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

[nutildah]

BSV is quite spectacular in a sense that it's THE ONLY ONE that has no block size limit at all and works perfectly well. "simply another big block fork" does not apply here, because even BCH has block size limit, they all do, except for the BSV. Quite an achievement for a mere scam, don't you think?

Not really; its the adjustment of a single parameter.

Based on pure technical decisions alone I would bet on BSV any time.

You're welcome to your opinion.

If there wasn't for BSV we would not have a single public block chain remaining that complies to the directives of the original whitepaper. Both BCH and BTC have deviated from the original design so much that they are no longer recognizable as BitCoin.

You're now making this a religious argument. So, you switched to Puritanism because you thought the excesses of the Catholic Church made it drift away from the teachings of Jesus. That's great. However, Bitcoin isn't a religion -- its a technology, and its free to evolve, even if it does it in such a way that renders the utility of your coin obsolete.

Your scam argument does not hold either, because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi.

You know it "for a fact," do you? Prove it.

You may believe otherwise but history is full of examples where people have been fooled by the (social) media.

Its also full of examples where people have been fooled by con artists, fake prophets, gurus, cult of personalities, and shyster salesmen.


By the way, don't post twice in a row or you second post is likely to be deleted by a moderator. The next time you have a new thought, and you were the last one to post in a thread, simply edit your last post to include your new thoughts. I'm pointing this out to you now so you don't claim you are being conspired against later.

[hv_]

BSV is quite spectacular in a sense that it's THE ONLY ONE that has no block size limit at all and works perfectly well. "simply another big block fork" does not apply here, because even BCH has block size limit, they all do, except for the BSV. Quite an achievement for a mere scam, don't you think?

Not really; its the adjustment of a single parameter.

Based on pure technical decisions alone I would bet on BSV any time.

You're welcome to your opinion.

If there wasn't for BSV we would not have a single public block chain remaining that complies to the directives of the original whitepaper. Both BCH and BTC have deviated from the original design so much that they are no longer recognizable as BitCoin.

You're now making this a religious argument. So, you switched to Puritanism because you thought the excesses of the Catholic Church made it drift away from the teachings of Jesus. That's great. However, Bitcoin isn't a religion -- its a technology, and its free to evolve, even if it does it in such a way that renders the utility of your coin obsolete.

Your scam argument does not hold either, because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi.

You know it "for a fact," do you? Prove it.

You may believe otherwise but history is full of examples where people have been fooled by the (social) media.

Its also full of examples where people have been fooled by con artists, fake prophets, gurus, cult of personalities, and shyster salesmen.


By the way, don't post twice in a row or you second post is likely to be deleted by a moderator. The next time you have a new thought, and you were the last one to post in a thread, simply edit your last post to include your new thoughts. I'm pointing this out to you now so you don't claim you are being conspired against later.

... yeah, no way to serve the requests. Nobody owes to deliver any proof

Grow up and do own research

[Hyena]

You will notice that in any online debate, a person who has been pushed into corner will start replying to you in parts quoting each part separately. It's a sign of weakness. They think that if they cut the post into smaller pieces it's easier for them to make it seem like they've nailed it.  

When you start seeing this, you know that the starter of it is already defeated, but is unable to admit it, so they will indulge in cluster-quoting to save face. I'm doing this for the illustrative purpose and for laughs, but it's really established already that the dialogue has come to a dead end.

BSV is quite spectacular in a sense that it's THE ONLY ONE that has no block size limit at all and works perfectly well. "simply another big block fork" does not apply here, because even BCH has block size limit, they all do, except for the BSV. Quite an achievement for a mere scam, don't you think?

Not really; its the adjustment of a single parameter.

If it's not spectacular then why hasn't it been done in more than ONE instance? Keep saying to yourself that it's "not really spectacular" when it very clearly is.

If there wasn't for BSV we would not have a single public block chain remaining that complies to the directives of the original whitepaper. Both BCH and BTC have deviated from the original design so much that they are no longer recognizable as BitCoin.

You're now making this a religious argument. So, you switched to Puritanism because you thought the excesses of the Catholic Church made it drift away from the teachings of Jesus. That's great. However, Bitcoin isn't a religion -- its a technology, and its free to evolve, even if it does it in such a way that renders the utility of your coin obsolete.

No, you are. That's called building a strawman, which in your case is "the religious argument". If that was really the case then TCP would have kept evolving too, making it practically impossible for high speed networking hardware to be developed. A protocol must not evolve. If you had any knowledge of the technicalities of building distributed computer systems then you wouldn't even dare to propose such a comparison. That's the main problem with BitCoin in general. Completely computer illiterate people have made it their business to discuss these matters, bringing ridiculous comparisons to religion and what not, to compensate for the fact that they lack professional vocabulary.

Your scam argument does not hold either, because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi.

You know it "for a fact," do you? Prove it.

Yes, I've got empirical evidence. I can't prove it to you if you refuse to open your eyes. I could present any fact to you but it's ultimately up to you to either take it as a fact or keep hiding your head under the sand.

You may believe otherwise but history is full of examples where people have been fooled by the (social) media.

Its also full of examples where people have been fooled by con artists, fake prophets, gurus, cult of personalities, and shyster salesmen.

Which only proves the fact that one should do their own research and in case of a controversy, the least you can do is to discard your existing bias and listen to what both sides have to say. Have you done that? It seems to me that you just keep clinging even harder to your dear belief, which is typical of course.

By the way, don't post twice in a row or you second post is likely to be deleted by a moderator. The next time you have a new thought, and you were the last one to post in a thread, simply edit your last post to include your new thoughts. I'm pointing this out to you now so you don't claim you are being conspired against later.

You would love that, don't you? Too much truth in too short time can get highly discomfortable, to the extent where an excuse for "moderation" can be found from any bush.

[nutildah]

You will notice that in any online debate, a person who has been pushed into corner will start replying to you in parts quoting each part separately. It's a sign of weakness. They think that if they cut the post into smaller pieces it's easier for them to make it seem like they've nailed it.  

When you start seeing this, you know that the starter of it is already defeated, but is unable to admit it, so they will indulge in cluster-quoting to save face. I'm doing this for the illustrative purpose and for laughs, but it's really established already that the dialogue has come to a dead end.

Oh brother. If I already lost the argument in your mind, why bother responding? I'm addressing each one of your points separately (the ones worth addressing, anyway) -- you just did the exact same thing.

You're now making this a religious argument. So, you switched to Puritanism because you thought the excesses of the Catholic Church made it drift away from the teachings of Jesus. That's great. However, Bitcoin isn't a religion -- its a technology, and its free to evolve, even if it does it in such a way that renders the utility of your coin obsolete.

No, you are. That's called building a strawman, which in your case is "the religious argument". If that was really the case then TCP would have kept evolving too, making it practically impossible for high speed networking hardware to be developed. A protocol must not evolve. If you had any knowledge of the technicalities of building distributed computer systems then you wouldn't even dare to propose such a comparison. That's the main problem with BitCoin in general. Completely computer illiterate people have made it their business to discuss these matters, bringing ridiculous comparisons to religion and what not, to compensate for the fact that they lack professional vocabulary.

We get it: you're a big blocker. That does not mean that Bitcoin (BTC) isn't allowed to evolve without increasing the block size (it effectively already has increased the block size limit with SegWit -- that was the compromise made). However ironically, you are pushing for a less distributed, more centralized version of bitcoin, which is the antithesis of Satoshi's actual "vision."

Your scam argument does not hold either, because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi.

You know it "for a fact," do you? Prove it.

Yes, I've got empirical evidence. I can't prove it to you if you refuse to open your eyes. I could present any fact to you but it's ultimately up to you to either take it as a fact or keep hiding your head under the sand.

We both know you don't actually have any "evidence" that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked. If you had it, you would have presented it already. Now you are the one doing the straw-manning as an excuse to not share your "facts" with us.

[Hyena]

Oh brother. If I already lost the argument in your mind, why bother responding? I'm addressing each one of your points separately (the ones worth addressing, anyway) -- you just did the exact same thing.

We get it: you're a big blocker. That does not mean that Bitcoin (BTC) isn't allowed to evolve without increasing the block size (it effectively already has increased the block size limit with SegWit -- that was the compromise made). However ironically, you are pushing for a less distributed, more centralized version of bitcoin, which is the antithesis of Satoshi's actual "vision."

We both know you don't actually have any "evidence" that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked. If you had it, you would have presented it already. Now you are the one doing the straw-manning as an excuse to not share your "facts" with us.

Didn't you read what I wrote? I did it for laughs. But you keep responding because you are actually butthurt because I exposed it that you're weak (resorting to cluster-quoting).

What's your problem with centralization anyway? Don't you know that centralization into data-centers is actually good for BitCoin? Everyone keeps bashing centralization without even knowing what it means and what are its implications. This is exactly the thing that bothers me about these wannabe technical experts who have never taken even the basic course of programming. Boo-hoo go whine to ISPs that they are so centralized. You see your fallacy already? Centralization is part of professionalization, which in turn contributes to lower transaction fees and more use cases.

We both know that you don't actually have any evidence at all. I at least have the empirical evidence while you solely rely on proof of social media. That's the curse of non-technical wannabes. They fall for every trick in the book, because they lack the common sense and technical expertise to develop their own understanding on the matter.

[nutildah]

Didn't you read what I wrote? I did it for laughs.

Right. What a marvelous sense of humor you have.  

defense of centralization, personal attacks -- distress intensifies

K, so you're not offering any proof of your "fact" that CSW is Satoshi then. Got it. Thanks for joining us.

[vapourminer]

What's your problem with centralization anyway? Don't you know that centralization into data-centers is actually good for BitCoin? Everyone keeps bashing centralization without even knowing what it means and what are its implications. This is exactly the thing that bothers me about these wannabe technical experts who have never taken even the basic course of programming. Boo-hoo go whine to ISPs that they are so centralized. You see your fallacy already? Centralization is part of professionalization, which in turn contributes to lower transaction fees and more use cases.

so ultimately there is one validator - ie yours/CSWs/(((thems)))/the lizards/etc?

who will have the computing power to validate your central all powerful node? be nice if someone, whos not a state actor, could validate the blockchain.

or we just have to buy a high end datacenter to trust you guys?

[Hyena]

Didn't you read what I wrote? I did it for laughs.

Right. What a marvelous sense of humor you have.  

defense of centralization, personal attacks -- distress intensifies

K, so you're not offering any proof of your "fact" that CSW is Satoshi then. Got it. Thanks for joining us.

Please read again my original reply to you as I made it perfectly clear why I was replying to you by cluster-quoting. Now you are just refusing hard to admit it. Typical keyboard warrior psychology.

As I have stated, there is no proof possible to be delivered on an Internet forum to a person who does not want to admit being wrong. But you are one arrogant lazy piece of work, I must admit that, because you are so lazy that you expect me to chew your food for you. To a person capable of rational thought, my background alone should make them think "hmm, maybe the social media and the popular opinion is wrong", but instead, you just keep doubling down like a true gambler until the bitter end. Good luck, don't kill yourself when the chickens come home to roost though. There is nothing more pathetic in this world than a suicide because of material loss.

What's your problem with centralization anyway? Don't you know that centralization into data-centers is actually good for BitCoin? Everyone keeps bashing centralization without even knowing what it means and what are its implications. This is exactly the thing that bothers me about these wannabe technical experts who have never taken even the basic course of programming. Boo-hoo go whine to ISPs that they are so centralized. You see your fallacy already? Centralization is part of professionalization, which in turn contributes to lower transaction fees and more use cases.

so ultimately there is one validator - ie yours/CSWs/(((thems)))/the lizards/etc?

who will have the computing power to validate your central all powerful node? be nice if someone, whos not a state actor, could validate the blockchain.

or we just have to buy a high end datacenter to trust you guys?

Is there ultimately just one ISP? The answer is no. That is also the answer to your first question.

The second question is too incoherent so it can't be given a sensible answer.

Also the third one.

But please elaborate, what's with the centralization paranoia? Tell me why a handful of datacenters shouldn't take care of settling BitCoin transactions?

[hv_]

What's your problem with centralization anyway? Don't you know that centralization into data-centers is actually good for BitCoin? Everyone keeps bashing centralization without even knowing what it means and what are its implications. This is exactly the thing that bothers me about these wannabe technical experts who have never taken even the basic course of programming. Boo-hoo go whine to ISPs that they are so centralized. You see your fallacy already? Centralization is part of professionalization, which in turn contributes to lower transaction fees and more use cases.

so ultimately there is one validator - ie yours/CSWs/(((thems)))/the lizards/etc?

who will have the computing power to validate your central all powerful node? be nice if someone, whos not a state actor, could validate the blockchain.

or we just have to buy a high end datacenter to trust you guys?

These datacenters already exist called miners and pools, farms. Highly connected, highly efficient creating the blockchain. They are the producers with long term investments, running all the server farms and spending money on energy and infrastructure, already such big business and regulated.

'Decentralized' enough


If big shit happens they're all in charge.

[Hyena]

What's your problem with centralization anyway? Don't you know that centralization into data-centers is actually good for BitCoin? Everyone keeps bashing centralization without even knowing what it means and what are its implications. This is exactly the thing that bothers me about these wannabe technical experts who have never taken even the basic course of programming. Boo-hoo go whine to ISPs that they are so centralized. You see your fallacy already? Centralization is part of professionalization, which in turn contributes to lower transaction fees and more use cases.

so ultimately there is one validator - ie yours/CSWs/(((thems)))/the lizards/etc?

who will have the computing power to validate your central all powerful node? be nice if someone, whos not a state actor, could validate the blockchain.

or we just have to buy a high end datacenter to trust you guys?

These datacenters already exist called miners and pools, farms. Highly connected, highly efficient creating the blockchain. They are the producers with long term investments, running all the server farms and spending money on energy and infrastructure, already such big business and regulated.

'Decentralized' enough


If big shit happens they're all in charge.

EXACTLY.

At least someone here has some brains.

Everyone be fearing the big bad datacenters, unable to realize that they can't do ANY HARM. Centralization paranoia is the most ridiculous fear that has taken over the whole cryptocurrency space.

What can a big bad datacetner do besides settling your transactions? Did anyone say 51% "attack"?

Let me tell you something about the so called "51% attack" --- it's purely fictional. In the real world, there is law. You obstruct the normal behavior of a computer network --- you go to jail. That simple. There's nothing easier than to track down a big datacenter that has gone rogue like that. They will lose their equipment, their investors are going to lose money. So stop with the centralization mantra already, you will just expose the fact that you have no understanding how BitCoin as an economic system is designed to work within the rule of law.

[nutildah]

As I have stated, there is no proof possible to be delivered on an Internet forum to a person who does not want to admit being wrong. But you are one arrogant lazy piece of work, I must admit that, because you are so lazy that you expect me to chew your food for you. To a person capable of rational thought, my background alone should make them think "hmm, maybe the social media and the popular opinion is wrong", but instead, you just keep doubling down like a true gambler until the bitter end. Good luck, don't kill yourself when the chickens come home to roost though. There is nothing more pathetic in this world than a suicide because of material loss.

Wow, that's some dark projection your engaging in. Your background is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. If you wish to provide a counterargument to the debate that Craig is a scammer, you can't just say "because I'm me and I say he's not." That's not an argument, its an appeal to self-appointed authority.

Just try me. Just present whatever proof you have that Craig is Satoshi, and I will remain silent about it and let others respond. You're the one who stated you knew it as a fact. Either provide your evidence or be ridiculed about your statement. Save the personal attacks, the grandstanding and ego, and present something of substance for a change.

[suchmoon]

there is no proof

This part is true. The rest of it not so much.

Let me tell you something about the so called "51% attack" --- it's purely fictional. In the real world, there is law. You obstruct the normal behavior of a computer network --- you go to jail. That simple. There's nothing easier than to track down a big datacenter that has gone rogue like that. They will lose their equipment, their investors are going to lose money. So stop with the centralization mantra already, you will just expose the fact that you have no understanding how BitCoin as an economic system is designed to work within the rule of law.

Yeah who the fuck cooked up this whole fictional blockchain thing with irreversible transactions and other bullshit. All you need is banks and law enforcement to keep your money safe.

[Hyena]

Your background is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. If you wish to provide a counterargument to the debate that Craig is a scammer, you can't just say "because I'm me and I say he's not." That's not an argument, its an appeal to self-appointed authority.

Just try me. Just present whatever proof you have that Craig is Satoshi, and I will remain silent about it and let others respond. You're the one who stated you knew it as a fact. Either provide your evidence or be ridiculed about your statement. Save the personal attacks, the grandstanding and ego, and present something of substance for a change.

Let me conclude what you just said:

"everything you say to irrelevant, just try me and I will discard it no matter what"

I wonder if you feel silly now.

[nutildah]

Your background is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. If you wish to provide a counterargument to the debate that Craig is a scammer, you can't just say "because I'm me and I say he's not." That's not an argument, its an appeal to self-appointed authority.

Just try me. Just present whatever proof you have that Craig is Satoshi, and I will remain silent about it and let others respond. You're the one who stated you knew it as a fact. Either provide your evidence or be ridiculed about your statement. Save the personal attacks, the grandstanding and ego, and present something of substance for a change.

Let me conclude what you just said:

"everything you say to irrelevant, just try me and I will discard it no matter what"

I wonder if you feel silly now.

That's not what I said. I challenged you to back your absurd claim and said I would not question it. You chickened out.

I will never feel silly compared to a guy who said he knows for a fact that Craig is Satoshi, and refuses to even bother explaining why.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Craig Steven Wright - Satoshi or MtGox Hacker ?


 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF received the coins from MTGox when it was hacked in 2011

A sworn statement by Craig Wrights lawyer from 2013 that Craig Wright showed him on his phone that he controlled 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF presented by Craig Wright to the Supreme Court of New South Wales as proof that it was used as collateral for his business


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4462663-24-4.html#document/p5/a423127


https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1196794848852037632
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

Do you still trust your chain developer ?

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I, luv2drnkbr, am the owner of address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Version: Bitcoin-qt (1.0)
Address: 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

HLO4RuAWOGeo5P9SXXt+z7fwjcqyRN6h9GJfkACmGllLEiXfYfb4G+MIqW7knQ+ScBcgECZdSxaxI8HEiHBncxE=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I, luv2drnkbr, am the owner of address 16cou7Ht6WjTzuFyDBnht9hmvXytg6XdVT
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Version: Bitcoin-qt (1.0)
Address: 16cou7Ht6WjTzuFyDBnht9hmvXytg6XdVT

G1SkgPKRugdzhK9o2Ye5/UgW8Gr6YTAu2T41TtpN+E4CsWIIeqv1PbVxlRrHwrPFR666XQ1Xv0q00BfrEilRn0w=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

Now then, what can I do for you?

[Hyena]

Willful ignorance is one hell of a drug.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world knows that those forged documents were not forged by Craig but instead of the rogue ex-employees who wanted to liquidate his company. You honestly believe a document that was found from the computer of a rogue ex-employee and which seemingly appears to be forged by Craig actually proves that Craig forged it? You have to be living in a fantasy land where wishful thinking has replaced common sense  or alternatively, you're a simpleton who's mind freezes when it has to deal with recursion, so like a true NPCs that you are, you fall back to "aussie man bad" if you can't comprehend the recursion.

[hv_]

Willful ignorance is one hell of a drug.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world knows that those forged documents were not forged by Craig but instead of the rogue ex-employees who wanted to liquidate his company. You honestly believe a document that was found from the computer of a rogue ex-employee and which seemingly appears to be forged by Craig actually proves that Craig forged it? You have to be living in a fantasy land where wishful thinking has replaced common sense   or alternatively, you're a simpleton who's mind freezes when it has to deal with recursion, so like a true NPCs that you are, you fall back to "aussie man bad" if you can't comprehend the recursion.

Many tried to tell the truth, but most of those posts just getting deleted all the time.

I came to the conclusion that ppl who don't do own research does deserve to stay uninformed

And many just do not want to know the truth, cause their bags govern their will

[xtraelv]

Willful ignorance is one hell of a drug.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world knows that those forged documents were not forged by Craig but instead of the rogue ex-employees who wanted to liquidate his company. You honestly believe a document that was found from the computer of a rogue ex-employee and which seemingly appears to be forged by Craig actually proves that Craig forged it? You have to be living in a fantasy land where wishful thinking has replaced common sense   or alternatively, you're a simpleton who's mind freezes when it has to deal with recursion, so like a true NPCs that you are, you fall back to "aussie man bad" if you can't comprehend the recursion.

Craig Steven Wright - Satoshi or MtGox Hacker ?


 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF received the coins from MTGox when it was hacked in 2011

A sworn statement by Craig Wrights lawyer from 2013 that Craig Wright showed him on his phone that he controlled 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF presented by Craig Wright to the Supreme Court of New South Wales as proof that it was used as collateral for his business


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4462663-24-4.html#document/p5/a423127


https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1196794848852037632
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

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.

[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.

[xtraelv]

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).

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4462663-24-4.html#document/p5/a423127










The owner of 16cou7Ht6WjTzuFyDBnht9hmvXytg6XdVT wrote this:

"Address 16cou7Ht6WjTzuFyDBnht9hmvXytg6XdVT does not belong to Satoshi or to Craig Wright."


Verified here

and  1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF received the bitcoin from the 2011 MtGox hack.