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

[hv_]

I remember reading some months back that Craig Scamtoshi was claiming one address with a high nr of bitcoin on it to be his , and after that the owner of the address signed a message proving Craig Shitoshi is a liar and a fraud .    What happened with that ? Is it confirmed ? Did anyone verify the message ?

Literally 2 pages back in this very thread !

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

You should also read all of the WizSec posts here:

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

Oh thank you !!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is mr. master degree and empirical evidence to comment on this ?

He got hacked and now only commenting in court
https://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
 >>  ...  “I hacked Satoshi Naklamoto [sic],”  ...



not really astonishing

the hackers are the scammers - not Satoshi
But now the hackers got triggerd and only can REACT

Who made and still makes the pace?

[tmfp]

Bullshit

Dude.. I am ready to bet 1 BTC that after 1 month BSV will be under $150. Do you have balls to accept my bet ?

Where is my BTC, mosprognoz?
You didn't get that right, didn't you?

Actually, give or take a few days, he was bang on.
I can't see where you responded and took the bet though.

[BitcoinFX]

I remember reading some months back that Craig Scamtoshi was claiming one address with a high nr of bitcoin on it to be his , and after that the owner of the address signed a message proving Craig Shitoshi is a liar and a fraud .    What happened with that ? Is it confirmed ? Did anyone verify the message ?

Literally 2 pages back in this very thread !

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

You should also read all of the WizSec posts here:

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

Oh thank you !!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is mr. master degree and empirical evidence to comment on this ?

He got hacked and now only commenting in court
https://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
 >>  ...  “I hacked Satoshi Naklamoto [sic],”  ...



not really astonishing

the hackers are the scammers - not Satoshi
But now the hackers got triggerd and only can REACT

Who made and still makes the pace?

Any actual evidence of these so called 'hackers' then ? Or simply more mythopoeia from CSW ?

 

[Iamtutut]

That was part of his strategy, faking being doxxed to appear as Satoshi.

[hv_]

Sure, forking own docs and provide to a court case.

Not everyone is that dumb to believe. But some are...

Lol

Bags took over brains, positions the talking

[posi]

Where is mr. master degree and empirical evidence to comment on this ?

He's probably resting. Shilling so hard for a scam takes a lot out of oneself.

When he returns, he'll completely ignore all of this and keep focusing on trivial, unrelated matters. Probably will continue to insist we throw common sense out the window and take his word for everything. After all, he's a computer engineer with 15 years experience, doncha know.

Unrelated but somehow you've also managed to describe game-protect here  ( - the computer engineer part ) . Seems like scammy people share the same pattern .

For the name you mentioned, i can't say anything about that because everything about him should be clear to people right now but be a computer engineering part doesn't mean everyone who's will abuse the system and i don't think the two should be compared.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

This one is absolutely hilarious ... complete bunkum and twaddle from CSW, mixing facts with fiction again, clearly demonstrating a total misunderstanding of anything Bitcoin or even digital cash ...

- https://twitter.com/C0inAlchemist/status/1227229901922742274

He continues to backtrack on what he says and twists the historical narrative to fit with his BSV agenda.

"... tokens ... !?!" ... "hashing is not cryptographic" ... "digital signature algorithms are not cryptographic" ... WTF! GTFO - SWIM

Put on my clown suede shoes
And I boarded the plane..
Touched down in the land of the BSV
In the middle of the shit show rain..
Yeah, I got a second  class ticket
But I'm as fake as a boy can be....


**Chorus**

Because you know I ain't satoshi....
You know iv'e never had the keys to the stash.
I like to talk so much shit
Perjury charge is on the wayyyy.

 

[Hyena]

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.

If you're so smart then why aren't you rich yet? I bought into BitCoin when it was trading at 4$ each. Got discouraged by tons of Bitcoin-deniers back then just like I am discouraged by Craig-deniers right here. Turned out pretty well for me in 2012. Wouldn't have to work a day in my life, but I will, because I love my job so much (developing video games).

It's laughable what stunts some of you guys are willing to make just to keep denying the possibility that Craig might actually be Satoshi. You are ignoring someone, who invested in BitCoin in 2012, became rich thanks to that, has master's degree in software engineering and 15 years of field practice as a software architect. Not only that, I have provably predicted 2 BitCoin bubbles in the past in this very same forum (the threads are still here) and I was first to start encoding images on the BitCoin's block chain with https://cryptograffiti.info/ which I single-handedly developed in the beginning of 2014.

It's incredible that you are willing to ignore and reject all that just so you could keep on believing the popular lies about Craig. Simply incredible. In the world of reasonable people, my personal achievements in life alone are enough for someone to take my words seriously. I know this, because I have turned MANY people from Craig-deniers into Craig-belivers in person. It's because during in-person conversations it's much harder to ignore the other person's credibility in the field of discussion. And I know for fact, that I have credibility, so don't try to pretend my personal achievements are nothing. We all know, that in the real world, all of this matters. You can talk whatever you want, but if you don't have achievements backing up your words then you are a big zero. But here, we apparently don't have many reasonable people and thus we see manufactured conversations, in which the real purpose is to brainwash unsuspecting fools into believing the lies and not to figure out what the truth is.

The good news is, Craig will prove in multiple courts this year with real evidence (not digital signatures which are not even real signatures in terms of law) that he created BitCoin, and when that happens, I expect some of you here to PM me an apology.

[xtraelv]

the hackers are the scammers - not Satoshi
But now the hackers got triggerd and only can REACT

Who made and still makes the pace?

You keep repeating the same rhetoric but I did not post those documents. I posted documents that are a sworn affidavit prepared and signed by CSW from an earlier 2013 case where he was the plaintiff. No hacking there. It is sworn information provided by CSW.

So either the affidavit is true in which case CSW was the recipient of the 2011 MtGox stolen bitcoin or it is untrue and CSW as director of a company issued false invoices and claimed tax credits on transactions that did not occur. 

[TheNewAnon135246]

I remember reading some months back that Craig Scamtoshi was claiming one address with a high nr of bitcoin on it to be his , and after that the owner of the address signed a message proving Craig Shitoshi is a liar and a fraud .    What happened with that ? Is it confirmed ? Did anyone verify the message ?

Literally 2 pages back in this very thread !

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

You should also read all of the WizSec posts here:

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

Oh thank you !!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is mr. master degree and empirical evidence to comment on this ?

He got hacked and now only commenting in court
https://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
 >>  ...  “I hacked Satoshi Naklamoto [sic],”  ...



not really astonishing

the hackers are the scammers - not Satoshi
But now the hackers got triggerd and only can REACT

Who made and still makes the pace?

Nobody hacked Craig, anything he says is a lie. He will soon find out how.U.S. judges deal with continous perjury.

[suzanne5223]

I read that President Trump want the secret service to tacke Bitcoin problem concern scam, fraud etc and some people believed that this could be the doomsday for Wright cause there's chance of him been ask to provide genuine evidence if he was truly Satoshi as he claimed by the Secret service agent.

[Hyena]

the hackers are the scammers - not Satoshi
But now the hackers got triggerd and only can REACT

Who made and still makes the pace?

You keep repeating the same rhetoric but I did not post those documents. I posted documents that are a sworn affidavit prepared and signed by CSW from an earlier 2013 case where he was the plaintiff. No hacking there. It is sworn information provided by CSW.

So either the affidavit is true in which case CSW was the recipient of the 2011 MtGox stolen bitcoin or it is untrue and CSW as director of a company issued false invoices and claimed tax credits on transactions that did not occur.  

Stop repeating the same rhetoric! You keep talking about those MtGox stolen bitcoins which is a complete fabrication. It's disgusting that you spread an altered version of the document which has the MtGox address added to it and you keep saying that it is a legitimate document.

[xtraelv]

the hackers are the scammers - not Satoshi
But now the hackers got triggerd and only can REACT

Who made and still makes the pace?

You keep repeating the same rhetoric but I did not post those documents. I posted documents that are a sworn affidavit prepared and signed by CSW from an earlier 2013 case where he was the plaintiff. No hacking there. It is sworn information provided by CSW.

So either the affidavit is true in which case CSW was the recipient of the 2011 MtGox stolen bitcoin or it is untrue and CSW as director of a company issued false invoices and claimed tax credits on transactions that did not occur.  

Stop repeating the same rhetoric! You keep talking about those MtGox stolen bitcoins which is a complete fabrication. It's disgusting that you spread an altered version of the document which has the MtGox address added to it and you keep saying that it is a legitimate document.

I guess we will find out soon which one is the altered document. The one on twitter or the notarized one containing the MtGox theft address filed in court. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/24/4/kleiman-v-wright/

But lets look at the "evidence" that you presented.

The evidence that you believe:




Posted on twitter



Not notarized.





Fonts / letter size appears different.

1fvzclotpgannjwouo6juguag3wg1w4yjr doesn't appear to exist.  Not appearing on any explorer.
12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX
1GkQmKAmHtNfnD3LHhTkewJxKHVSta4m2a
1dyoBoF5vDmPCxwSsUZbbYhA5qjAfBTx9
12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S

All do not contain enough funds to support the rest of the documentation.

Remember it has to show:







In 2011 - 2013






The evidence that I believe:



Filed in court.



Notarized





Fonts and letter size match on the same document.

It also appears (to attempt) to support the rest of the documentation for the $28,254,666 claim




https://svskull.club/files/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.9.1.pdf

[nutildah]

If you're so smart then why aren't you rich yet? I bought into BitCoin when it was trading at 4$ each. Got discouraged by tons of Bitcoin-deniers back then just like I am discouraged by Craig-deniers right here. Turned out pretty well for me in 2012. Wouldn't have to work a day in my life, but I will, because I love my job so much (developing video games).

It's laughable what stunts some of you guys are willing to make just to keep denying the possibility that Craig might actually be Satoshi. You are ignoring someone, who invested in BitCoin in 2012, became rich thanks to that, has master's degree in software engineering and 15 years of field practice as a software architect. Not only that, I have provably predicted 2 BitCoin bubbles in the past in this very same forum (the threads are still here) and I was first to start encoding images on the BitCoin's block chain with https://cryptograffiti.info/ which I single-handedly developed in the beginning of 2014.

It's incredible that you are willing to ignore and reject all that just so you could keep on believing the popular lies about Craig. Simply incredible. In the world of reasonable people, my personal achievements in life alone are enough for someone to take my words seriously. I know this, because I have turned MANY people from Craig-deniers into Craig-belivers in person. It's because during in-person conversations it's much harder to ignore the other person's credibility in the field of discussion. And I know for fact, that I have credibility, so don't try to pretend my personal achievements are nothing. We all know, that in the real world, all of this matters. You can talk whatever you want, but if you don't have achievements backing up your words then you are a big zero. But here, we apparently don't have many reasonable people and thus we see manufactured conversations, in which the real purpose is to brainwash unsuspecting fools into believing the lies and not to figure out what the truth is.

The good news is, Craig will prove in multiple courts this year with real evidence (not digital signatures which are not even real signatures in terms of law) that he created BitCoin, and when that happens, I expect some of you here to PM me an apology.

Most of this is quite pathetic. TBH I did enjoy the cryptograffiti site, but then you pointed it to the BCH blockchain, which made it useless, and now it points to the SV blockchain, which makes it even moreso.

I take it you won't be producing any evidence required to support your ridiculous claim that Craig is Satoshi any time soon, that's a shame. But please, keep droning on about your self-described personal achievements, maybe some of us will be wowed into believing Craig is Satoshi.


"I have found that Dr. Wright intentionally submitted fraudulent documents to the Court, obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurious testimony. No conduct is more antithetical to the administration of justice." - Judge Bruce Reinhart

[xtraelv]

Ok, I've a question for anybody in this thread who might have come across a suitable answer on the topic during this court process. I'm not claiming to be the first person to spot this (I think that kudos goes to this Redditor from 3 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4htw3t/how_to_steal_54_millions_of_dollar_from_the/ )

Dave Kleiman is listed in the UK's Companies House database as having been an officer of one of CSW's UK companes, namely, C01N LTD, (Originally called 'Design By Human Ltd' at incorporation in 2012, then changed to 'Moving Forward In Business Ltd in October 2013, before finally being renamed again, as 'C01N LTD' on January 2014)



We can see he is listed as having been appointed shortly after it's incorporation (when it was called 'Design By Human Ltd') and resigned as at the date of his death in April 2013



But, here's the thing, Dave Kleiman was appointed, and subsequently resigned, long after his death using back-dated dates of appointment and resignation documents filed in April 2014








Now, while filing back-dated appointment/resignation forms isn't that out of the ordinary, it is particularly questionable if it involves the deceased. Without there being supporting legal documentation proving that the deceased had previously accepted their appointment as an officer of a company, it runs the risk of looking like a fraudulent filing.

The issue here is:



Is there evidence that Dave Kleiman actually consented to act as director of this company back when it was still called 'Design By Human Ltd'? Evidence outside of the usual sloppy forgeries Faketoshi furnishes courtrooms with, of course.

More sloppiness :

It was an attempt to retrospectively appoint him as a director.

But the records show otherwise:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248988/filing-history?page=1

Filing timeline:





2013 Annual filing showing ALL directors:
It was called Design by Human in 2013







All directors resign and shareholding changes to CSW. Name changes to Co1n Ltd



2014 Annual filing showing ALL directors:








Retrospective attempt to insert Uygen Ngyen and David Kleiman as directors (after his death with backdated appointment)
Notice that neither of these people are on either the 2013 return or the 2014 return.
Note: In 2012 the company name was Design by Human Ltd






http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/10


The accounts also don't add up. In 2013 and 2014 it was reported to have £38 000 000 in assets while in 2015 it mysteriously becomes £3 800 000 in assets for 2014.


seen here





seen here


For a s480 excemption from audit its total assets should not be more than £3.26 million, as reported on the balance sheet.




https://www.accaglobal.com/hk/en/technical-activities/technical-resources-search/2011/august/audit-exemption-cos-llps.html

[hv_]

Nice proof of forgeritiies and hackerities - proof of twitter lawers and prejuries

- Nothing of substance

[nutildah]

Nice proof of forgeritiies and hackerities - proof of twitter lawers and prejuries

- Nothing of substance

Evidence submitted to court is "nothing of substance" only if you remain willfully ignorant to what it means. You're not even trying. Every comment you write is just "No," followed by incomprehensible nonsense.

Don't you have anything better to do than troll this forum? Shouldn't you be busy building the new internet or uploading things to your blockchain?

Craig lies everywhere he does, kind of like you. I guess you learned from the best.

[Hyena]

Nice proof of forgeritiies and hackerities - proof of twitter lawers and prejuries

- Nothing of substance

Evidence submitted to court is "nothing of substance" only if you remain willfully ignorant to what it means. You're not even trying. Every comment you write is just "No," followed by incomprehensible nonsense.

Don't you have anything better to do than troll this forum? Shouldn't you be busy building the new internet or uploading things to your blockchain?

Craig lies everywhere he does, kind of like you. I guess you learned from the best.

How about yourself? You are quick to respond here. Don't you have anything better to do? Just recently you called my life achievements "quite pathetic". I guess it's quite pathetic to become a multi-millionaire before the age of 30 by making good investment decisions then 

You, sir, are quite pathetic yourself. Not only are you advertising a gambling site in your signature, but you keep repeating the same worn-out misconceptions about Craig Wright. Be a man for once in your life and admit it. It's the first step, to start admitting your mistakes.

Craig submitted to the court everything that matched certain search criteria given by the judge. As a result, he had to submit papers that other people had forged to set him up. You are taking a wishful leap of faith interpreting it as if Craig himself forged them. Are you stupid in the head or something?

[xtraelv]

Nice proof of forgeritiies and hackerities - proof of twitter lawers and prejuries

- Nothing of substance

Evidence submitted to court is "nothing of substance" only if you remain willfully ignorant to what it means. You're not even trying. Every comment you write is just "No," followed by incomprehensible nonsense.

Don't you have anything better to do than troll this forum? Shouldn't you be busy building the new internet or uploading things to your blockchain?

Craig lies everywhere he does, kind of like you. I guess you learned from the best.

Craig Wright was the director when that information was submitted to the registrar of companies. It is the directors legal responsibility to ensure the information is correct.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248988/filing-history?page=1

Craig Wright is also the signatory to this declaration to the court stating that c01n ltd (a company that was under his control) was trustee of his trust.





https://judicialcaselaw.com/courts/flsd/cases/9_18-cv-80176-BB/051120866398?page=4

[Hyena]

Nice proof of forgeritiies and hackerities - proof of twitter lawers and prejuries

- Nothing of substance

Evidence submitted to court is "nothing of substance" only if you remain willfully ignorant to what it means. You're not even trying. Every comment you write is just "No," followed by incomprehensible nonsense.

Don't you have anything better to do than troll this forum? Shouldn't you be busy building the new internet or uploading things to your blockchain?

Craig lies everywhere he does, kind of like you. I guess you learned from the best.

Craig Wright was the director when that information was submitted to the registrar of companies. It is  directors legal responsibility to ensure the information is correct.

Craig Wright is also the signatory to this declaration to the court stating that c01n ltd (a company that was under his control) was trustee of his trust

Dude, leave the legalities to the professionals. What are you, an internet expert of law? You are just producing noise (perhaps deliberately?) by posting these random snapshots from the court files.