Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[JayJuanGee]

Gavin's quantity of contributions in coding (which is supposedly part of what he is supposed to specialize in) has been quite low and quite old. 

Any place I can check out your code, JJG? Involved in some fun projects, were you?

Hello, this topic has nothing to do with my lack of coding skills... Are you retarded?

I don't contribute any code, and I do not claim to be able to contribute code.  Gavin, on the other hand, claims to want to change fundamental aspects of bitcoin, and he has submitted bips (XT and Classic) in an attempt to persuade the bitcoin community to adopt changes to the code.  The burden of proof seems to be on him regarding the efficacy of those proposed changes and he has failed to meet such burden, and is seeming to become more and more butt hurt about it (which seems to be part of the motivation for his latest alliance in corroborating Wright as supposedly being satoshi)

[yefi]

So now Dr. Wright is a magician That's some serious trust issues you got there.
look, if Dr. Wright pulled the wool over the eyes of both Dr. Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation AND to Mr. Jon Matonis, @jonmatonis, Founding Director at Bitcoin Foundation, CEO of Hushmail, Columnist at Forbes, Chief Forex Dealer at VISA, Economist, but you insist that you won't be fooled? Oh, that's rich.

You're a real sucker for titles, aren't you? Anyway, as James Randi said, some of these PhD types are the worst ones for being fooled because they think their credentials make them impervious to falsehood.

[JayJuanGee]

.. and it just seems so amazing that Gavin and Wright are conceiving the bitcoin community to be so gullible as to go along with this bullshit... 

Well, we got you to buy $1200 coins, so...

"we"  ?    You got a rock in your pocket?    Who are the "we" you refer to, newbie?  Do you have some kind of BTC investment plan?  When did you get involved in bitcoin, and do you have historical posts referring to your various bitcoin related activities or other evidence regarding your contributions to the bitcoin community?

  There is nothing gullible about buying coins for $1,200 in late November 2013, especially, if you are failing to account for the context, which need not be rehashed here for an apparent distracting and irrelevant troll comment.

[tempus]

Validating Satoshi (Or Not)

SUMMARY:

1. Yes, this is a scam.  Not maybe.  Not possibly.
2. Wright is pretending he has Satoshi’s signature on Sartre’s writing.  That would mean he has the private key, and is likely to be Satoshi.  What he actually has is Satoshi’s signature on parts of the public Blockchain, which of course means he doesn’t need the private key and he doesn’t  need to be Satoshi.  He just needs to make you think Satoshi signed something else besides the Blockchain — like Sartre.  He doesn’t publish Sartre.  He publishes 14% of one document.  He then shows you a hash that’s supposed to summarize the entire document.  This is a lie.  It’s a hash extracted from the Blockchain itself.  Ryan Castellucci (my engineer at White Ops and master of Bitcoin Fu) put an extractor here.  Of course the Blockchain is totally public and of course has signatures from Satoshi, so Wright being able to lift a signature from here isn’t surprising at all.
3. He probably would have gotten away with it if the signature itself wasn’t googlable by Redditors.
4. I think Gavin et al are victims of another scam, and Wright’s done classic misdirection by generating different scams for different audiences.

(...)

https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/

[yefi]

There's nothing ireffutable yet. And who in the BBC is going to have much of a clue as to what it takes to prove it?

Graham Norton?

[JayJuanGee]

4. I think Gavin et al are victims of another scam, and Wright’s done classic misdirection by generating different scams for different audiences.
 

I would not characterize Gavin as a victim... .

For some reason, the way that this scenario is playing out, Gavin seems to be lacking good judgment and is coming across as wanting to be scammed.

[spooderman]

can people stop shitting on my bull market with bullshit irrelevant news please.

this halvening is going to fucking happen alright? give me my fucking money and piss off.

[alesx.onfire]

i'm satoshi too
we are satoshi

my 2 satoshis.

[gentlemand]

There's nothing ireffutable yet. And who in the BBC is going to have much of a clue as to what it takes to prove it?

Graham Norton?

I think only Barbara Woodhouse had the chops for this type of thing and she's now no longer with us.

[Syke]

can people stop shitting on my bull market with bullshit irrelevant news please.

this halvening is going to fucking happen alright? give me my fucking money and piss off.

Well said brother, well said.

[tempus]

4. I think Gavin et al are victims of another scam, and Wright’s done classic misdirection by generating different scams for different audiences.
 

I would not characterize Gavin as a victim... .

For some reason, the way that this scenario is playing out, Gavin seems to be lacking good judgment and is coming across as wanting to be scammed.

Whatever the reason(s) why Gavin believes in Wright might be, I don't believe in bad intentions. And he has (had) to handle more impressions and informations then the rest of us, also more subjective information (direct communication) etc. And the situation with Wright most likely was convincing.

With other words: I don't blame him for believing it. What I see as a mistake is that he (Gavin) wrote a blogpost. That was premature and I'm sure he regrets it.

[USB-S]

Exclusive footage of Craig Wright

[BitUsher]

Whatever the reason(s) why Gavin believes in Wright might be, I don't believe in bad intentions. And he has (had) to handle more impressions and informations then the rest of us, also more subjective information (direct communication) etc. And the situation with Wright most likely was convincing.

With other words: I don't blame him for believing it. What I see as a mistake is that he (Gavin) wrote a blogpost. That was premature and I'm sure he regrets it.

No, it isn't just an example of a simple mistake , but gross negligence with extreme levels of credulity after a great amount of evidence discrediting Wright from last year, now more evidence from many different sources discrediting wright further with clear explanations on how and why Craig Wright is a likely fraud and at minimum lying with evidence provided.... and after all this Gavin still suggests he believes CW is Satoshi. This is far beyond any mistake , and raises some serious questions to either his competence or authenticity. Either way, both classic and core should permanently revoke his commit access.

[doc12]

can people stop shitting on my bull market with bullshit irrelevant news please.

this halvening is going to fucking happen alright? give me my fucking money and piss off.

Well said brother, well said.

Haha nice one 

[JayJuanGee]

4. I think Gavin et al are victims of another scam, and Wright’s done classic misdirection by generating different scams for different audiences.
 

I would not characterize Gavin as a victim... .

For some reason, the way that this scenario is playing out, Gavin seems to be lacking good judgment and is coming across as wanting to be scammed.

Whatever the reason(s) why Gavin believes in Wright might be, I don't believe in bad intentions. And he has (had) to handle more impressions and informations then the rest of us, also more subjective information (direct communication) etc. And the situation with Wright most likely was convincing.

With other words: I don't blame him for believing it. What I see as a mistake is that he (Gavin) wrote a blogpost. That was premature and I'm sure he regrets it.

There's nothing wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt a few times; however, over and over, Gavin has been showing himself to be exercising extremely poor judgement... In that regard, some assignment of malevolence may be necessary, yet I understand that each of us may need to come to such conclusions ourselves   - nonetheless, I stick to my earlier assertion that characterizing him as a victim doesn't seem to capture this situation very well, especially the more that we consider these particular circumstances.

[adamstgBit]

There are many reasons he may not want to post proof for you to verify, not the least of which is you constantly moving the goal posts.

Feel free to browse my extensive post history. I was posting here when Satoshi was still active. The goal posts have never moved. Sign a genesis block msg. Trivial for Satoshi to do and *everyone* can verify it.

what reason could there possibly be keeping him from publishing a signed message? apart from he being not SN obv.

he lost the keys?
its official.
satoshi lost the keys to most of his bitcoins mined in the early days

buy Buy BUY!!!!!

[tempus]

Whatever the reason(s) why Gavin believes in Wright might be, I don't believe in bad intentions. And he has (had) to handle more impressions and informations then the rest of us, also more subjective information (direct communication) etc. And the situation with Wright most likely was convincing.

With other words: I don't blame him for believing it. What I see as a mistake is that he (Gavin) wrote a blogpost. That was premature and I'm sure he regrets it.

No, it isn't just an example of a simple mistake , but gross negligence with extreme levels of credulity after a great amount of evidence discrediting Wright from last year, now more evidence from many different sources discrediting wright further with clear explanations on how and why Craig Wright is a likely fraud and at minimum lying with evidence provided.... and after all this Gavin still suggests he believes CW is Satoshi. This is far beyond any mistake , and raises some serious questions to either his competence or authenticity. Either way, both classic and core should permanently revoke his commit access.

I'll wait for the next days to see if G.A. distances himself from his post and gives further explanations. For now I think it's a wild mixture of impressions and a more psychological not-easy-situation. Can't explain precise what I want to say in english.

But in general my opinion is: Gavin did a lot for Bitcoin and I never had any doubts about his integrity. In this case he was too credulous and with a lack of professionalism. But: Bitcoin is not a company, G.A. is no "CEO", everybody is free to believe and free to say his opinion and also to change an opinion. And I believe that will happen if Wright doesn't show real proof for the public.

[finkelsteinMonster]

No, it isn't just an example of a simple mistake , but gross negligence with extreme levels of credulity after a great amount of evidence discrediting Wright from last year, now more evidence from many different sources discrediting wright further with clear explanations on how and why Craig Wright is a likely fraud and at minimum lying with evidence provided.... and after all this Gavin still suggests he believes CW is Satoshi. This is far beyond any mistake , and raises some serious questions to either his competence or authenticity. Either way, both classic and core should permanently revoke his commit access.

Yes yes! Gross negligence with extreme levels of credulity.  Raises some serious questions, it do!

[Mrpumperitis]

wright is NOT satoshi...100% bullshit, if im wrong ill dump all my BTC forever 

[Ted E. Bare]

I can no longer bear all this Wright talk. He is a fraud.