink Floyd nailed it (including Richard Wright on keyboards): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxCUyy_aVzA

[Gyrsur]

interesting chat with Joseph VaughnPerling. he sounds a little pissed off.

Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling

[Gleb Gamow]

Back to the thema:
Gizmodo published already long ago: http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

While he was alive, Kleiman kept an aluminum-encased USB drive on his person at nearly all times. If there really is a cache of Kleiman’s bitcoins or anything else linking him to Satoshi, Paige said, “I guarantee that drive has some shit in it.” According to Paige, when Kleiman died, his brother, Ira Kleiman, took possession of it.

Paige was the compagnon of Dave. Everybody can watch him at Dave's Homepage, where his compagnon is observable even in a video. A cool person, if you ask me. Not at all another falseplayer. Paige isnt a Bitcoin-insider, its not cerain, that he knows, what Dave's USB-drive could be worth.

Thats this suspicious USB-drive.

I think this could be plausible if Kleiman is Satoshi.

Yeah

I'm still taken aback on how David Kleiman was awarded soldier of the year in 1987 after ONLY one year of service while being a Huey tech in Germany, beating out a million-plus candidates, some of which were perhaps more deserving. Also, he claimed to be a war veteran when he didn't serve in a war zone because ... wait for it ... the US wasn't involved in any conflicts during his stint in the US Army.

[Gleb Gamow]

interesting chat with Joseph VaughnPerling. he sounds a little pissed off.

Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling

Joseph VaughnPerling alludes to the Tulip trustee being a woman. Now, who is Joseph VaughnPerling? (I envision Ayn Rand turning her earthworm vibrator on high at this point - she was a 'wild one' if you missed the reference)

[Pablo Elpuro]

Pink Floyd nailed it

Wow, super!

interesting chat with Joseph VaughnPerling. he sounds a little pissed off.

Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling

Thats not over, this game, its what I worry, but its rather a case for the cops to clear this backdateing show up.

Back to Dave's brother, what is alarming:
Ira Kleiman

• claimed that after his brother’s death, Wright contacted him
  
• alleged to possess certain documents concerning Dave
  
• declined to provide any concrete information about those documents
  
• declined to speak on the record about whether he is in possession of his brother’s hard drives
  
• refused to meet
  
• refused to speak over the phone
  
• sent instead dozens of cagey and cryptic emails and SMS messages
  
• would not answer when asked if he believed that Wright had been telling him the truth
  

Its Ira Kleiman's right, not to speak with the boulevard, of course.

But what if our false-player was not only contacting him, but stalking him and trying to nick something?
What if not only our falseplayer was exerting pressure on Ira Kleiman, but an entire gang?

Ira Kleiman has probably no concrete idea of "Bitcoins". And "Satoshi Nakamoto" is saying him absulutely nothing. And noone was warning him, that there is maybe half a Billion of dollars in his appartment. Especially our falseplayer was letting him unknowingly very intentional, one can guess. Even the reporters of Gizmodo were not able to explain him something understandable maybe, because he was blocking every access, having got already accessed penetrant too much, and having no idea, why all people are suddenly as importunate.

The comportment of Ira Kleiman is at least not excluding, that he is as much under pressure to have an acute paranoid problem.

[Pablo Elpuro]

I'm still taken aback on how David Kleiman was awarded soldier of the year in 1987 after ONLY one year of service while being a Huey tech in Germany, beating out a million-plus candidates, some of which were perhaps more deserving.

Hi Gleb, I dont understand, why you quote me in this relation. I didnt award him.
As far as I can estimate, Dave Kleiman was a very impressive soldier. One has-to-get the laurels, all are only humans. He was a deputy of sheriff before his accident, too. I can imagine him deputy-of-the-year-award capable too. An astonishing imagination of Satoshi Nakamoto, of course. But state-power-critical means not subversive. There is a subtle difference. The libertarians are not against the state, but against the overregulation of the state, against the attraction of too much responsability of the state. Dave was working for the state and for international institutions. A libertarian approach is to make for the state, what is good, and to refuse the what is too much. He wasnt engaged fix nomore. He was very well able to refuse jobs. I see no conflict to Satoshi here, no incompatibility.

Also, he claimed to be a war veteran when he didn't serve in a war zone because ... wait for it ... the US wasn't involved in any conflicts during his stint in the US Army.

I dont know. I never heard about. Was he saying veteran or war-veteran? Was he maybe saying "war-veteran"? We are used to talk in metaphors, what are not takeable literally always.
Little overdrive is not unusual, isnt it, Gleb?

[Gleb Gamow]

I'm still taken aback on how David Kleiman was awarded soldier of the year in 1987 after ONLY one year of service while being a Huey tech in Germany, beating out a million-plus candidates, some of which were perhaps more deserving.

Hi Gleb, I dont understand, why you quote me in this relation. I didnt award him.
As far as I can estimate, Dave Kleiman was a very impressive soldier. One has-to-get the laurels, all are only humans. He was a deputy of sheriff before his accident, too. I can imagine him deputy-of-the-year-award capable too. An astonishing imagination of Satoshi Nakamoto, of course. But state-power-critical means not subversive. There is a subtle difference. The libertarians are not against the state, but against the overregulation of the state, against the attraction of too much responsability of the state. Dave was working for the state and for international institutions. A libertarian approach is to make for the state, what is good, and to refuse the what is too much. He wasnt engaged fix nomore. He was very well able to refuse jobs. I see no conflict to Satoshi here, no incompatibility.

Also, he claimed to be a war veteran when he didn't serve in a war zone because ... wait for it ... the US wasn't involved in any conflicts during his stint in the US Army.

I dont know. I never heard about. Was he saying veteran or war-veteran? Was he maybe saying "war-veteran"? We are used to talk in metaphors, what are not takeable literally always.
Little overdrive is not unusual, isnt it, Gleb?

I caught the "overdrive" reference. No prob with that, bud. Apologies for quoting you then going on a different tangent. My thought was to help get the thread back on topic. That was all.

Unless Craig Steven Wright's lawyer(s) lied to a tax agent: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2644013/20140226-Meeting-Minutes-Redacted.txt

Craig Wright had mined a lot of Bitcoins. Craig then took the Bitcoins and put them into a
Seychelles Trust. A bit of it was also put into Singapore. This was run out of an entity from the
UK. Craig had gotten approximately 1.1 million Bitcoins. There was a point in time, when he had
around 10% of all the Bitcoins out there. Mr Kleiman would have had a similar amount. However,
Mr Kleiman passed away during that time. He was a war veteran; he was wheel chair bound.
The deed between Craig Wright and W&K was created in 2012. W&K gave Craig Wrights rights
to the Bitcoins and he has used the Bitcoins to do all this stuff.

Mr Kleiman and Craig Wright decided to start up W&K because they both wanted to get involved
with Bitcoins. They recognised that this industry was not regulated and they wanted to start up a
regulated Bitcoin bank. They knew they couldn’t do this in the US so they wanted to do this in
Australia.

Back to Joseph VaughnPerling. Remember when the following video came out and folks were asking who invited CSW? Wanna take a stab now as to who it was?

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

My EDUCATED guess is that J^VP is CSW's spokesperson advancing the "who is SN" narrative.

[Pablo Elpuro]

There is the problem of Dave Kleiman's father too. As we know, he is old 92 years and at least partially informed, concerning Dave's infliction with Bitcoin.

But he probably has no idea, what is Satoshi Nakamoto. And that there is a fortune of half a Billion dollar somewhere jammed in the cyberspace, what belongs to Satoshi's successors, so maybe to Dave's successors.

Imagine.

Its a message, what can kill the old man, if it is delivered false. Heart-attacks exist.

My advice: say nothing or say it professional. Its explainable to the old man only when Ira is in security. Its a task for the psychologically hardened public service. Nothing for good-meaning amateurs.
Its first Ira, then Louis. Both need professional help.

Warning: if Ira is really paranoid, he risks to defend himself with the gun, getting accessed violent.

[rizzlarolla]

There is the problem of Dave Kleiman's father too. As we know, he is old 92 years and at least partially informed, concerning Dave's infliction with Bitcoin.

But he probably has no idea, what is Satoshi Nakamoto. And that there is a fortune of half a Billion dollar somewhere jammed in the cyberspace, what belongs to Satoshi's successors, so maybe to Dave's successors.

Imagine.

Its a message, what can kill the old man, if it is delivered false. Heart-attacks exist.

My advice: say nothing or say it professional. Its explainable to the old man only when Ira is in security. Its a task for the psychologically hardened public service. Nothing for good-meaning amateurs.
Its first Ira, then Louis. Both need professional help.

Warning: if Ira is really paranoid, he risks to defend himself with the gun, getting accessed violent.

Calm down, his family must know something about all this.

Even if they don't realize this usb stick is potentially worth half billion dollars,
They must know it is potentially of some great value by now?

They will have checked.

[Pablo Elpuro]

I caught the "overdrive" reference. No prob with that, bud.

I knew. Its not at all a reproach, no stilistic critics. I like.

Apologies for quoting..

No prob with that, terence, me too not. It was again not a reproach, I just asked.

He was a war veteran..

I see, its not Dave, what speaks.

Its a misleading statement: Dave's wheelchair isnt a medal from the Army. Its not a medal from the Sheriff too not. Its reasoned by a motocycle-accident in the free-time. I know, you knew, Gleb. I clarify it for the who didnt know.

Well, this link:
I knew, the show isnt over. I supposed, the retraite of the falseplayer was only strategic.

Its a puzzle for the cops, not for us.

The sharpened cards of the falseplayer are backdating, hacked sources, manipulated digital signatures and corrupted witnesses. Thats expectable.

Dave was a forensic crack. The falseplayer means to be upper. Its a case for the forensic experts really.

At least, every claimed action of Dave in this relation is to control very, very profound. Dave was knocked out in the hospital very much. As well, Dave's compagnons can know very much of Dave's agenda. His buddy looks out quite as uncorruptible as Bud Spencer. Just this claimed director-state in the Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence Pty Ltd seems to be quite impossible. Yes, Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence Et cetera Et cetera, thats the meaningful name. Its the incredible style not of Satoshi. Its the style of someone with an incredible big mouth.

What was the name of Dave's company?

Its a stilistic difference, what is strikeing. What is the name of the blockchain? Is it meaningful?
Correct, the name of the blockchain is blockchain. Because its a chain of blocks. Thats Satoshi. No need to confuse someone by highblown nameing.

The stilistic traces are unmasking obvious and reliant more than fingerprints. The bigmouth of the falseplayers is nonoverlookable. Isnt it?

... BTW

Did you ever think about Gleb's style? Why is this style not a style of falseplayer?
Its not question of being loud or quiet nor a question of being polite or unpolite nor a question of being timid or impudent nor a question of being open or close.

Its a question of being honest or sly.

I have the impression, some have pains to discern the falseplayers here, as 50% were trusting CSW.

[Pablo Elpuro]

Calm down..

Oh, many thanks for your worries concerning my exitement-state, you are a sweetheart.
But I am used about worse.

They will..

Are you sure? And where is the evidence? And who is "they"? The Wright-gang?

I must admit, that you cannot convince me entirely.

In my opinion, its a good idea to pass ideas similar to the what I said to the official instances what are responsible. Thats not an impossibility, of course. This idea isnt ariseing to everyone automatically. The brisance of the situation is maybe not discernible for someone outside of the Bitcoin-scene. Thats what I mean. Its a jokeing-forum here, of course, but its not only a jokeing-forum here, isnt it? The life in what we live is real, not virtual. Its not a computer-game here. Or are all of us responsible not more than the children of the kindergarten?

Me I cant. I am circa 1/2-earth-size away. All what I can, is to produce a workable written purpose, what is at least referenceable, when no better idea occurrs.

Its time to calm down really only, when we get good news from Ira and Louis Kleiman.

But nevertheless, I will not talk about that until then, so..
.. no worries.

[Pablo Elpuro]

Yeah..
.. it was me, what was not straight-on-topic now. But it was anyway close, and belonging really not somewhere else.

But its Dave himself, the thema, here.

It was getting said, that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto will maybe never get revealed doubtfree.

The question is, what we look as doubtfree proof. We are now hot in the materia. We are now educated of the past days, and dispose about a sharp more competiency in this relation than some days before. All of us, because we were getting confronted with false proofs. Except some cracks, what were learning nothing new.

We learned, that there exists quasi-no proof, what is really conclusive, because everything is manipulateable. The signature, the early blocks. All is, if not manipulateable, then stealable. There exists no single proof, what is really conclusive. Correct me, if Im wrong. Im a Newbie of Bitcoin, the cryptographic interna are out of my competiency.

Its a problem, what needs to get disputed exhausting. We need to create clearness about.

If it is possible, we know, what we need - if not, we know, that we need to create another approach.

My purpose is to dispute this in another thread, because it isnt related to Dave. Me, I will not create it for reasons of absent competiency and because I have the impression, that this clear proof doesnt exist.

Its somehow similar to the God-proof. Many exist, noone is tenable scientifically really.

What leads some in the Atheism, some in the Agnosticism. But the most keep the belief not needing a proof. Some suspect, its conventional, its traditional, its for reasons of conformism only. Others say its the intuition. Thats not covered of the science, of course. 

Dont worry, its not my intention to turn the thread into the religuous, the problem of the belief is that the dispute isnt possible reasonable. Whats the difference between the knowing, the meaning and the believing? The what we believe, we cannot proof exactly, thats why we cannot dispute it scientifically. Because we can only dispute scientifically what we know, the knowledge, nothing else. Okay, stop the unscientific now really. Dont challennge me, dont ask, I will not answer, its really offtopic.

[alani123]

interesting chat with Joseph VaughnPerling. he sounds a little pissed off.

Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling

Joseph VaughnPerling alludes to the Tulip trustee being a woman. Now, who is Joseph VaughnPerling? (I envision Ayn Rand turning her earthworm vibrator on high at this point - she was a 'wild one' if you missed the reference)

Pretty sure it's this guy.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=122404

[suchmoon]

interesting chat with Joseph VaughnPerling. he sounds a little pissed off.

Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling

Joseph VaughnPerling alludes to the Tulip trustee being a woman. Now, who is Joseph VaughnPerling? (I envision Ayn Rand turning her earthworm vibrator on high at this point - she was a 'wild one' if you missed the reference)

Pretty sure it's this guy.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=122404

Sneaky... lurking but not posting anything about this drama.

Last Active: May 05, 2016
Last Post: April 23, 2016

[Pablo Elpuro]

I liked to dispute here already the case, when there exists no single conclusive proof.

I was already approaching to another unworkable approach: the intuition. We cannot dispute reasonable our intuitive estimation for the cited reasons. If someone will do anyway, its an endless dispute, where the emotions risk to get high very much, do it please in another thread to keep thisone small.

We are not out of arguments, then.

When the cops cannot proof, they cannot listen to the intuition too not, they need to work with indices.

Thats the what we can dispute here, the indices, what speak for and con, that Dave Kleiman is Satoshi Nakamoto. Its police-work, but we can help to the cops, what are not Bitcoin-cracks apriori.

What we need to observe is, that when we cannot proof doubtfree that Dave is Satoshi, we will probably not be able to show with a sufficient credibility, that Dave only is Satoshi. The group-identity is probably not excludeable, but the group membership of diverse individuals is disputeable again. Some members will maybe get discernable quite well by indices. And others will be undiscernible, where we can exclude the membership for resons of absent indices. Thats not a corrupt approach, we just need to be open to all-kind-of indices. If someone was making no trace in the group, his handmark is absent, he isnt Satoshi, its maybe the coffee-cup fetcher of Satoshi, but not Satoshi. Another candidate of group-membership is Hal Finney. It was getting said somewhere, that Hal's stilistic approach of forming the text is closest to Satoshi of all the candidates until. That is a good indice. The individuality of forming the text is reliable quite as a fingerprint. It just had to get well-presented. But we have not to talk of Hal here. The opening of another thread would be appropriate. I will not do, because I will think about Dave.

Note, that we have masses of text of Satoshi. Hundreds of posts and mails. Thats an easy-game. Its rather too much data than not enough. Then we have tons of programs. It was said now somewhere, that Satoshi wasnt a good programmer. Because of the sloppyness, for example. Thats even excellent, the weaknesses are excellent indices. The excellence is the what everyone tries to do.

But we have not too much data, thats the good-news. We are in the Big-Data-Age. Its not too much at far. The stilistic fingerprints are just getting sharper.

To work with indices, the cops need anyway their intuition. It is not possible to examinate all. The world is too big. The cops need the intuition to find the relevant traces. Not for more. We have to stay honest with the indices, what we find, and not to distort them at will in the direction of our intention. And thats not easy, when our intention is strong.

Excuse me, if you dont like to get addressed like students, its not personal, of course. I dont doubt about someone's intelligence or competiency. Its just to address everyone, and to include everyone in the revealings, especially thisones, what didnt see clear, what is really needed and possible. I see, that the dispute is sometimes very casual, its not a working-group, a forum-thread, I know. And I am not the OP of this thread and will not at all create allures of director. But a thread, what achieves an insight is anyway cool more, than a thread of smalltalk or a thread of rooster-fight. To loose time, we can look TV, its even less arduous.