SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper

[amishmanish]

--snip--because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi.

You quote yourself as some sort of expert by saying that "I am the one who had the last laugh when i bought Bitcoin back in 2011". There were countless others like you who chose the same. During the block size debate, they concluded that keeping block size low and working on other structural improvements was necessary so that running a node and self-verification of the blockchain remains as decentralized as possible.

People like you defend this stupiditiy called BullShitVision proclaiming stuff like:

1. That fraud is Satoshi.
2. It doesn't matter that the whole economic activity and financial freedom should be governed by "data centers".
3. Running a basic node should require a minimum 10+ Mbps connection.

You go against the very principles of bitcoin with your childish assumptions that "centralization is professionalization". Any self-respecting bitcoiner recognizes the crap that comes out of Wright's mouth and how far removed he is from Satoshi's principles with his asinine patents and flaunting of credentials like they mean anything.

Your confession that "I am right because i know who Satoshi is" even after all the foolish pranks he is pulling off on newbies in the name of professionalism means little.

[nutildah]

Hyena is trolling out of desperation. What kind of a person says "I know for a fact that Craig is Satoshi" and then runs away from his statement? Well, a troll.

He wants us to think he's an authority on the subject when in fact he's a dev for SV-related projects and has a lot of money (and/or credibility) tied up in its success.

Regardless, the subject matter being discussed here has nothing to do with the technical aspects of BSV (its basically the same thing as Bitcoin Cash with some minor alterations). It has to do with whether or not Craig is an honest individual. Hyena is certainly no expert on that.

As for the profound technical brilliance of BSV, well:

Bitcoin SV (BSV) Nodes Are Accidentally Connecting to Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Nodes

Feb 8, 2020

An issue has arisen on Bitcoin SV (BSV). Its nodes accidentally connect to some Bitcoin Cash (BCH) nodes when in safe mode.

Bitcoin SV (BSV) is a hard fork of Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and it seems that its architects did not change much. Bitcoin SV’s shoddy engineering allows for some BSV nodes to connect to BCH nodes when in safe mode...

The issue was brought to the attention of devs last week, and it was unfixed until recently. According to the comment on GitHub, the Bitcoin Cash blockchain is longer, which sometimes fools the Bitcoin SV node when in safe mode. It automatically enters safe mode when it finds a longer but invalid chain. The temporary solution now is to force-disable safe mode.

The issue underscores how similar BSV is to BCH—so similar that, apparently, even the nodes themselves sometimes struggle to tell the chains apart. The fact that the issue was allowed to persist for so long is also damning in its own right. Bitcoin SV has been live since November 2018, and only now this issue is being brought to light. Either the devs or doing a poor job or no one is paying attention to the actual architecture of Bitcoin SV.

Bitcoin SV has often faced criticism for the divisive activities of its founder, Craig Wright. Recently, even the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, weighed in on the controversy: he says that BSV “offers nothing” and that it absolutely will not be used by Wikipedia. The comments came after BSV fans were speculating Wales might come out in support of BSV after committing to a speaking slot at an upcoming CoinGeek conference.

[hv_]

Hyena is trolling out of desperation. What kind of a person says "I know for a fact that Craig is Satoshi" and then runs away from his statement? Well, a troll.

He wants us to think he's an authority on the subject when in fact he's a dev for SV-related projects and has a lot of money (and/or credibility) tied up in its success.

Regardless, the subject matter being discussed here has nothing to do with the technical aspects of BSV (its basically the same thing as Bitcoin Cash with some minor alterations). It has to do with whether or not Craig is an honest individual. Hyena is certainly no expert on that.

As for the profound technical brilliance of BSV, well:

Bitcoin SV (BSV) Nodes Are Accidentally Connecting to Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Nodes

Feb 8, 2020

An issue has arisen on Bitcoin SV (BSV). Its nodes accidentally connect to some Bitcoin Cash (BCH) nodes when in safe mode.

Bitcoin SV (BSV) is a hard fork of Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and it seems that its architects did not change much. Bitcoin SV’s shoddy engineering allows for some BSV nodes to connect to BCH nodes when in safe mode...

The issue was brought to the attention of devs last week, and it was unfixed until recently. According to the comment on GitHub, the Bitcoin Cash blockchain is longer, which sometimes fools the Bitcoin SV node when in safe mode. It automatically enters safe mode when it finds a longer but invalid chain. The temporary solution now is to force-disable safe mode.

The issue underscores how similar BSV is to BCH—so similar that, apparently, even the nodes themselves sometimes struggle to tell the chains apart. The fact that the issue was allowed to persist for so long is also damning in its own right. Bitcoin SV has been live since November 2018, and only now this issue is being brought to light. Either the devs or doing a poor job or no one is paying attention to the actual architecture of Bitcoin SV.

Bitcoin SV has often faced criticism for the divisive activities of its founder, Craig Wright. Recently, even the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, weighed in on the controversy: he says that BSV “offers nothing” and that it absolutely will not be used by Wikipedia. The comments came after BSV fans were speculating Wales might come out in support of BSV after committing to a speaking slot at an upcoming CoinGeek conference.

Nope - nothing you provide holds any reasonable checks

the only thing that holds a mindful conversation would be to agree to disagree - you just cant

Nice try to accuse others trolling, being the one
 - classic concept

Play your little block game - have fun

[nutildah]

Nope

Nope to your nope. See how easy that is?

Anybody can do what you're doing.

[hv_]

Nope

Nope to your nope. See how easy that is?

Anybody can do what you're doing.

dto

[xtraelv]

Nope

Nope to your nope. See how easy that is?

Anybody can do what you're doing.

All they are doing is censorship by noise. They have nothing of any value to offer to the conversation and their only aim is to drown out the facts published in this thread by writing nothing of value.

[hv_]

Nope

Nope to your nope. See how easy that is?

Anybody can do what you're doing.

All they are doing is censorship by noise. They have nothing of any value to offer to the conversation and their only aim is to drown out the facts published in this thread by writing nothing of value.

Writing / posting anything is for 'free' - what do you expect?

Metanet will fix that

 

[nutildah]

Writing / posting anything is for 'free' - what do you expect?

Metanet will fix that

 

It's a laugh alright. So you won't be using Metanet then, I take it?

Not that anybody will, because it doesn't exist outside of a paid membership. Its kind of like joining the Faketoshi Fan Club for those who want to throw money at Craig directly. Right now, Metanet consists of 3 YouTube videos. Take a look for yourself:

https://metanet.icu/

Decentraland will be hosting full-fledged virtual orgies before Metanet has its first actual user.

[BitcoinFX]

Satoshi Nakamoto – Bitcoin Creator Revealed
- https://youtu.be/H2euMNmsb_s

 

...

...snip...

"Craig Wright - His Bitcoin Fraud Fundament

We know that Craig started to fraud his way into the Bitcoin arena in the second half of 2013.

Let's check out how he build the foundation to that fraud.

1/17"
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1225479475456024585

...

BSV is "Cracked, inSecure and Generally Broken" - SWIM

...

"Six days after the BSV Genesis downgrade, it appears more and more to me that some 80-85 nodes have forked off and are creating a new chain after block 620538. Another ~30 nodes are left behind in the process.

Only ~250 nodes are now left.

A year ago, BSV had 636 nodes."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1226799775711989760


 


...

"Satoshi advocated for separation of data systems to enable scalability, even the minimal BitDNS data. He was totally against piling everything into Bitcoin’s blockchain - the exact opposite of what Craig Wright is trying to do!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917 "

- https://twitter.com/fluffypony/status/1225662529013088256

...

Now go here:

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg53783160#msg53783160

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg53798082#msg53798082

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg53806826#msg53806826

...

BSV is a scurge on this entire industry. Avoid it like the plague. Do not use any services that list and/or endorse it. Cease and desist.

BitcoinSV is NOT Bitcoin and CSW is NOT Satoshi.

...

*Satire* *NSFW*

Borgore & Sikdope - Unicorn Zombie Apocalypse (Official Music Video)
- https://youtu.be/CPXv392pc9k

[hv_]

Writing / posting anything is for 'free' - what do you expect?

Metanet will fix that

 

It's a laugh alright. So you won't be using Metanet then, I take it?

Not that anybody will, because it doesn't exist outside of a paid membership. Its kind of like joining the Faketoshi Fan Club for those who want to throw money at Craig directly. Right now, Metanet consists of 3 YouTube videos. Take a look for yourself:

https://metanet.icu/

Decentraland will be hosting full-fledged virtual orgies before Metanet has its first actual user.

The internet will go more quality with micro-payments.

So you might stay nichy ?

[Hyena]

None of these documents were forged by a disgruntled employee.

They were presented by CSW himself in court. The document is notarized by CSWs lawyer. The address was used by CSW as equity in his business.

So either he owns the address and is in possession of  the MtGox stolen funds or it was used falsely as collateral in a fraudulent business transaction.
(The business transaction was part of court proceedings that CSW instigated in 2013)

If there is another plausible explanation other than theft or fraud - I'd love to hear it.

You don't seem to know how courts work. That's okey. Let me explain.

If the judge orders you to hand over all documents matching certain criteria, then you are obliged to hand them all over regardless of their origin and circumstances. So for example, if your ex-employee has forged a document in an attempt to set you up, you are still obliged to hand over that document. Failure to do so is what gets you into trouble. Craig simply followed the order. It's was not his duty to decide whether a clearly forged document is relevant to the case or not. Now your fallacy lies in the fact that you assume it was Craig who forged the document in the first place while it was actually a rogue employee.

Obviously you haven't read them. The documents are from an affidavit written and sworn by Craig Wright in 2013 as plaintiff (person who starts the proceedings).

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.

Get this through your thick skull --- if someone forges a document under my name to set me up, that is not the same thing as me forging that document under my name.

Are there forged documents in this equations? YES.

Did Craig himself forge them? NO.

Who forged those documents then? Possibly Craig's ex-employee or someone else who helped him at it.


What is here so hard to follow? Ah, of course, it completely and utterly destroys your narrative, so you froze and just repeated by copy-pasting documents which WE ALL KNOW ARE FORGED. Except, you want it so hard to be the case that Craig was the one who forged them, that when confronted with a fact that it was his ex-employee, you just repeat yourself wishing it becomes true if you repeat it enough.  Go seek help, really. You need professional psychiatric help, it's really that bad.

[BitcoinFX]

 

Wake up. Get real.

We are not just talking about a couple of documents here are we. The evidence is overwhelming ...

- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html

CSW has provided no valid cryptographic proof whatsoever to date. Bitcoin is Financial Cryptography.

Again, BSV is a scurge on this entire industry. Avoid it like the plague. Do not use any services that list and/or endorse it. Cease and desist.

BitcoinSV is NOT Bitcoin and CSW is NOT Satoshi.

...

"How to Eat Tulips" - SWIM
- https://www.wikihow.com/Eat-Tulips

...

ha!
Artillery
- https://youtu.be/Y4pMDlDCaJ0

[Hyena]

We are not just talking about a couple of documents here are we. The evidence is overwhelming ...

CSW has provided no valid cryptographic proof whatsoever to date. Bitcoin is Financial Cryptography.

Again, BSV is a scurge on this entire industry. Avoid it like the plague. Do not use any services that list and/or endorse it. Cease and desist.

According to your logic, if I forge "overwhelming" amount of documents under your name, then it magically becomes evidence that you forged them? Are you freaking kidding me? You expect any judge to believe that? You must be tripping.

What exactly is cryptographic proof anyway? What does it prove? In the court of law, it only proves that you have an access to a certain private key. Are you saying that if you have keys to my home then all of sudden magically you built the house? Again, you must be tripping.

And finally, if you weren't so terrified about BSV actually being successful, then you wouldn't waste your energy trying to scare people away from it.

[nutildah]

reductio ad absurdum x2, propositional fallacy

Are you going to make with the proof that CSW is Satoshi or what? You know it as a fact. Share why with us.

Unlike the contributors of this thread with which you are arguing, you've produced no evidence of anything other than that you have a huge ego.

Thus far you have simply attempted to "win the argument" via personal attacks and logical fallacies.

Produce your evidence or shut up.

[Iamtutut]

None of these documents were forged by a disgruntled employee.

They were presented by CSW himself in court. The document is notarized by CSWs lawyer. The address was used by CSW as equity in his business.

So either he owns the address and is in possession of  the MtGox stolen funds or it was used falsely as collateral in a fraudulent business transaction.
(The business transaction was part of court proceedings that CSW instigated in 2013)

If there is another plausible explanation other than theft or fraud - I'd love to hear it.

You don't seem to know how courts work. That's okey. Let me explain.

If the judge orders you to hand over all documents matching certain criteria, then you are obliged to hand them all over regardless of their origin and circumstances. So for example, if your ex-employee has forged a document in an attempt to set you up, you are still obliged to hand over that document. Failure to do so is what gets you into trouble. Craig simply followed the order. It's was not his duty to decide whether a clearly forged document is relevant to the case or not. Now your fallacy lies in the fact that you assume it was Craig who forged the document in the first place while it was actually a rogue employee.

Obviously you haven't read them. The documents are from an affidavit written and sworn by Craig Wright in 2013 as plaintiff (person who starts the proceedings).

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.

Get this through your thick skull --- if someone forges a document under my name to set me up, that is not the same thing as me forging that document under my name.

Are there forged documents in this equations? YES.

Did Craig himself forge them? NO.

Who forged those documents then? Possibly Craig's ex-employee or someone else who helped him at it.


What is here so hard to follow? Ah, of course, it completely and utterly destroys your narrative, so you froze and just repeated by copy-pasting documents which WE ALL KNOW ARE FORGED. Except, you want it so hard to be the case that Craig was the one who forged them, that when confronted with a fact that it was his ex-employee, you just repeat yourself wishing it becomes true if you repeat it enough.  Go seek help, really. You need professional psychiatric help, it's really that bad.

What's so hard to follow ? He produced the documents HIMSELF and retracted them only when it was clearly established they wrere forgeries.

There is not a SINGLE piece of evidence of a hacking.

Keep entertaining us with your BS. You are one more proof that BSV shills suffer from heaby brain damage.

[Hyena]

What's so hard to follow ? He produced the documents HIMSELF and retracted them only when it was clearly established they wrere forgeries.

There is not a SINGLE piece of evidence of a hacking.

Keep entertaining us with your BS. You are one more proof that BSV shills suffer from heaby brain damage.

You are clearly the one with brain damage here as you are unable to comprehend that if the judge orders you to provide documents matching certain criteria, then you have to follow that order regardless whether the documents are forgeries or not.

What is worse, you assume there to be "hacking" which I never mentioned. You don't need to hack into a company if you are already employed by the company.

The documents were found from compromised computers. That alone is enough to discard them as evidence. Get your brain damage fixed and then let's talk.

Are you going to make with the proof that CSW is Satoshi or what? You know it as a fact. Share why with us.

Unlike the contributors of this thread with which you are arguing, you've produced no evidence of anything other than that you have a huge ego.

Thus far you have simply attempted to "win the argument" via personal attacks and logical fallacies.

Produce your evidence or shut up.

So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

[suchmoon]

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

You don't need to repeat it, just post a link to where you previously stated your empirical evidence.

[nutildah]

So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.

What is a "forged forgery," and why would Craig present it as evidence at his trial? Surely he would know if a document he was submitting to the court was forged or not prior to its submission. He presented it, and only afterward was it shown to be forged. Then he said, "Oh, I didn't alter it, someone else must have."  

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

What a cowardly load of bollocks. We can come to the exact opposite conclusion as you based on your ethereal "empirical evidence." That's no evidence at all. Its simply your assertion which you insist is meaningful without any sort of rational basis.

I don't care that you have already stated that you have the evidence. I said produce the evidence. Now stop squirming and produce the evidence or prepare to be ridiculed indefinitely.

[Iamtutut]

You are clearly the one with brain damage here as you are unable to comprehend that if the judge orders you to provide documents matching certain criteria, then you have to follow that order regardless whether the documents are forgeries or not.

This alone proves you are an imbecile.

What is worse, you assume there to be "hacking" which I never mentioned. You don't need to hack into a company if you are already employed by the company.

The documents were found from compromised computers. That alone is enough to discard them as evidence. Get your brain damage fixed and then let's talk.

There never was any complaint from faketoshi that the documents were altered. NEVER. The forged documents were helping his cause. He retracted them only after an expert proved them forged.

You are either an imbecile or a  paid shill.

[BitcoinFX]

We are not just talking about a couple of documents here are we. The evidence is overwhelming ...

CSW has provided no valid cryptographic proof whatsoever to date. Bitcoin is Financial Cryptography.

Again, BSV is a scurge on this entire industry. Avoid it like the plague. Do not use any services that list and/or endorse it. Cease and desist.

According to your logic, if I forge "overwhelming" amount of documents under your name, then it magically becomes evidence that you forged them? Are you freaking kidding me? You expect any judge to believe that? You must be tripping.

What exactly is cryptographic proof anyway? ...

...snip...

"Signed messages are a better proof-of-identity over not signing messages.

Bitcoin is financial cryptography software, after all.

Logging in to forum accounts and/or sending from original Satoshi email addresses is also feasible proof, for example.

6/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879837834092544

...

"Signed and Verifiable messages in Bitcoin are very easy. The real Satoshi could also prove identity via PGP.

- https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

At the base of the page, see PGP Key; Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc :

- https://bitcointalk.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc

Financial privacy is not broken using PGP.

5/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879720250990592