Whats up with Craig Wright?

[pooya87]

both cash and SV didnt 'take' hashrate away
both cash and SV didnt influence bitcoin

in other words you are trying to say that it was a coincidence that exactly at the same time as these forks occurred bitcoin hashrate went down. not to mention the EDA shenanigans of BCH and the fact that each time they reduced the difficulty bitcoin hashrate dropped and time between finding blocks increased noticeably. coincidence?!!

[1715236041]

1715236041

[1715236041]

1715236041

[ðºÞæ]

For the cost of a postage stamp anyone can verify if CSW filed the blacknet abstract to the australian government in 2001
With this knowledge trading based on that information before it's public is easy.

Has to be hand written and mailed.
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/faqs-for-individuals/how-do-i-make-a-freedom-of-information-request

Surely CW being a billionaire knows whats at stake with fraudulent claims and isnt wanting jail time. He would ruin himself is this doesn't exist.

[BitcoinFX]

Most folks don't even know who really won the Bcash / ABC / SV 'hash' wars ...

there is no winner as long as they both exist and can take hash rate from bitcoin's network! the war has a winner when the other side(s) gets annihilated, or at least we see one 51% attack from one chain against the other. SV is a good candidate for getting 51% attacked since it has a low hashrate already .

A 'winner' was / has already been declared, by some ... (certainly by definition of network 'hash' power / block count / stats. etc.,) ...

- https://coin.dance/

...

I do network security work myself. I spend half my day improving network security and preventing DDoS attacks.
~ Not sure why some accounts seem to be trying to draw me into such conversations as of late?

...

The Broken - Episode 1 - Kevin Rose first solo project *Satire* *NSFW*
- https://youtu.be/oYYnF1ZeOo8?t=474

[franky1]

both cash and SV didnt 'take' hashrate away
both cash and SV didnt influence bitcoin

in other words you are trying to say that it was a coincidence that exactly at the same time as these forks occurred bitcoin hashrate went down. not to mention the EDA shenanigans of BCH and the fact that each time they reduced the difficulty bitcoin hashrate dropped and time between finding blocks increased noticeably. coincidence?!!

SV (craigs drama) was november
bitcoins hashrate was OCTOBER

chicken / egg

the whole idea of SV was not to actually do anything. but to take an oppertunity of buying/leasing cheap hashpower and falsely proclaim he is influencing and stealing hashpower and doing things/causing trouble.

again, dont give him the pleasure of making him think his fake fame game is working, ignore the altcoin drama

the reality is a shift from old ASICs to new asics.
those involved knew before summer that a ASIC switch over was going to occur by Q4.
the SV drama was a effect, not a cause

[norachuks]

The Craig Wright is nobody to me because i don't want to know satoshi. I like the fact that he is a faceless man so please let us stop talking about this Craig Wright guy.

[BitcoinFX]

Can't / Won't Sign and Verify a single Bitcoin block (as bitcoins supposed creator).  

Yet, I, a humble bitcoin early adopter can Sign and Verify blocks on old wallets, blocks that do not even exist (as well as ones that do of course!) ...

Early "orphan" / stale block ... (from above wallet) - Transaction ID does not exist of course.
- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Orphan_Block

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Status: 0/unconfirmed, not in memory pool
Date: 09/04/2010 14:43
Source: Generated
Credit: (not accepted)
Net amount: 0.00000000 BTC
Transaction ID: a4781b7295cf8b9ca893f8f53128281055ce65065296028d653183047325b368
Transaction total size: 135 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 135 bytes
Output index: 0
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
13YnHMaM5N6Bu8PhNR61c8RvJzJuExR8sd
Gxk5GpFaCwS5rNMcoSxGyI33v2DsNzZkKN1qwj/G1xi0KLQ/q12uGSMikpnCQvUjnHN6XMjiVaEeB/1VkwTsf2A=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Raw transaction:
01000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fffff fff080415112a1c021801ffffffff0100f2052a01000000434104f3b55f4c4404a2168f655b6445 355b2e10371358f10773fcb8c0c75257d1fdf65e42d9de2461fa979439afec1724bb3b21f4db9da f71b4b65260d0010a901e54ac00000000

...

Another "orphan" / stale block  from this wallet ...

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Status: 0/unconfirmed, not in memory pool
Date: 30/08/2010 00:24
Source: Generated
Credit: (not accepted)
Net amount: 0.00000000 BTC
Transaction ID: 84ed48256490fa9c810e2fcb4d6425ddefe66f17a930e650f195d2d86456734a
Transaction total size: 134 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 134 bytes
Output index: 0
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1Pcug4mrmFE2bRSfmhZmkTcMg31qcHgoAT
HB6RUA3fY+r4v6OJlpk4jog84oKkBpMdU34KvFts7xnNYYyUSgsUDvMr4BoFSKF3r69K8oQPBqx5mcoKrNsT+Pk=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Raw transaction:
01000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fffff fff0704ffff001d0106ffffffff0100f2052a010000004341041b227fdd446449a74adbb9946b53 ef9c20e3cb74fc3269f7bbcf5bf11ba537e98d649dc19735d2aeda40e1587fc5652dda4ad458c79 289b643e54dfa4b4822eaac00000000

...

- https://youtu.be/CSvFpBOe8eY    

PM me if you need 'help' with that.  

...

- https://medium.com/@hoaxchain/the-hard-evidence-about-craig-wrights-backdated-pgp-key-step-by-step-guide-for-windows-users-bd99c47c495f

[vit05]

Of course he's a lying impostor. And it's strange that so few impostors have come up. But out of curiosity, has he ever commented on some of the choices he, being satoshi, chose to make? It is always interesting to see a liar scrambling to explain choices that he has no idea why they were made.

Why did he choose that name? "Satoshi Nakamoto"

[BitcoinFX]

https://medium.com/@Bitcoin_Beyond/forensic-report-raises-questions-about-australian-tax-offices-handling-of-craig-wright-probe-138843251ef5

Already read that in great detail.

Foul play alleged from all sides.

CSW claims to be Satoshi and yet has still not Signed any block as definitive proof.

I'm certainly not a troll, I used to communicate with Satoshi (on this very forum).

Unlike Craig, I have verified myself ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4630066.0

Craig (currently) being unable or unwilling to (legitimately) Sign anything has caused 2 major problems for BSV / nchain.

1) Not signing a stated claim is a false pretence.

2) The continuing duration of this false pretence has impacted on the entire crypto space, including the market.

...

If folks actually digested my own posts you would likely discover that I have not referred to Craig as a 'Faketoshi' or otherwise.

Innocent until proven guilty. However ...

Why does Craig avoid Bitcoin 'old timers' like the plague and/or not just come back to this forum to set the record straight? According to Craig's own story he had moved on to other things ... whilst leaving the Bitcoin community to both establish, maintain and build the project in his absence (and off their own backs!).

Do you think it is OK to retain the (metaphorical) last piece of the puzzle, to place the final piece and to proclaim wholeheartedly "I built all this" and "You are all wrong!" etc.,

...

People in the world
Do not doubt
It is teaching
Which is the
beginning of doubt.
- Zen poem

...

Again, this is Financial Cryptography, so do not trust. Sign and Verify.
Simply, Put up, or Shut up.
- https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+up+or+shut+up

- https://youtu.be/4oPddS8HujA   

[incomefromcoins]

Craig Wright is left only to make some filthy  statements on bitcoin and crypto industry he want to divert the investor's attention into his own project bitcoinsv

[cellard]

Start a petition to boycott any and all crypto conferences where Craig Wright is schedule to speak, albeit allowing him to attend for possible shit slinging by attendees ...

Ineffectual because "crypto" conference have long been thoroughly overrun with scammers. Everyone who takes a strongly principled position on not attending events with scammer sponsors or speakers are already rejecting almost all events in this space.

Scammers just get a much larger marginal return from promotional activities like conference speaking/sponsorships.  Conferences are almost all run as money making enterprises, so the fact that they're saturated with scammers is unsurprising.

Would you be wiling to participate in one of the Tone Vays' conferences? Either Unconfiscatable conference or the up and coming Understanding Bitcoin ones.

Websites:

http://unconfiscatable.com/
http://understandingbtc.com/

Adam Back and Wladimir Van Der Laan are going to understanding BTC. I think they are the only 2 decent conferences out there. Understanding BTC is aimed at Bitcoin devs mostly.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Start a petition to boycott any and all crypto conferences where Craig Wright is schedule to speak, albeit allowing him to attend for possible shit slinging by attendees ...

Ineffectual because "crypto" conference have long been thoroughly overrun with scammers. Everyone who takes a strongly principled position on not attending events with scammer sponsors or speakers are already rejecting almost all events in this space.

Scammers just get a much larger marginal return from promotional activities like conference speaking/sponsorships.  Conferences are almost all run as money making enterprises, so the fact that they're saturated with scammers is unsurprising.

Would you be wiling to participate in one of the Tone Vays' conferences? Either Unconfiscatable conference or the up and coming Understanding Bitcoin ones.

Websites:

http://unconfiscatable.com/
http://understandingbtc.com/

Adam Back and Wladimir Van Der Laan are going to understanding BTC. I think they are the only 2 decent conferences out there. Understanding BTC is aimed at Bitcoin devs mostly.

The first one is over and I missed it, for I live in Vegas. #Sad!

[Ucy]

I kind of think he was trying to make people understand that satoshi wasn't a real name.. . that it was a psdonym or something.
I doubt he is satoshi though. There is something not right about him

[cellard]

Start a petition to boycott any and all crypto conferences where Craig Wright is schedule to speak, albeit allowing him to attend for possible shit slinging by attendees ...

Ineffectual because "crypto" conference have long been thoroughly overrun with scammers. Everyone who takes a strongly principled position on not attending events with scammer sponsors or speakers are already rejecting almost all events in this space.

Scammers just get a much larger marginal return from promotional activities like conference speaking/sponsorships.  Conferences are almost all run as money making enterprises, so the fact that they're saturated with scammers is unsurprising.

Would you be wiling to participate in one of the Tone Vays' conferences? Either Unconfiscatable conference or the up and coming Understanding Bitcoin ones.

Websites:

http://unconfiscatable.com/
http://understandingbtc.com/

Adam Back and Wladimir Van Der Laan are going to understanding BTC. I think they are the only 2 decent conferences out there. Understanding BTC is aimed at Bitcoin devs mostly.

The first one is over and I missed it, for I live in Vegas. #Sad!

I think he will be making those conferences yearly ones so you can go on the next one. He's trying to get more people for the Understanding Bitcoin up and coming one, I would like to see more Core devs, specially people that aren't the usual suspects, other less known people. Also developers of other Bitcoin clients that aren't Core but still are also Bitcoin, those are often forgotten.

It has to be made clear to people that Core isn't forcing anyone to use their software. Anyone is free to start their own client and convince the rest of the network that their software is the best without forks involved. I would like to see this view discussed but Tone is too much of a Core fanboy for that, but still he is one of the best "celebs" on Bitcoin at the somewhat mainstream level.

[DooMAD]

It has to be made clear to people that Core isn't forcing anyone to use their software. Anyone is free to start their own client and convince the rest of the network that their software is the best without forks involved.

This is the tricky part.  What happens when someone feels the "best" software needs to include something that would result in a fork?  It's not something easily avoidable.  I think it's just something we have to be mature about.  We can't treat every fork proposal as a "coup" or "power grab", because that's not a healthy attitude.  But at the same time, if those proposing a fork feel strongly enough about their ideas, it's only fair for them to understand that they might need to move forward without support, as an altcoin, if the two sides can't reconcile their differences.  Longstanding deadlocks are not healthy for anyone in the community.

[franky1]

what doomad cannot reconcile or understand. is that 65% the community were not core 'happy'. but core opposers never used force or coersion.

yet it was the core 'happy' group that done the mandated activations, NYA tricks of deploy core roadmap and maybe get extra later, and the other stuff.

yes core had the tricks to take people off the network disagreeing with core even before cores actual feature they wanted voted in got the vote.
CODE and blockdata prove it.

so.. if doomads latest quote is anything to go by..

if a software client feels they need to include something that results in a hard fork. then let the honest nodes of TRUE consensus and byzantine generals solution cause the activation of the new feature if its acceptable, which THEN results in a fork for the minority. and not let allow a fork be the only reason the new feature gets the activation.
meaning no fork pre-activation. meaning no force or coercion

again to highlight the point that keeps getting tried to be brushed under the rug. no hard fork pre feature. just to fake a feature vote



this means if people truely, honestly like the feature, it gets activated without a pre-fork. where the new feature itself THEN causes a fork after activation whereby only a minority is affected by a feature fork
this means if people truely, honestly dislike the feature, it doesnt activated to cause the fork, thus nothing happens, no harm no foul

this ensures those proposing features actually think about features and actually propose things that would benefit the community rather than just their groups plan.
but hey we will just hear how doomad and thos who echo the same as him loves the idea that core can do as they please as consensus is meaningless and permissionless is everything and how core deserve to dictate the rules for other nodes to follow. and if people dont like it they can just f**k off

to spend a year+ defending a group pretending they are open and represent the community, and pretend they cant do nothing... but also say they dont need to listen/represent to the community and should do anything they please is utterly beyond just a flip flop. but admitting control, centralisation of decisions is now occuring. and no longer the consensus/byzantine generals solution is in place.

[DooMAD]

Note the part where I said it's something we have to be mature about, then cue franky1 being totally immature and fixating on his one favourite date where he can refer to an arbitrary 65% figure that doesn't actually mean anything in practice.  Then a bunch of fanciful wish-list stuff.

if a software client feels they need to include something that results in a hard fork. then let the honest nodes of TRUE consensus and byzantine generals solution cause the activation of the new feature if its acceptable, which THEN results in a fork for the minority. and not let allow a fork be the only reason the new feature gets the activation.
meaning no fork pre-activation. meaning no force or coercion

Call it "TRUE" consensus all you like, but you are powerless to make everyone accept your definition of what that is.  What you can't reconcile is that if you don't like date-based activations, then the method you'd naturally lean towards is bit signalling, but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.  You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations.

Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else says, consensus is going to happen naturally.  There's literally no point in trying to direct things in a direction you approve of by telling people what they can/can't/should/shouldn't code because it's not something you have any say over.  Just know that everyone is going to run what they think is best and that's how it's always going to be.  That's why your plea for "true" consensus falls on deaf ears.  We already have true consensus.  You just think it should be different, like "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree" etc.  It doesn't work like that.  People can ignore your vote if they want.  They can disconnect you if they want.  They can code stuff you don't like if they want. 

You can't force people to vote.  You can't force them to consider your idea.  You can't force anything.   

but to spend a year+ defending a group pretending they are open and represent the community, but also say they dont need to listen/represent to the community and should do anything they please is utterly admitting control, centralisation of decisions is now occuring. and no longer the consensus/byzantine generals solution is in place.

This only holds true if you believe users are "sheep".  Probably why you're the only one who thinks devs are "in control" when they clearly aren't. 

[franky1]

doomad you keep sweeping things under the rug and then move and meander the crap you spew out as "my idea"
do your research. and dont find someone from 2015+ who is just some mouthpiece.
i mean go all the way back to 2008-2015 and research devs, code, whitepapers, technical stuff that will teach you about what bitcoin truly is (pre core manipulation)

you really love turning real network changing events into social drama. purely because you love centralisation.
but your missing the whole point of bitcoin

though 'my idea' is just discussion... you pretend its code that is somehow actually causing network conflict.. again your not thinking logically

the only network conflict has been caused by core devs
you pretend no on is able to force their 'idea' in.. yet then say core can do as they please and activate things by dat and force things in.
again. stop flip flopping. do some research, find the blockdata, stats, dev admissions and code which supports a flip or a flop.. and then stick with one narrative.
admit core now control the network. or admit they never should control the network. stop flip flopping

p. s stop trying to insinuate that core are just chimney sweepers and that somehow my forum discussions are more powerful than code.. as that is your massive logic error which you try to use to deflect the discussion away from CODE that DEVS write

its why i dont give a crap about CW. because he aint a dev and he aint playing with bitcoin. if you think CW is an influencer. then your really missing the point of bitcoin and the understanding of devs, code, network,and how things work

[franky1]

Call it "TRUE" consensus all you like, but you are powerless to make everyone accept your definition of what that is.  What you can't reconcile is that if you don't like date-based activations, then the method you'd naturally lean towards is bit signalling, but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.  You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations.

Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else says, consensus is going to happen naturally.  There's literally no point in trying to direct things in a direction you approve of by telling people what they can/can't/should/shouldn't code because it's not something you have any say over.  Just know that everyone is going to run what they think is best and that's how it's always going to be.  That's why your plea for "true" consensus falls on deaf ears.  We already have true consensus.  You just think it should be different, like "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree" etc.  It doesn't work like that.  People can ignore your vote if they want.  They can disconnect you if they want.  They can code stuff you don't like if they want.  

You can't force people to vote.  You can't force them to consider your idea.  You can't force anything.  

This only holds true if you believe users are "sheep".  Probably why you're the only one who thinks devs are "in control" when they clearly aren't.  

funny thing.
switch the "you" for core. and put it against the 2017 events and try to actually keep up your pretense once the shoe is put on the other foot.
your whole last X months of flip flopping fail when you swap your comments around to be aimed at core instead of me

here is another prime example of a massive logic failure
"but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.
You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations."

translation.
you cant stop someone doing something. you cant stop someone preventing something

translation.
someone cannot stop you driving a car. you cant stop someone taking your car away

just shows how you dont understand the byzantine generals issue and how satoshi found a solution to it called consensus in 2008-9
all your concerned about is how cor bypassed consensus and your happy that they can now do as they please

again for emphasis doomad. as its been your main social drama switch
you keep thinking code does not matter and how a discussion on a forum has more network effect.. seriously sort out that silly echo you keep using as it just makes no logic sense.

[DooMAD]

here is another prime example of a massive logic failure
"but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.
You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations."

The only logic fail is yours.  You see flips flops because you don't understand English.  

You whine about disconnecting nodes.
You whine about "mandated" activations where someone picks a date for a fork to occur.  

You can't prevent either of those things.  If people run the code that does those things, they happen.  There is no flip flop, you are just a simpleton.

[franky1]

here is another prime example of a massive logic failure
"but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.
You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations."

The only logic fail is yours.  You see flips flops because you don't understand English.  

You whine about disconnecting nodes.
You whine about "mandated" activations where someone picks a date for a fork to occur.  

You can't prevent either of those things.  If people run the code that does those things, they happen.  There is no flip flop, you are just a simpleton.

and then he will later say "you cant enforce either of those things"
typical flip flopping

anyway the point is. using a fork (not feature activation) purely to cut out a certain group of people. to then SEPARATELY activate a feature. is not consensus.

but hey.. flip flop like a fish out of water all you like.
but atleast try understanding the whole point of what bitcoin is about. even if core have bypassed consensus to do as the blockchain, code and as you now FINALLY admit. mandate forks via dates and disconnecting nodes. atleast admit that core do have power and they aint just some chimney sweeper, powerless to do anything.
and dont even try to insinuate or meander it back into some social drama that i (on a discussion board) am some how a network threat or that i am the one that is changing the network maliciously and how core have to defend themselves against me.

find logic, do research and understand the point of bitcoin. stop the social drama games with your flip flops

doomad
for months now you and your echo chamber have been basically saying
X cant happen because it involves people to agree to X
X cant happen because Y
Y cant stop X
Y has no power
franky needs to stop trying to change the network with Y
Y Y Y
no one talk about X
franky stop trying to force Y
lets all talk about Y
X never happened
X happened and no one can stop them
X can do as they please
franky is forcing Y changes on the network and core should stop Y
franky franky franky

while completely missing the point that X did happen. and it happened by not using the consensus that has been existant for years.
trying to make it sound as if cores the unicorn and im the network attacker is foolish meandering and just social drama.
trying to make it out that consenus and the byzantine gnrals issue is something that only existed by some altcoiner speach of 2015+ is foolish.
trying to be a core lover but then hide it, but then admit it, but then hide it is foolish.
all your doing is flip flopping for social drama and not actually recognising the point.


trying to meander DEV/CODE/NETWORK events into "shh lets talk about people that dont write network changing code".. thats your goal.. i get it.
now move on and try something new.

meanwhile.
ill continue to highlight when the network code has changed due to devs, whre the change has been controversial and not actually benefited the network but done to promote some central agenda
if you dont like open discussion of such, hit the ignore button