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

[hv_]

You would'nt ask such Thing from Satoshi, would you?

I think you'll find that is exactly what this community would, and does, ask of anyone asserting themselves to be Satoshi, that they sign a message with one of his keys. While that doesn't necessarily prove without doubt that such a person is Satoshi it would transfer the burden of proof to us to then show that they are not the original owner of the key they signed with.

So, seeing as Craig has not provided such cryptographic proof, what evidence do you have which would even serve to show he was aware of Bitcoin prior to 2013?

I'll answer that for you. You have zero evidence because there is no evidence. You are merely choosing to believe what you want to believe and that is solely derived from Craig, himself, making claims without proof.

Believing in claims that lack any evidence whatsoever is otherwise known as 'blind faith' and is not a healthy or reliable way to define the world around you.

There is no 'evidence' even if anyone signs with such old keys (it just proves, one was just able to sign - nothing else)  - also not any proof for the 'community' where it appears that there are very different ones with different views and backgrounds & understandings to CONCLUDE who might be Satoshi and who not - guess we cannot fix that.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

You would'nt ask such Thing from Satoshi, would you?

I think you'll find that is exactly what this community would, and does, ask of anyone asserting themselves to be Satoshi, that they sign a message with one of his keys. While that doesn't necessarily prove without doubt that such a person is Satoshi it would transfer the burden of proof to us to then show that they are not the original owner of the key they signed with.

So, seeing as Craig has not provided such cryptographic proof, what evidence do you have which would even serve to show he was aware of Bitcoin prior to 2013?

I'll answer that for you. You have zero evidence because there is no evidence. You are merely choosing to believe what you want to believe and that is solely derived from Craig, himself, making claims without proof.

Believing in claims that lack any evidence whatsoever is otherwise known as 'blind faith' and is not a healthy or reliable way to define the world around you.

There is no 'evidence' even if anyone signs with such old keys (it just proves, one was just able to sign - nothing else)  - also not any proof for the 'community' where it appears that there are very different ones with different views and backgrounds & understandings to CONCLUDE who might be Satoshi and who not - guess we cannot fix that.

"The keys may be old but they still work."

[cryptodevil]

There is no 'evidence' even if anyone signs with such old keys (it just proves, one was just able to sign - nothing else)  

If you have a key it serves to show you at least might be its original owner but, more importantly, it results in the burden of proof being transferred to others to prove that you are not.

Without having a key you are no different to anybody else who does not have a key, meaning the burden of proof is on you to show you were its original owner.

Craig Wright is a proven liar who has repeatedly perjured himself and presented multiple forgeries as supposed proofs which have been exposed as such. That you still want to believe his word in the face of the facts showing him to be a liar and a fraud, is beyond absurd.

[gentlemand]

I find the people mindlessly defending him no matter what is screaming in their face extremely strange.

You can easily believe in bigger blocks and at the same time believe Craigy is a lying asshole. Larger block fans are either silent on this or convinced he's The One.

Why is that?

[Iamtutut]

Rats are leaving the sinking BSV boat.

Announcement from Kevin Pham (https://twitter.com/_Kevin_Pham/status/1167234860198445056)

"I have announcement:

I'm officially retiring from being a Bitcoin Civil War general.

I've been fighting, arguing, & trolling for almost three years now and I'm tired.

I just want to be a normal person again.

I'm going to return to my phamily & till my crops.

I bid you adieu."

Then precises

"I'm not going anywhere, I just retired from trolling and fighting.

My focus now is on using BSV technology to build products that help people."


After the Florida Barbecue Party, he can't shill and promote Bitcoin Shit Version anymore.

Wow - what a victory. Or did you get it as one ?

Lol

Because you seem to have eyes and / or reading issues, I've replied to your Bullshit of the two morons talking about a Court decision they are too dumb to understand.

I post this also here (sorry for double posting) because BSV shills are keeping on lying about the august 27th ruling in the Kleiman vs Wright case.

If some of the little baby trolls herein would have some balls, they could come up with their pricky faces
And try to talk their "facts" in same manner as these decent ppl are capable of.

So show us ur counter facts (lol) pls

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/cx0vmh/kleiman_vs_craig_wright_getting_the_facts/

Usual lies from a BSV shill.

The Court ordered Wright to reveal his holdings, he refused to. Civil contempt of Court, Judge decides to use article 37B for proceeding.

Kleiman Estate Entitled to 500K coins of any Bitcoin fork, includes BCH and BSV.

Judge did not recommend, it is an ORDER
-> "WHEREFORE, it is ordered that:1.The Motion to Compel [DE 210] is GRANTED..."
-> "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:"
-> "DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 27thday of August, 2019, at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida."


BSV shills can't read.

I'm still waiting for BSV shills arguments, I'm in my ROLFCopter.

Anyone can read the decision here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.277.0.pdf

I'm still waiting for your knowledgeable reply.

[Iamtutut]

You would'nt ask such Thing from Satoshi, would you?

I think you'll find that is exactly what this community would, and does, ask of anyone asserting themselves to be Satoshi, that they sign a message with one of his keys. While that doesn't necessarily prove without doubt that such a person is Satoshi it would transfer the burden of proof to us to then show that they are not the original owner of the key they signed with.

So, seeing as Craig has not provided such cryptographic proof, what evidence do you have which would even serve to show he was aware of Bitcoin prior to 2013?

I'll answer that for you. You have zero evidence because there is no evidence. You are merely choosing to believe what you want to believe and that is solely derived from Craig, himself, making claims without proof.

Believing in claims that lack any evidence whatsoever is otherwise known as 'blind faith' and is not a healthy or reliable way to define the world around you.

Wright: "I'm a lawyer"
Satoshi "I'm not a lawyer and I can't possibly answer"


Wright couldn't code at all in 2018, he made a joke of himself by copy / pasting a "hello world" from sourceforge while pretending to have written it. Evidence is here: https://twitter.com/alistairmilne/status/1033459254425014272
Satoshi, well it's Satoshi, knows his stuff around code.

[Hueristic]

After Losing Suit, Craig Wright Files for Detox Tea Company

https://bitcoinisthedevil.com/2019/08/28/after-losing-suit-craig-wright-files-for-detox-tea-company/

I find the people mindlessly defending him no matter what is screaming in their face extremely strange.

You can easily believe in bigger blocks and at the same time believe Craigy is a lying asshole. Larger block fans are either silent on this or convinced he's The One.

Why is that?

Logical fallacy's.

[mosprognoz]

they sign a message with one of his keys.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hhreq/how_craig_constructed_the_message_that_he_signed/

https://medium.com/@jimmysong/faketoshis-nonsense-signature-8700a44536b5

[alevlaslo]

any genius with a Hello, no important who the Creator, the product is important

[cryptodevil]

they sign a message with one of his keys.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hhreq/how_craig_constructed_the_message_that_he_signed/

The thing with that bit of scammy replay 'signing' was that, as with much of CSW's forgery attempts, he appears to be really lazy with the whole process

Interestingly, the source address of this transaction (the bit cut out from send.bin) is the same as in the example on the OP_CHECKSIG documentation wiki page - so he was too lazy even to pick another address, although he picked a different spend transaction.

Considering that he's one of the co-authors on Dave Kleiman's Hacking and Forensics study guide, he has proven to be repeatedly sloppy covering his tracks with the fraudulent messages and emails he tried to pass off as legit during the trial.

/snip

Yeah that 10,000+ TPS claim for BSV is bullshit, too. Doesn't matter how big you make the block size, if they're only being written to the blockchain every 10 minutes then that is 10 minutes during which those transactions could be 'reversed' through a double-spend. Utterly useless for mass adoption in real-time retail. BSV is no better than Bitcoin in that regards.

Calvin Ayre and the rest of the BSV zombies seem to be wilfully ignorant to this fact.

[hv_]

Nope, such big block doesn't change how it all works together.

I guess you're right then. Where are my 1TB blocks? If we're to be prepared for the future, we need to scale! Immediately!And... why was the original limit set at the value it was? Why wasn't it larger? We should have started scaling back in '09, not '17!

The scaling by block capacity was always a no brainer.

Interesting was why was there a poker game in the first version?

The guy here explains it a bit later


https://youtu.be/mBNT7X5sjPM

[actmyname]

The scaling by block capacity was always a no brainer.

Then why ever limit the block size? Hmm?

[hv_]

The scaling by block capacity was always a no brainer.

Then why ever limit the block size? Hmm?

The limit only has sense in case of 0 Bitcoin value, at the beginnings. This is only spam protection where it costs 0 to send.

Now it will be removed to enable true open competition between all the network participants.

Any limit / rule you introduce has a dictatorship / comunism like origin / effect and is strong sign of central power (like a dev team + PoSM has).

The less rules, the more open and true competition allowing a system is and its not governed by a central entity.

Watch BSV, the roadmap is here and no need of Satoshi is included any longer, cause he initially set the rules in stone.


That is actually the reason why so many start crying against, since they want that power, and want to alter rules. So open competition is not what core teams like ...

[TheNewAnon135246]

The scaling by block capacity was always a no brainer.

Then why ever limit the block size? Hmm?

The limit only has sense in case of 0 Bitcoin value, at the beginnings. This is only spam protection where it costs 0 to send.

Now it will be removed to enable true open competition between all the network participants.

Any limit / rule you introduce has a dictatorship / comunism like origin / effect and is strong sign of central power (like a dev team + PoSM has).

The less rules, the more open and true competition allowing a system is and its not governed by a central entity.

Watch BSV, the roadmap is here and no need of Satoshi is included any longer, cause he initially set the rules in stone.


That is actually the reason why so many start crying against, since they want that power, and want to alter rules. So open competition is not what core teams like ...

Hal Finney seemed to understand it back in 2010.

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

People who think 'Electronic Cash' simply means an asset designed for small daily payments (and need to have no fees and instant confirmations) need to read the Cypherpunk Manifesto: https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

[actmyname]

The limit only has sense in case of 0 Bitcoin value, at the beginnings. This is only spam protection where it costs 0 to send.

This is somewhat true if you want to restrict adoption of node hosting, but what would have stopped users from mining -> tx spamming in the beginning? A larger block size would make it more difficult for users to bloat the network, wouldn't it? After all, that's what you want, right?

Now it will be removed to enable true open competition between all the network participants.

Any limit / rule you introduce has a dictatorship / comunism like origin / effect and is strong sign of central power (like a dev team + PoSM has).

Perhaps, but by increasing the block size, you also centralize the nodes for Bitcoin. Then, they can arbitrarily dictate the broadcasted transactions, they can monitor transactions and track your information...

[hv_]

The limit only has sense in case of 0 Bitcoin value, at the beginnings. This is only spam protection where it costs 0 to send.

This is somewhat true if you want to restrict adoption of node hosting, but what would have stopped users from mining -> tx spamming in the beginning? A larger block size would make it more difficult for users to bloat the network, wouldn't it? After all, that's what you want, right?

Now it will be removed to enable true open competition between all the network participants.

Any limit / rule you introduce has a dictatorship / comunism like origin / effect and is strong sign of central power (like a dev team + PoSM has).

Perhaps, but by increasing the block size, you also centralize the nodes for Bitcoin. Then, they can arbitrarily dictate the broadcasted transactions, they can monitor transactions and track your information...

Any profitable business is 'centralizing' per definition like the masses by gravity. Thats the reason why we have highest tech mining. But only open competition and highest op risks are able to break up the 'central' powers over time, see bitmain!
Even data centers compete but at higher level.

(Thats also why PoS is crap since there is no such brutal competition and it leads to stable oligarchy)

Laptop mining and raspi relays are outcompete by years now. Adjust your level of sizes and scale. The world is growing.


So the best thing you could do to counter the permanent centralizing force (profit) is allowing max openess / competition (break up other 's profit)

Less rules but clear and stable ones ( no need of central governance) keeps BitCoin 'decentralized' enough over time

[Iamtutut]

The scaling by block capacity was always a no brainer.

Then why ever limit the block size? Hmm?

The limit only has sense in case of 0 Bitcoin value, at the beginnings. This is only spam protection where it costs 0 to send.

Now it will be removed to enable true open competition between all the network participants.

Any limit / rule you introduce has a dictatorship / comunism like origin / effect and is strong sign of central power (like a dev team + PoSM has).

The less rules, the more open and true competition allowing a system is and its not governed by a central entity.

Watch BSV, the roadmap is here and no need of Satoshi is included any longer, cause he initially set the rules in stone.


That is actually the reason why so many start crying against, since they want that power, and want to alter rules. So open competition is not what core teams like ...

Hal Finney seemed to understand it back in 2010.

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

People who think 'Electronic Cash' simply means an asset designed for small daily payments (and need to have no fees and instant confirmations) need to read the Cypherpunk Manifesto: https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

Moreover, Satoshi himself:

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.

...

[hv_]

Data centers in many different juristictions running a transparent stable legal protocol for the  MASSES cannot get
shut down, is max competitive and gives anybody ave Joe way enogh privacy by sheer numbers BUT not to big criminals and govs can be better controlled.  That s the Bitcoin I m happy to support!

[Lauda]

Data centers in many different juristictions running a transparent stable legal protocol for the  MASSES cannot get
shut down, is max competitive and gives anybody ave Joe way enogh privacy by sheer numbers BUT not to big criminals and govs can be better controlled.  That s the Bitcoin I m happy to support!

If you are not paid to write stuff like this, then you are either highly uneducated, bamboozled or you are in imminent need of professional help. You can NOT be this disconnected from reality. Give me access to the exchange databases (which will be easily available to various agencies next year) and I can beat your "sheer numbers" alone within a couple days, let alone people whose government-paid job is to do this in big groups using specialized tools. Some Core-members were recently concerned about network-level hijacking attacks and are working on improving that layer, and here is the BSV (Bitcoin Scam) crowd praying that "sheer numbers" will save them. What a naive fool you are.

[hv_]

Data centers in many different juristictions running a transparent stable legal protocol for the  MASSES cannot get
shut down, is max competitive and gives anybody ave Joe way enogh privacy by sheer numbers BUT not to big criminals and govs can be better controlled.  That s the Bitcoin I m happy to support!

If you are not paid to write stuff like this, then you are either highly uneducated, bamboozled or you are in imminent need of professional help. You can NOT be this disconnected from reality. Give me access to the exchange databases (which will be easily available to various agencies next year) and I can beat your "sheer numbers" alone within a couple days, let alone people whose government-paid job is to do this in big groups using specialized tools. Some Core-members were recently concerned about network-level hijacking attacks and are working on improving that layer, and here is the BSV (Bitcoin Scam) crowd praying that "sheer numbers" will save them. What a naive fool you are.

Oh no - I like your style of 'arguments' (lol)  - just derailing and often ad hominem - as usual, and ?  Leading to nothing  - as expected...

BTW only sheer user numbers can keep BitCoin alive (not tulip speculation - we know how this ends) - and only true PoW is payed.