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

[hv_]

Bump, Craig is a fraud.

I see him rather catching all the anno and anarcho frauds who try to do all sorts of illegal stuff with crypto

No wonder they hate him and want him to be called out...

Like impersonating Satoshi
Like plagiarism
Like tax fraud
Like faking diplomas
Like contempt of Court
Like Perjury
Like using fake emails from dead people
Like writing shit about Hal Finney, Martti Malmi and other people
Like filling a blockchain with BS data, the weather blockchain
Like promoting a fork as being Bitcoin

Which blockchain has stored child pronography? -> Bitcoin SV

Well said, except that the last point is an issue that can happen to any blockchain, it's not entirely their fault.
The unnecessary high size limit of blocks surely helps such situations, but just a low quality image would be store-able in most blockchains I suppose.

You are right, as long as the data fits the block size you can put shit in any blockchain. BUT, as you said, on some blockchains you can put 1MB of shit if you can afford the TX cost (very costly on the real Bitcoin), on BSV you can fit 2GB of trash, and they're planning for trash unlimited with their unlimited block size.

I really hope that the internet will be shut down for ur guys after ur logics.

Lol

[1714232958]

1714232958

[1714232958]

1714232958

[1714232958]

1714232958

[HardFireMiner]

We should get to 128kb block size on BTC ASAP, 1mb per block of child porn is way too much for BTC.

[nutildah]

We should get to 128kb block size on BTC ASAP, 1mb per block of child porn is way too much for BTC.

The red trust you left for gmaxwell is remarkably stupid incorrect:

On 26 August 2019, US Federal Court of Florida ruled that Satoshi Nakamoto is the partnership of Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright, ordered that the Trust which holds the first 1.000.000 BTC should send 50% of Dave's BTC to his brother, Ira Kleiman.
So now, for the first time in history we have confirmation by a US Federal Court of the fact that CSW is at least 50% of Satoshi Nakamoto.

From the transcript of the hearing you mentioned:

First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.

This was on Page 2 of the 29 page document!

So I have to ask: are you a liar, or are you just stupid? You're clearly one or the other, so which one is it?

[HardFireMiner]

We should get to 128kb block size on BTC ASAP, 1mb per block of child porn is way too much for BTC.

The red trust you left for gmaxwell is remarkably stupid incorrect:

On 26 August 2019, US Federal Court of Florida ruled that Satoshi Nakamoto is the partnership of Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright, ordered that the Trust which holds the first 1.000.000 BTC should send 50% of Dave's BTC to his brother, Ira Kleiman.
So now, for the first time in history we have confirmation by a US Federal Court of the fact that CSW is at least 50% of Satoshi Nakamoto.

From the transcript of the hearing you mentioned:

First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.

This was on Page 2 of the 29 page document!

So I have to ask: are you a liar, or are you just stupid? You're clearly one or the other, so which one is it?

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i), the Court deems the following facts to be
established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.

Page 28

[nutildah]

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i), the Court deems the following facts to be
established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.

Page 28

The court specifically stated they are not making a ruling on whether CSW was SN. How can you ignore this? What you quoted:

- does NOT say CSW is 1/2 of Satoshi
- applies even if they mined ZERO bitcoin together, which is likely to be the case

C'mon man. You're just trolling everybody now. Your investment got hammered because it was a shitty one. Trying to play word games isn't going to save it.

[cryptodevil]

So I have to ask: are you a liar, or are you just stupid? You're clearly one or the other, so which one is it?

Well I can attest to the fact that he's provably dishonest. He keeps intentionally misrepresenting the legal meaning of 'established facts' in the judgement text even after having it clearly explained to him.

As you can see from above, there ARE not only assumptions by the Judge, there are established facts.

Why are you being so dishonest? I already explained to you that 'the Court deems the following facts to be established for purposes of this action:' is solely about this case alone as they are facts neither side contested

[HardFireMiner]

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i), the Court deems the following facts to be
established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.

Page 28

The court specifically stated they are not making a ruling on whether CSW was SN. How can you ignore this? What you quoted:

- does NOT say CSW is 1/2 of Satoshi
- applies even if they mined ZERO bitcoin together, which is likely to be the case

C'mon man. You're just trolling everybody now. Your investment got hammered because it was a shitty one. Trying to play word games isn't going to save it.

The court said it clear - it is not required for it to decide is CSW Satoshi or not, so it doesn't decide, as it doesn't have to.

However, the evidence that was accepted as true drove Judge Reinhart to establish those facts:

(1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.

Also, the Court did not strike ALL CSW defenses - striked 3 to 10
1,2,11,12,13 defenses were accepted by the Court. Now, go ahead and see what those defenses represent and also note that an appeal was made and most likely will pass as there are sufficient grounds.

You call me a troll, when stating the obvious started to count as trolling?

[nutildah]

The court said it clear - it is not required for it to decide is CSW Satoshi or not, so it doesn't decide, as it doesn't have to.

So let's stop lying about the judge ruling that CSW was 1/2 of Satoshi, shall we?

However, the evidence that was accepted as true drove Judge Reinhart to establish those facts:

(1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.

Again, this could mean anything between they mined a million bitcoin and they mined zero bitcoin.

Also, the Court did not strike ALL CSW defenses - striked 3 to 10
1,2,11,12,13 defenses were accepted by the Court. Now, go ahead and see what those defenses represent and also note that an appeal was made and most likely will pass as there are sufficient grounds.

That's great.

You call me a troll, when stating the obvious started to count as trolling?

The only thing that is obvious is that you are lying about what the judge ruled.

[HardFireMiner]

Bump, Craig is a fraud.

I see him rather catching all the anno and anarcho frauds who try to do all sorts of illegal stuff with crypto

No wonder they hate him and want him to be called out...

Like impersonating Satoshi
Like plagiarism
Like tax fraud
Like faking diplomas
Like contempt of Court
Like Perjury
Like using fake emails from dead people
Like writing shit about Hal Finney, Martti Malmi and other people
Like filling a blockchain with BS data, the weather blockchain
Like promoting a fork as being Bitcoin

Which blockchain has stored child pronography? -> Bitcoin SV

Well said, except that the last point is an issue that can happen to any blockchain, it's not entirely their fault.
The unnecessary high size limit of blocks surely helps such situations, but just a low quality image would be store-able in most blockchains I suppose.

You are right, as long as the data fits the block size you can put shit in any blockchain. BUT, as you said, on some blockchains you can put 1MB of shit if you can afford the TX cost (very costly on the real Bitcoin), on BSV you can fit 2GB of trash, and they're planning for trash unlimited with their unlimited block size.

[HardFireMiner]

And from Satoshi's e-mail's, in response to Mike Hearn:

The final number I’m interested in is the 500kb limit on block sizes. According to Wikipedia, Visa alone processed 62 billion transactions in 2009. Dividing through we get an average of 2000 transactions per second, so peak rate is probably around double that at 4000 transactions/sec. With a ten minute block target, at peak a block might need to contain 2.4 million transactions, which just won’t fit into 500kb. Is this 500kb a temporary limitation that will be slowly removed over time from the official client or something more fundamental?

A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it’s working OK.

Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won’t matter much. Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it’s nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.

With very high transaction volume, network nodes would consolidate and there would be more pooled mining and GPU farms, and users would run client-only. With dev work on optimising and parallelising, it can keep scaling up.

Whatever the current capacity of the software is, it automatically grows at the rate of Moore’s Law, about 60% per year.

[hv_]

And from Satoshi's e-mail's, in response to Mike Hearn:

The final number I’m interested in is the 500kb limit on block sizes. According to Wikipedia, Visa alone processed 62 billion transactions in 2009. Dividing through we get an average of 2000 transactions per second, so peak rate is probably around double that at 4000 transactions/sec. With a ten minute block target, at peak a block might need to contain 2.4 million transactions, which just won’t fit into 500kb. Is this 500kb a temporary limitation that will be slowly removed over time from the official client or something more fundamental?

A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it’s working OK.

Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won’t matter much. Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it’s nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.

With very high transaction volume, network nodes would consolidate and there would be more pooled mining and GPU farms, and users would run client-only. With dev work on optimising and parallelising, it can keep scaling up.

Whatever the current capacity of the software is, it automatically grows at the rate of Moore’s Law, about 60% per year.

Thx. Yes it reads pretty clear what BSV is all about.
And also clear why btc segwit scammers do not want ppl to read and learn.
So very clear they must shout "scam" louder , that what trolls can do better and end up in fuck ups like uasf etc

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Bump, Craig is a fraud.

I see him rather catching all the anno and anarcho frauds who try to do all sorts of illegal stuff with crypto

No wonder they hate him and want him to be called out...

Like impersonating Satoshi
Like plagiarism
Like tax fraud
Like faking diplomas
Like contempt of Court
Like Perjury
Like using fake emails from dead people
Like writing shit about Hal Finney, Martti Malmi and other people
Like filling a blockchain with BS data, the weather blockchain
Like promoting a fork as being Bitcoin

Which blockchain has stored child pronography? -> Bitcoin SV

Well said, except that the last point is an issue that can happen to any blockchain, it's not entirely their fault.
The unnecessary high size limit of blocks surely helps such situations, but just a low quality image would be store-able in most blockchains I suppose.

You are right, as long as the data fits the block size you can put shit in any blockchain. BUT, as you said, on some blockchains you can put 1MB of shit if you can afford the TX cost (very costly on the real Bitcoin), on BSV you can fit 2GB of trash, and they're planning for trash unlimited with their unlimited block size.

Notice that Cryddit employs two spaces after a full stop. Cryddit's goes by Edward as in Snowden.

[hv_]

Bump, Craig is a fraud.

I see him rather catching all the anno and anarcho frauds who try to do all sorts of illegal stuff with crypto

No wonder they hate him and want him to be called out...

Like impersonating Satoshi
Like plagiarism
Like tax fraud
Like faking diplomas
Like contempt of Court
Like Perjury
Like using fake emails from dead people
Like writing shit about Hal Finney, Martti Malmi and other people
Like filling a blockchain with BS data, the weather blockchain
Like promoting a fork as being Bitcoin

Which blockchain has stored child pronography? -> Bitcoin SV

Well said, except that the last point is an issue that can happen to any blockchain, it's not entirely their fault.
The unnecessary high size limit of blocks surely helps such situations, but just a low quality image would be store-able in most blockchains I suppose.

You are right, as long as the data fits the block size you can put shit in any blockchain. BUT, as you said, on some blockchains you can put 1MB of shit if you can afford the TX cost (very costly on the real Bitcoin), on BSV you can fit 2GB of trash, and they're planning for trash unlimited with their unlimited block size.

Notice that Cryddit employs two spaces after a full stop. Cryddit's goes by Edward as in Snowden.

Fine...
So go and show that experiment to work and scale somehow other than onchain. But pls don't call that one NOT BitCoin.


Satoshi called his BitCoin and it will scale as Moores law does - on chain.

[TheNewAnon135246]

Satoshi never meant to create an on-chain weather data storage.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Satoshi never meant to create an on-chain weather data storage.

Au contraire:

Markov Chain for a Simple Weather Model

[gentlemand]

Wow. Shit just got a whole lot realer, kids. Whatever doubts there were are certainly looking way, way shakier now.



Where do we go from here?

Rusty STAPLES.

[JayJuanGee]

Wow. Shit just got a whole lot realer, kids. Whatever doubts there were are certainly looking way, way shakier now.



Where do we go from here?

Rusty STAPLES.

Peter is a gonner, that's for sure.    Better believe that Peter was messing with the wrong satoshi.

[Iamtutut]

Wow. Shit just got a whole lot realer, kids. Whatever doubts there were are certainly looking way, way shakier now.



Where do we go from here?

Rusty STAPLES.

Principle of law: one can not create its own evidence.

[HardFireMiner]

Bump, Craig is a fraud.

I see him rather catching all the anno and anarcho frauds who try to do all sorts of illegal stuff with crypto

No wonder they hate him and want him to be called out...

Like impersonating Satoshi
Like plagiarism
Like tax fraud
Like faking diplomas
Like contempt of Court
Like Perjury
Like using fake emails from dead people
Like writing shit about Hal Finney, Martti Malmi and other people
Like filling a blockchain with BS data, the weather blockchain
Like promoting a fork as being Bitcoin

Which blockchain has stored child pronography? -> Bitcoin SV

Well said, except that the last point is an issue that can happen to any blockchain, it's not entirely their fault.
The unnecessary high size limit of blocks surely helps such situations, but just a low quality image would be store-able in most blockchains I suppose.

You are right, as long as the data fits the block size you can put shit in any blockchain. BUT, as you said, on some blockchains you can put 1MB of shit if you can afford the TX cost (very costly on the real Bitcoin), on BSV you can fit 2GB of trash, and they're planning for trash unlimited with their unlimited block size.

Notice that Cryddit employs two spaces after a full stop. Cryddit's goes by Edward as in Snowden.

Cryddit is Ray Dillinger. I am sure you know who that is.

[Iamtutut]

Bump, Craig is a fraud.

I see him rather catching all the anno and anarcho frauds who try to do all sorts of illegal stuff with crypto

No wonder they hate him and want him to be called out...

Like impersonating Satoshi
Like plagiarism
Like tax fraud
Like faking diplomas
Like contempt of Court
Like Perjury
Like using fake emails from dead people
Like writing shit about Hal Finney, Martti Malmi and other people
Like filling a blockchain with BS data, the weather blockchain
Like promoting a fork as being Bitcoin

Which blockchain has stored child pronography? -> Bitcoin SV

Well said, except that the last point is an issue that can happen to any blockchain, it's not entirely their fault.
The unnecessary high size limit of blocks surely helps such situations, but just a low quality image would be store-able in most blockchains I suppose.

You are right, as long as the data fits the block size you can put shit in any blockchain. BUT, as you said, on some blockchains you can put 1MB of shit if you can afford the TX cost (very costly on the real Bitcoin), on BSV you can fit 2GB of trash, and they're planning for trash unlimited with their unlimited block size.

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

And

For what it's worth: 

I'm the guy who went over the blockchain stuff in Satoshi's first cut of the bitcoin code.  Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB.  Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.  But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes.  A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it.  The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.
think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary.  It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees. 

Before raising the block size, you use every possible mean to skrink the size of each TX, that's why Bitcoin has much more TX per block, including when BSV has bigger blocks.

26 sept 2019 is the perfect example.