Craig W. only claims to be Satoshi, because he knows the real Satoshi is dead?

[nutildah]

Truth be told, Gavin did far more for bitcoin than you and I ever have and ever will so if the man wants to have an opinion, let him have it.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. He never apologized for the things he did, and somewhat still supports them or never retracted his support properly. By letting stuff like this happen we are strengthening, and actually encourging attacks and loss of funds that happened to to common Joe believing people like him - Yes, Gavin is both directly and indirectly responsible for uncountable financial damage. Back before these things actually were happening, I was spamming on the forum and people privately left and right to save as many individuals from being burned by the orchestrated scam as I could..
There is a very good difference between the past Gavin (pre-attacks) and the current one. The former deserves much credit and trust, the latter neither. Don't "godify" somebody and/or their contributions just because they were a decent software engineer at the right place and the right time, by chance..

How am I wrong? You're saying nullius had more involvement with the fundamental development of bitcoin than Gavin? 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)?

Nobody's "godifying" anybody. What I did was use Gavin's final words on the subject to demonstrate that there exists some doubt in his mind that Craig is Satoshi, whereas BSV supporters believe there is none and go around misrepresenting his actual beliefs. Then nullius construed my post to be a defense of Gavin which needed to be attacked, which was both insulting and stupid because it was nothing of the sort.

I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility, and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking.

Regardless, what happened already happened and there's no changing the past. Shitting on Gavin now isn't going to change anything for the better. Shitting on him for not yet completely taking back his words on Wright isn't going to change anything either.

[1714117937]

1714117937

[1714117937]

1714117937

[1714117937]

1714117937

[Lauda]

How am I wrong? You're saying nullius had more involvement with the fundamental development of bitcoin than Gavin?

I purposely left out these parts for obvious reasons!

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)?

Based on what I said in my previous post, and based on who Gavin was, he should not have had any opinion that isn't based on science and peer-review. He chose not to trust his former colleagues at the time, for whatever reason this may be.

I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility, and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking.

I'd like to think this as well, but based on his previous attempt at forking Bitcoin with Hearn and continual support for these schemes I can't reasonably conclude this. Duped multiple times? Duped to this day? When will this fork-duping stop then?

Shitting on Gavin now isn't going to change anything for the better. Shitting on him for not yet completely taking back his words on Wright isn't going to change anything either.

Oh, but I am just starting with Gavin and Craig. It's quote a different perspective if you weren't heavily involved in things like this:

Back before these things actually were happening, I was spamming on the forum and people privately left and right to save as many individuals from being burned by the orchestrated scam as I could..

Not that this makes me any better than anyone at anything. It just made me personally involved with countless victims. We are talking about all kinds of losses - from very small to very detrimental (almost going bankrupt) because of Gavin (and others). I can't say "it's okay, what has happened has happened" after witnessing this. I am not asking you to hate him or to vilify him, but I ask you to also consider why people like me have the perspective on him that we do - and why we must act on it, as not acting on it would represent a fundamental self-betrayal (and that of the victims we had a chance to interact with).

Thanks uncle!  

[DooMAD]

Nobody's "godifying" anybody. What I did was use Gavin's final words on the subject to demonstrate that there exists some doubt in his mind that Craig is Satoshi, whereas BSV supporters believe there is none and go around misrepresenting his actual beliefs. Then nullius construed my post to be a defense of Gavin which needed to be attacked, which was both insulting and stupid because it was nothing of the sort.

I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility, and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking.

I see where you're coming from.  The problem is that Faketoshi has become such a sore point for many that even the perception of a partial endorsement needs to be challenged.  Have to be really careful about how we word things now.  Your clarification makes sense to me, so I hope that's as far as it goes.  I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that this is not something users will start falling out over on a regular basis.

[Lauda]

Nobody's "godifying" anybody. What I did was use Gavin's final words on the subject to demonstrate that there exists some doubt in his mind that Craig is Satoshi, whereas BSV supporters believe there is none and go around misrepresenting his actual beliefs. Then nullius construed my post to be a defense of Gavin which needed to be attacked, which was both insulting and stupid because it was nothing of the sort.

I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility, and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking.

I see where you're coming from.  The problem is that Faketoshi has become such a sore point for many that even the perception of a partial endorsement needs to be challenged.  Have to be really careful about how we word things now.  Your clarification makes sense to me, so I hope that's as far as it goes.  I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that this is not something users will start falling out over on a regular basis.

This is another side-effect of what Wright, and people with 'partial endorsement' like Gavin did. We want the same thing more or less, but the methodology is the differentiating factor and this causes yet more fighting that is wasting time of people that should be building things. This is actually one of the major goals of these social attacks, and I'm quite glad that people like sipa didn't fall into this trap! Make peace everyday and as a community fight back against the BSV scam.

[nutildah]

Not that this makes me any better than anyone at anything. It just made me personally involved with countless victims. We are talking about all kinds of losses - from very small to very detrimental (almost going bankrupt) because of Gavin (and others). I can't say "it's okay, what has happened has happened" after witnessing this. I am not asking you to hate him or to vilify him, but I ask you to also consider why people like me have the perspective on him that we do - and why we must act on it, as not acting on it would represent a fundamental self-betrayal (and that of the victims we had a chance to interact with).

OK, fair enough.

I see where you're coming from.  The problem is that Faketoshi has become such a sore point for many that even the perception of a partial endorsement needs to be challenged.  Have to be really careful about how we word things now.  Your clarification makes sense to me, so I hope that's as far as it goes.  I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that this is not something users will start falling out over on a regular basis.

Somehow this:

So Gavin believes there's an equal chance that Craig is a "master scammer." The narrative that he completely believes Wright is Satoshi has been bogus since before BSV was even an idea. Either way, he clearly says Wright should be ignored. You never see BSVers talk about this blog entry when they talk about Gavin, its always a YouTube clip of an interview he gave _before_ he wrote this post.

got misconstrued into meaning this:

You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?

I suppose I should have just answered the question by saying "no."

[Lauda]

Somehow this:

So Gavin believes there's an equal chance that Craig is a "master scammer." The narrative that he completely believes Wright is Satoshi has been bogus since before BSV was even an idea. Either way, he clearly says Wright should be ignored. You never see BSVers talk about this blog entry when they talk about Gavin, its always a YouTube clip of an interview he gave _before_ he wrote this post.

got misconstrued into meaning this:

You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?

I suppose I should have just answered the question by saying "no."

See, I keep asking people to de-escalate when you end up clashing in some argument especially when you are on the same side. The stuff between you two quickly spiraled downhill, and no it does not matter "who started it first" or whatever (I didn't even read the beginning only the ending). Try finding common ground, or at the very least not making loaded questions and attacking each other!  

[nullius]

I, nullius, am a 118-year-old Russian princess named Anastasia!

I'm not reading the portion of this post that doesn't apply to me. I have things to do.

So, your reply begins with a fit of narcissism.  Protip:  The world does not revolve around you.  None of my post was about you, personally—a screen name “nutildah” on an Internet forum.  Your supposition that I care about that is lamentably mistaken.  And if you consider Reputation squabbles to be impliedly more important “things to do” than stopping Faketoshi, then your priorities are—different than mine.

I have things to do, myself.  One of my top priorities is to fight back against malicious attacks on Bitcoin:  The Bitcoin that gives us freedom.

Two days ago, for the Anastasia thread, I began writing an essay on how that thread may be the beginning of the most important thing that I have yet done in my life!  Greg Maxwell was right when he urged last month that the community can do better in protecting Bitcoin from malicious attacks by liars and scammers.  He inspired me.  “Merited by nullius (20)”

If I can do my part to lead by example, and to arm others with stronger arguments and more powerful strategies, then that will achieve a result far bigger than me, far more important than me as an individual.  My glory thus will be only and exactly what I have done for a cause that has brought inestimable value to the lives of millions, and should in the future free billions.

It is certainly a cause more important than your petty little ego, nutildah.

And it is much bigger than Gavin Andresen, for all he may style himself as a big-shot.  Bitcoin is the cause.  For me to call out Gavin as he deserves is only the effect.

What? No you goof. I'm not "excusing" Gavin --  [...] How do you twist this into me making excuses for Gavin?

Now, you are equivocating—quite dishonestly, at that.  The substantial effect of your post was to defend and excuse Gavin.  It was minimization.

Whether you consciously intended this is objectively irrelevant to the Gavin question, because this is not about you.  (It is relevant to your own reputation; but see above for my own opinion of your personal importance.)

I'm simply relaying his _actual words_, which are _less_ favorable for BSV than BSV shills would have us believe.

You did not simply do that.  In the context of the discussion, the substantial effect of blandly parroting his equivocation with some moderate negativity about “the narrative”, without further comment, was to minimize and excuse what he did wrong.  And my inference as to your intent to defend Gavin was in fact correct, as you later make unequivocal:

Truth be told, Gavin did far more for bitcoin than you and I ever have and ever will so if the man wants to have an opinion, let him have it.

Traitors are the worst of enemies; and treason is oft called the one crime that is truly unforgivable.  Marcus Junius Brutus surely did much for Rome; but he will be forever be cursed, damnatio memoriae, as a vile wretch who murdered Caesar.  E tu, Gavin?

Men who have fought and bled on the battlefield for their countries have had their medals stripped and their monuments demolished, and been hanged (even drawn and quartered) as the worst of criminals—after they turned traitor.  Even if never caught and hanged, they have always been damned in history.

Reductio ad absurdum, would you argue that Benedict Arnold should be praised by Americans for all he had done for their country?  He was a great general—George Washington’s most-trusted man, who could have been as famous and beloved as Washington himself!  Surely, he did as much for America as Gavin did for Bitcoin.  As much.

Don’t lecture me about what Gavin has done for Bitcoin, in reply to my condemnation of what he has done against Bitcoin.  Your praise of Gavin, and the grounds of that praise, only make him worse.

Gavin has done massive actual harm:  Bitcoin Foundation, XT, Faketoshi “verification”, Btrash shilling...  You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?

If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.

How terribly rude of you—and quite behind the times on the latest Bitcoiner slang.  Here, let me help you:  Let us learn from a boor who, in the big picture, has done a little bit less to damage Bitcoin than Gavin has overall.

Go fork yourself, nutildah.

2016, with obsolete language:

2018, after Faketoshi stuck a fork in his back, Jihan changes his tune and upgrades his F-bombs:

A note for Bitcoin maximalists, and nullius fans (who are a strict subset of Bitcoin maximalists):  My post documenting the new Bitcoin F-word (a negative counterpart to Bitcoiner slang “HODL”) has been delayed by my ineptitude at drawing funny cartoons.  Some custom Bitcoin-political cartoons are needed to break up my walls of text in several planned Bitcoin advocacy threads.  If anyone with even stick-figure-cartoon level freehand drawing skills (or preferably better) would be so kind as to contact me, I would be much obliged.  Thank you.

To be clear, I am documenting actual usage of “fork” as the dirtiest insult in the Bitcoiner vocabulary.  I have even seen it pop up occasionally on Did TMAN say a bad word?.  I did not invent an obvious pun which has been occasionally seen on /r/Bitcoin, etc. for years.  I may have somewhat started to encourage its recent use—for the greater good of Bitcoin. ;-)

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.

I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility

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 Me

Let’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?

and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking.

It is indeed puzzling why you, of all people, would step up to minimize the single act by the self-styled “Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist” which instantly gave Faketoshi mass-credibility in the mass-media.  As I have said repeatedly in various ways (including on Gavin’s trust page), Gavin created a monster—and not as an isolated act, but as part of his years-long pattern of the odious so-called “Bitcoin Foundation”, backstabbing Core with XT, later on shilling Btrash...  How many times need I repeat myself?  Are you paying attention?

Shitting on Gavin now isn't going to change anything for the better. Shitting on him for not yet completely taking back his words on Wright isn't going to change anything either.

That is shortsightedness and a shallow view of the situation.  You do not understand what I am doing; for I think strategically, as you evidently do not.  That is not my problem, and is certainly no reason for you to condescend to me.

ELI5 for you:  The Faketoshi scam is a tower of lies that stands on a foundation of lies.  Although thanks in large part to Gavin, it has grown far bigger than Gavin’s “verification”, I am dynamiting a key piece of the foundation.  I also aim to provide a salutary object example of what happens to the reputations of people who betray their own principles.  That would be beneficial to Bitcoin, which will fail if it is not protected by people with high principles.

I am a Core supporter—as an effect, not a cause.  If Core were to betray the principles that they have consistently, courageously upheld for a decade, then I would repudiate and condemn them.  Same with Blockstream:  I admire them because they do great work for an important cause, because they employ people with technical skill that far exceeds mine for that cause—not because they are big-shots.  Gavin “shit all over” the magnificent work of such people for years.  I aim to dish it back to him; and if you don’t like it, then I will duly file your opinions in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️


P.S., if you wish to deserve a less contemptuous response, please consider not making a fool of yourself by condescending to me when you are wrong.  You presumed to dish it out against a better chef; bon appétit.

[nutildah]

whatever man, you're nuts if you think i'm reading all that. you win, OK?

until next time.

[nullius]

whatever man, you're nuts if you think i'm reading all that. you win, OK?

My mistake was presuming a literacy level above that of Twitter.

I am here for substance.  I am willing to invest my time in substance (and without a paid signature—for freedom, not “for free”).  If you are not reading it, then it is not for you.

until next time.

Have a nice day.

[bittraffic]

Its possible that CW killed him (SN) too which is why he is very confident that the real Satoshi will not pop out one day to provide a sign message in bitcointalk claiming he isn't CW. It is possible that Satoshi is dead, it be best to also consider the rest of the people who claimed to be satoshi to be besides CW because this will mean there are many of them.

[coinfinger]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

Or maybe he did it because he knows that the true Satoshi wouldn’t do anything or say something about it. There are lots of people that already came out and claimed to be the real Satoshi before Craig came up with those claims of being the real one. So if the real Satoshi is still alive and never did anything about it, that would give him the courage to go ahead.

So, I am not really saying that he’s alive or that he’s dead, hence I have nothing to prove it. Satoshi might be out there and even enjoying his life and watching what’s happening but we are here unnecessarily worrying too much about it. I mean to say everything is having 50% of chances and knowing the actual truth must be too great rather than simply living out of assumptions.

[podpaymentcoin]

1. Satoshi is very much alive. He just left the alias behind and moved onto other things.

2. There is a reason why faketoshi claims and the cryptocurrency civil war started in 2014.

EXHIBIT A: September 2014
satoshin@gmx.com is compromised
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0

EXHIBIT B: May 2016
Craig Wright comes out to press claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191165

Q: Who had access to satoshin@gmx.com after Satoshi left? The mailbox was left intact.
A: International intelligence agencies (confirmed via two western intel sources), then hacker(s). In the initial years agency access kept the email alive even when GMX policies would gave deleted and removed account! It is unknown how the hacker(s) got final access before GMX removed account.

Q: Did any of the mails reveal Satoshis ID?
A: No.

Q: So why is this important?
A: Anyone who got access to the emails was able to defer who is not Satoshi out of the key current players with much greater certainty (versus the general public). Like the game 'Guess Who', once key names had been eliminated, it allowed for more emboldened plans. Not just by faketoshi but wider players to take control of the cryptosphere.


ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

[bithisach]

Another theory about Craig Wright aren't we have enough from this person?
I wonder what would be the next topic about him everytime a famous person speaks about him would be a big topic on crypto.

It's our fault for keeping this thread alive. This if my first comment on this thread but, yeah. If it's relevant is because we've made it relevant ourselves, even if its just to criticize it/him

[Dabs]

I read it all @nullius.

Maybe we should say the same thing about Jeff Garzik? He, "abandoned" core and tried to set up his own "bitcoin unlimited" or something along those lines.

When I questioned that act, others questioned my competence... (they could not question my integrity I think; or maybe it's too difficult to question a reputation.)

This is the same line of thinking I have about a great many people who have done a great many things in the past, but then decide to do something bad later in life, or are somehow coerced to do it. Martyrs are made because they died for their beliefs, not by compromising them.

For the religious out there, if you have lived the life of a saint up until the day you die, but you despair and commit a mortal sin willingly and willfully, you still go to hell. (It's arguable about suicide that in the last moments before death, one may have repented, so that's a different story altogether.) Conversely, if you have been wicked your entire life, but repent dying on a cross, that same day after your death, you could be in paradise.

[canaris1985]

Discussing Craig on this forum is like bashing on flatearthers on a science forum. Everyone knows he's BSer but still people get pissed off

[JayJuanGee]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

We don't know! We don't have any knowledge who is the real satoshi Nakamoto is and if he is still alive or not. We don't know why mr. Craig Wright is claiming that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto, but the thing is what if he really knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is? And he already know that the real Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't have the plan on revealing himself so Mr. Craig Wright is claiming it in order to gain the popularity that he wants. What if that is the case?

I don't mean to be too dismissive about potentially valid explorations that might be raised, but these kinds of pie in the sky speculations regarding what might be potentially "valid" CSW motives are common tools for trolls and shills to place too much emphasis on what is highly unlikely rather than focusing on more plausible scenarios...

In this case, the more plausible scenario is that the CSW is a fucktwat scam artist that just makes shit up and throws spaghetti at the wall until something might stick, and in that regard, it does not matter hardly at all to speculate in a way that attempts to cause CSW to appear anything less than narcissistic and/or deluded in regards to what he knows or might know.

[Stedsm]

--snip--
In this case, the more plausible scenario is that the CSW is a fucktwat scam artist that just makes shit up and throws spaghetti at the wall until something might stick, and in that regard, it does not matter hardly at all to speculate in a way that attempts to cause CSW to appear anything less than narcissistic and/or deluded in regards to what he knows or might know.

He has become a sensation no matter what we are speaking about him here or anywhere - at least he is in the talks which means he is something an important topic to discuss about. That's what he wants and that's what we're giving him - utter importance to a debate about a non-sensical scammer trying to gain fame by endorsing himself as Satoshi no matter even if he gets fucked in his face, he'd still not stop himself claiming that he is SN, yes he is a SuNky dude who can't resist the fame this Bitcoin thing could get to anyone who could actually prove that he/she is Satoshi.

[nullius]

I read it all @nullius.

The adage (not originally mine) is, “If you read it, it’s for you.”

Maybe we should say the same thing about Jeff Garzik? He, "abandoned" core and tried to set up his own "bitcoin unlimited" or something along those lines.

Indeed, jgarzik’s political game with BU didn’t work out so well—so he became a NYA/2Xer.  I just lolled at his current signature:  “Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.”  (Bold underscore mine.)  In 2014 (cough), he was highly trusted and widely admired!  Actually, till 2017...

Traitors always evoke an intense feeling of horror and personal violation in those who trusted them.  Whenever I think of jgarzik, I think of dooglus’ comment which I memorialized in this screenshot when I was a Newbie, when I had been actively posting for less than five days:  “What have you done with the old jgarzik and how much will it cost us to buy him back?”  This was when 2X tried to subvert the Bitcoin P2P network; committer: jgarzik, whose code is not trustworthy.  Read that 28ebbdb commit for details.  Underhanded bastard.

Reading in the recent release notes a list of “Network fork safety enhancements”, I can well imagine the internal monologue which must have gone through some dev’s head.  “I need to finally finish this patch for Segwit change address support (plus tests, tests, tests).  No wait, first I need to find some ingenious hack to ban fork nodes who lie about their identities so that they can waste node resources and try to subvert the whole network.  Network safety first.  Sigh.”

It requires prodigious engineering effort to produce mission-critical financial software which handles hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of value, operates in a hostile network environment, and is never, ever allowed to make the sort of mistake which could drop huge amounts of money on the floor because somebody rushed the change address patch.  I’m so glad that Core gives this to you, me, and everybody else for free so we can run our businesses, whether or not we pitch in what we can for what is an open-source project.

For sure i'm not going to invest money to create own work arounds or own patches to core code.

Another one of my Newbie posts, from when I had been actively posting for seventeen days:

You fork, you die.

Genuine Bitcoin has crushed numerous forks and attempted forks:  “Bitcoin XT”, “Bitcoin Unlimited”, “Bitcoin Classic”, and the “New York Agreement” (misnamed “Segwit2X”; nothing to do with Segwit), to name but a few.  These no longer exist.  For the current outbreak of forks, if you wish to claim some fork coins, then dump them in exchange for real Bitcoin, and enjoy your free bitcoins.  Otherwise, simply ignore.  Anything from “Bitcoin Cash” to “Bitcoin Super Diamond Plus2X Plutonium With Ponies” is only a scam; and these scams will die sooner or later, just as did their antecedents.

There are many pretenders to the Bitcoin title.  However:

There is only one Bitcoin.

(Note:  Quote changed to refer to an imgur upload of the image that I originally obtained from http://segwit.party/nya/tombstone.jpg)

That tombstone could also read:  Here lies Jeff Garzik’s reputation in Bitcoinland.

Whereas Gavin Andresen is worse, much worse.


JayJuanGee:  ++occam

(Not that that negates the likelihood of a leash on the grand-scale scammer and identity thief who seems thus far curiously immune to consequences.  I could never get away with what he’s been doing for years.  Cui bono?)

[xtraelv]

(Not that that negates the likelihood of a leash on the grand-scale scammer and identity thief who seems thus far curiously immune to consequences.  I could never get away with what he’s been doing for years.  Cui bono?)

Not immune from consequences.

Michael Ryan and  DeMorgan Information  Security Systems Pty Limited
v
Craig Wright and Lynn Wright







Australian tax office investigation and ruling.



Ira Kleiman v Craig Steven Wright





https://static.coindesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Order-_CSW.pdf

[Dabs]

... anyone who could actually prove that he/she is Satoshi.

Personally, If I could prove myself as Satoshi, that implies I have the private keys,  I'd rather just cash out some of the coins. I'll probably start at the tail end (closer to present time rather than closer to genesis block.) I'm almost certain Satoshi had been able to mine some later blocks which flew under the radar and not attributable to anyone in particular.

There isn't any evidence or proof (and there could be none at all) but isn't it likely he would have stuck around at least until after the first halving, just to do some test mining and see the reward drop from 50 to 25?

Would probably split the forked coins too.