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

[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.

[1714104077]

1714104077

[1714104077]

1714104077

[1714104077]

1714104077

[1714104077]

1714104077

[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

 

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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.

Your Honor, I retract my dick from the goat's ass, albeit such act would negate myself as a bona fide goat fucker.

[Dabs]

I know for a fact that CSW is NOT Satoshi. Prove me wrong.

[gentlemand]

Why bother engaging such pointless airheads? It's like arguing about the colour of the sky.

More fun things are happening such as BSV nodes connecting to BCash ones - https://twitter.com/verretor/status/1226084073036275712

Plus two separate BSV chains are now being mined.

This is what I want underpinning global finance, yes, sirree.

[gentlemand]

Looks like He's due to make William Shatner an unperson too soon enough. He may find it a bit less forgiving to boldly go outside his personal cabal of masturbating zombies and into a strange new world filled with sentient beings.

[Baofeng]

You really want to know CSW secret?  

Code:

 https://craigsecret.com/ 

Cyber criminals are using CSW face now, how ironic it is.

[xtraelv]

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.

None of those document that I posted are from disguntled employees. The are from an affidavit by craig, signed by craig in his attempt in the supreme court of nsw in 2013 to sue the company run by his dead business partner. These documents were not requested by the court.  They were offered by Craig to support his statement of claim. So either he lied to the court by presenting false documents making a fraudulent claim OR he was involved in the Mt Gox hack.

[Hyena]

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.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO

[AlexSimion]

So do all BSV shillers actually believe Craig is Satoshi ? Or are they literally trolling on a completely different level ?

I haven't exactly followed the hole Bsv shit-show , but how can these plebs actually believe Craig is Satoshi simply because he said so ??

There would be countless of ways to prove it , if infact he was ,  but he failed to provide any proof . So why do people actually believe it just cause that man is spreading this crap everywhere " I am Satoshi "

[Hyena]

So do all BSV shillers actually believe Craig is Satoshi ? Or are they literally trolling on a completely different level ?

I haven't exactly followed the hole Bsv shit-show , but how can these plebs actually believe Craig is Satoshi simply because he said so ??

There would be countless of ways to prove it , if infact he was ,  but he failed to provide any proof . So why do people actually believe it just cause that man is spreading this crap everywhere " I am Satoshi "

How? Maybe if you have master's degree in software engineering, bachelor in informatics and 15 years of experience as a software architect, then you can make your own educated decisions listening to the man himself rather than the social media? As a professional in my field (which many people simply are not) I can say with absolute certainty that Craig is Satoshi. So your whole assumption is wrong, no one on the BSV side is believing anyone "simply because he said so".  However, you on the other hand, very much show the attributes of a person who believes the anti-Craig propaganda simply because sociopaths such as OneMegGreg said so. Oh, and most importantly, I've got empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You can't beat it with any other kind of evidence.

You want to see what it looks like to have empirical evidence, then watch this:

https://youtu.be/ji2p5pxURVs

[hv_]

So do all BSV shillers actually believe Craig is Satoshi ? Or are they literally trolling on a completely different level ?

I haven't exactly followed the hole Bsv shit-show , but how can these plebs actually believe Craig is Satoshi simply because he said so ??

There would be countless of ways to prove it , if infact he was ,  but he failed to provide any proof . So why do people actually believe it just cause that man is spreading this crap everywhere " I am Satoshi "

How? Maybe if you have master's degree in software engineering, bachelor in informatics and 15 years of experience as a software architect, then you can make your own educated decisions listening to the man himself rather than the social media? As a professional in my field (which many people simply are not) I can say with absolute certainty that Craig is Satoshi. So your whole assumption is wrong, no one on the BSV side is believing anyone "simply because he said so".  However, you on the other hand, very much show the attributes of a person who believes the anti-Craig propaganda simply because sociopaths such as OneMegGreg said so. Oh, and most importantly, I've got empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You can't beat it with any other kind of evidence.

You want to see what it looks like to have empirical evidence, then watch this:

https://youtu.be/ji2p5pxURVs

That's just one, the list is 'endless' - but haters won't like to dig all that out - they ask here the 'surface' but ... no chance many will accept.

Why do the work / google search / go to real sources if twitter is all you like ?

Best thing about all that:

BitCoin does not care

[Hyena]

The level of bias is staggering. Here's post-deleting in action. But look at what I wrote and what got deleted. I simply stated my educational background as a basis for my opinion, and it was already too much to serve the Craig-denial agenda.

[hv_]

The level of bias is staggering. Here's post-deleting in action. But look at what I wrote and what got deleted. I simply stated my educational background as a basis for my opinion, and it was already too much to serve the Craig-denial agenda.

Censorship in a censorship resistant crypto world ?

 

[suchmoon]

The level of bias is staggering. Here's post-deleting in action. But look at what I wrote and what got deleted. I simply stated my educational background as a basis for my opinion, and it was already too much to serve the Craig-denial agenda.

Your bragging about education and experience doesn't mean shit and it's not a proof of anything. Present proof that can be evaluated by others.

[Hyena]

The level of bias is staggering. Here's post-deleting in action. But look at what I wrote and what got deleted. I simply stated my educational background as a basis for my opinion, and it was already too much to serve the Craig-denial agenda.

Your bragging about education and experience doesn't mean shit and it's not a proof of anything. Present proof that can be evaluated by others.

In a situation where there is my word against your word, the background is all that matters. As for the proof, I already have it the way I like it the most --- in the form of empirical evidence. If you want to have it go get it.

Another gem, proving what level of maturity we are really having here:

(source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53816815#msg53816815)

Do your own thinking. One side has educated professionals such as myself, the other side resorts to childish name-calling and emotion-driven moderation practices 

[xtraelv]

Another gem, proving what level of maturity we are really having here:

(source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53816815#msg53816815)

Do your own thinking. One side has educated professionals such as myself, the other side resorts to childish name-calling and emotion-driven moderation practices 

You mean like the 17 deleted posts here ?
 


and 466 deleted posts here ?



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5211986.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4985868.msg50740870#msg50740870

[suchmoon]

In a situation where there is my word against your word, the background is all that matters. As for the proof, I already have it the way I like it the most --- in the form of empirical evidence. If you want to have it go get it.

Oh yes, internet bragging, let's try it.

I have 20+ years of software development experience and last time I was working 9-5 I was herding software architects who would design a spaceship when the customer asked for a toaster, does that make me smarter than you? More capable of identifying frauds like CSW?

Or perhaps we should just stick to perjury and inability to sign a message and other obvious signs of him being a fraud.

Another gem, proving what level of maturity we are really having here:

If you don't like the self-moderated thread - don't post there. Complaining about it here is off topic.

[Dabs]

So it seems like even people with master's degree in software engineering, a bachelor in informatics, and 15 years of experience as a software architect can be fooled into believing someone is who they are not.

I get it, it happens, sometimes the smartest people in the world get a few things wrong.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see if someone is lying or not, but you need a master's degree to get defrauded or scammed into believing an identity thief.