Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam]

[nullius]

धन्यवाद, amishmanish!  India now exposes the essential nature of Craig Wright’s scam in the Hindi language:

बिटकॉइन के गुमनाम संस्थापक की पहचान भी एक ढोंगी,बहरूपिये ने चुराने की कोशिश करी है

क्रेग राइट भी एक बहरूपिया, पहचान चुराने वाला identity thief है.

English, Russian, Romanian, Hindi...  Soon, all the world will know Anastasia’s message about Wright’s wrongs against Satoshi!

[xtraelv]

Craig Wright claimed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales that he controlled 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

He presented a sworn document purportedly created in 2013 where his lawyer swore that Craig controlled the address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

The funds in this address were used as collateral for his business ventures.

1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF received the coins from MTGox when it was hacked in 2011 and the coins have never moved.

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

[GazetaBitcoin]

What I'm going to say may (or may not) be taken seriously into consideration, but this is what crossed my mind now for defeating Bitcoin: is there a chance to gather all the users from this forum sharing the same stance towards CSW and start a collective lawsuit against him for identity theft? Or to collect some money from all of them in order to pay a good lawyer to start such a trial?

Of course, it would be needed serious conditions to be met (such as having a great number of users interested / involved; having a very trustworthy forum member to hold all the money collected and also to pay the lawyer; having someone (at least 1 person) to actually start the trial; deciding in which country it would be best to open this trial; having users willing to be called as witnesses etc.) but if this thing becomes a reality, I think the truth will win in the end, although it could take years until the end of the trial.

[xtraelv]

What I'm going to say may (or may not) be taken seriously into consideration, but this is what crossed my mind now for defeating Bitcoin: is there a chance to gather all the users from this forum sharing the same stance towards CSW and start a collective lawsuit against him for identity theft? Or to collect some money from all of them in order to pay a good lawyer to start such a trial?

Of course, it would be needed serious conditions to be met (such as having a great number of users interested / involved; having a very trustworthy forum member to hold all the money collected and also to pay the lawyer; having someone (at least 1 person) to actually start the trial; deciding in which country it would be best to open this trial; having users willing to be called as witnesses etc.) but if this thing becomes a reality, I think the truth will win in the end, although it could take years until the end of the trial.

It might be easier to start a lawsuit to recover the $700 million in MtGox coins that were stolen in 2011 that he claimed to have the private keys to in 2013.

[Dabs]

If CSW claims to control the keys, then those are stolen funds and must be surrendered. Failure to do so would be criminal or contempt or something bad.

Of course, if he then claims, the mobile wallet is watch only ... ... I have that too. I've been watching all the rich lists since before there was an official add address command with the help of pywallet. One could add the entire rich list and look like you have a nice wallet, but claim, it's locked with a passphrase that you can't remember.

[JayJuanGee]

Craig Wright claimed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales that he controlled 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

He presented a sworn document purportedly created in 2013 where his lawyer swore that Craig controlled the address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

The funds in this address were used as collateral for his business ventures.

1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF received the coins from MTGox when it was hacked in 2011 and the coins have never moved.

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

Any entity granting a loan based on claimed ownership of collateral assets should be technically sophisticated enough to be able to establish that such claim to collateral asset is actually provably true.  Now, if the loan is ONLY partially reliant on such collateral, then it might be a BIG ASS, "so what," people overstate their assets all the time when applying for a loan - even though such lying could cause for cancelling of the loan or changing of the loan terms.  If here are other assets that are potential collateral, that are provable or a co-signer then those would all be relevant factors to the lender in determining how to treat such claimed assets and whether the loan is reliant on the actual ownership of such assets.

[GazetaBitcoin]

What I'm going to say may (or may not) be taken seriously into consideration, but this is what crossed my mind now for defeating Bitcoin: is there a chance to gather all the users from this forum sharing the same stance towards CSW and start a collective lawsuit against him for identity theft? Or to collect some money from all of them in order to pay a good lawyer to start such a trial?

Of course, it would be needed serious conditions to be met (such as having a great number of users interested / involved; having a very trustworthy forum member to hold all the money collected and also to pay the lawyer; having someone (at least 1 person) to actually start the trial; deciding in which country it would be best to open this trial; having users willing to be called as witnesses etc.) but if this thing becomes a reality, I think the truth will win in the end, although it could take years until the end of the trial.

It might be easier to start a lawsuit to recover the $700 million in MtGox coins that were stolen in 2011 that he claimed to have the private keys to in 2013.

Apparently I didn't make myself clear: is there anyone interested in calling this Pinocchio into trial for identity theft? I am! Anyone else?

[bryant.coleman]

It might be easier to start a lawsuit to recover the $700 million in MtGox coins that were stolen in 2011 that he claimed to have the private keys to in 2013.

650,000 BTC in total (plus significant amounts of fiat and other cryptocurrencies such as Litecoin and Namecoin). Back then, it was worth close to $500 million. At present exchange rates, the BTC stash alone would be worth somewhere between $6 billion and $6.5 billion. I am 99% certain that it was Craig S Wright who masterminded the Mt Gox robbery. If this can be established, then this guys must be convicted and sent to prison for ruining the lives of tens of thousands of people. On top of that, Alexander Vinnik who is currently imprisoned on fake charges (including a charge related to Mt Gox robbery) must be immediately released from prison.

[nullius]

Amazing!  Two more translations were posted within three hours of each other.  Soon, indeed, the whole world will know to properly identify Craig Wright’s scam as identity theft.


Maraming Salamat, Baofeng, for the Filipino translation!

Ang pagkakakilanlan ng hindi nagpapakilalang tagapagtatag ng Bitcoin ay ninakaw ng isang impostor.

Si Craig Wright ay isang magnanakaw ng pagkakakilanlan:

Hatur Nuhun, Husna QA, for the Indonesian translation!  (And this is the first time that my mundane communications with a translator have been wholly PGP-encrypted.  Husna takes his crypto seriously.)

Identitas anonim pencipta Bitcoin dicuri oleh penipu

Craig Wright adalah pencuri identitas:

...with my further thanks again to Taikuri, Gazeta, and Manish for starting this trend!

Craig Wright claimed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales that he controlled 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

He presented a sworn document purportedly created in 2013 where his lawyer swore that Craig controlled the address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

The funds in this address were used as collateral for his business ventures.

Unless there is something that I missed here, I doubt that Craig Wright has access to the 1Feex private key.  Let’s lather up with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and shave down the following with Occam’s Razor:

• To damn all the more by understatement, CSW has a known history (!) of claiming possession of private keys which, in fact, he does not possess.  What evidence do we have that his 1Fee private key isn’t just like the Tulip briefcase-load of Satoshi private keys being handled by an action-movie secret-agent courier?
• Anybody who actually stole almost EIGHTY THOUSAND BITCOINS (!) should damn well know to never associate himself with that his stash of loot in a document filed with a court (!!).  Would a bank robber point to his stolen sacks of cash in a court filing?
• To my knowledge, there is no evidence that CSW has any advanced hacking skills (or even a competent understanding of how Bitcoin works).  Is there any evidence that he is concealing a keen technical intelligence behind his shrewd techno-clown showman swindle?
• The 1Feex address is a longtime popular mystery, and most people have no idea what it is (2014-12-28:  The only mention of “Gox” in that four-page thread, with no mention of the hack:  “The 1Fee address is probably an MT Gox address although there is no direct evidence, just circumstantial.”).  Yes, I know of later-discussed evidence in various places.  But try web-searching the address by itself, with no mention of Gox; you will find endless pages of social media speculation and fantasy completely unrelated to Mt. Gox.
  
  CSW could have simply picked that address the way almost everybody else finds it:  Looking at the richlists.  Faketoshi Classic:  “Hey, I need me something to claim as collateral... hmmm, let’s see:  What Bitcoin address has lots of money just sitting there?”
• Most lawyers and most courts are ignorant of technology—and you must multiply that factor a thousandfold for anything pertaining to Bitcoin in 2013!  It would be much easier to fool them than to fool (or “fool”) Gavin; and it’s unlikely that anybody would even keep an eye on the address to see if funds moved later.  A career scammer would know this.  It is just the type of human vulnerability that he exploits daily.
• If, as I suspect, Faketoshi may be on a leash being held by whomever I suspect to have compromised Gavin, “whoever” wants efficient, covert means to disrupt Bitcoin.  And if you want to shave away “whomever”, just consider that greedy, Bitcoin-hating scammer CSW has probably heard of a “short”.
  
  Regardless of the difficulty that the 1Fee possessor may have in recovering spendable money from it, anybody with private key to that address could wreak at least short-term havoc on the Bitcoin market—not merely in terms of the direct economic effect of “only” eighty thousand bitcoins, but much moreso through the FUD “news” headlines that could be generated.  Nuff said?
  
  Whereas a real blackhat would may not want to disrupt the Bitcoin market that way, if he anyway has plenty of spending money from other hacks.  Why?  For better or for worse, the “you shall protect Bitcoin” aspect of the Social Phenomenon applies to blackhats, too—at least to some degree.  I think to myself, if I were an intelligent blackhat acting only from rational self-interest, what would I do with 1Fee?  Probably more or less sit on it as my cold-stored nest egg and proof of ultimate pwnage, as I merrily spend all the other bitcoins that I have stolen in smaller, more easily-laundered amounts.  What?  Do I want to FUD the market for the money that I enjoy stealing and spending?  Lulz, I’m rolling in gold—I will not smack the goose that lays the golden eggs.

That being said, the question of whether or not Faketoshi possesses the 1Fee key is almost irrelevant at this particular moment if he claimed possession of stolen property in a court filing.  Either he essentially confessed to interesting crimes or, more likely, he committed a whole bundle of other interesting crimes rippling outward from lies told to a court.  In terms of his fate, the question of whether or not he actually possesses said property is thus tantamount to asking if he shot himself in his left foot, or shot himself in his right foot.

Of course, that question is much more interesting to any Gox creditors; but that is a separate issue, and unlikely to be a big issue due to the unlikelihood that he actually has a private key which he may have only “proved” to his lawyer similarly to how he “proved” a Satoshi key to Gavin.

I am 99% certain that it was Craig S Wright who masterminded the Mt Gox robbery. If this can be established,

Evidence establishing 99% certainty?  I doubt it, but I want to see it proved if it’s true.  Instant “game over” for Faketoshi, Nchain, and probably a few other bad characters closely associated with him.  Maybe also even a bit more recovery for people who got Goxed.  So... proof?  (Preferably in a concise link to/quote of more discussion elsewhere.)

It might be easier to start a lawsuit to recover the $700 million in MtGox coins that were stolen in 2011 that he claimed to have the private keys to in 2013.

If CSW claims to control the keys, then those are stolen funds and must be surrendered.

I will file that under “maximum lulz”:  Obviously, his defence must be to prove that he deceived a court in 2013!  Any which way it plays out, it would be mighty tough for people with badges to ignore.

“O, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.”
   — Sir Walter Scott

[gmaxwell]

If you thought wright couldn't top the last dozen absurd lies and idiotic baseless legal threats he's issued... you have a surprise in store for you:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200210203809/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e

He is now claiming his stole identity entitles him to complete ownership of the Bitcoin system.

[xtraelv]

Unless there is something that I missed here, I doubt that Craig Wright has access to the 1Feex private key.  Let’s lather up with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and shave down the following with Occam’s Razor:

• To damn all the more by understatement, CSW has a known history (!) of claiming possession of private keys which, in fact, he does not possess.  What evidence do we have that his 1Fee private key isn’t just like the Tulip briefcase-load of Satoshi private keys being handled by an action-movie secret-agent courier?
• Anybody who actually stole almost EIGHTY THOUSAND BITCOINS (!) should damn well know to never associate himself with that his stash of loot in a document filed with a court (!!).  Would a bank robber point to his stolen sacks of cash in a court filing?
• To my knowledge, there is no evidence that CSW has any advanced hacking skills (or even a competent understanding of how Bitcoin works).  Is there any evidence that he is concealing a keen technical intelligence behind his shrewd techno-clown showman swindle?
• The 1Feex address is a longtime popular mystery, and most people have no idea what it is (2014-12-28:  The only mention of “Gox” in that four-page thread, with no mention of the hack:  “The 1Fee address is probably an MT Gox address although there is no direct evidence, just circumstantial.”).  Yes, I know of later-discussed evidence in various places.  But try web-searching the address by itself, with no mention of Gox; you will find endless pages of social media speculation and fantasy completely unrelated to Mt. Gox.
  
  CSW could have simply picked that address the way almost everybody else finds it:  Looking at the richlists.  Faketoshi Classic:  “Hey, I need me something to claim as collateral... hmmm, let’s see:  What Bitcoin address has lots of money just sitting there?”
• Most lawyers and most courts are ignorant of technology—and you must multiply that factor a thousandfold for anything pertaining to Bitcoin in 2013!  It would be much easier to fool them than to fool (or “fool”) Gavin; and it’s unlikely that anybody would even keep an eye on the address to see if funds moved later.  A career scammer would know this.  It is just the type of human vulnerability that he exploits daily.
• If, as I suspect, Faketoshi may be on a leash being held by whomever I suspect to have compromised Gavin, “whoever” wants efficient, covert means to disrupt Bitcoin.  And if you want to shave away “whomever”, just consider that greedy, Bitcoin-hating scammer CSW has probably heard of a “short”.
  
  Regardless of the difficulty that the 1Fee possessor may have in recovering spendable money from it, anybody with private key to that address could wreak at least short-term havoc on the Bitcoin market—not merely in terms of the direct economic effect of “only” eighty thousand bitcoins, but much moreso through the FUD “news” headlines that could be generated.  Nuff said?
  
  Whereas a real blackhat would may not want to disrupt the Bitcoin market that way, if he anyway has plenty of spending money from other hacks.  Why?  For better or for worse, the “you shall protect Bitcoin” aspect of the Social Phenomenon applies to blackhats, too—at least to some degree.  I think to myself, if I were an intelligent blackhat acting only from rational self-interest, what would I do with 1Fee?  Probably more or less sit on it as my cold-stored nest egg and proof of ultimate pwnage, as I merrily spend all the other bitcoins that I have stolen in smaller, more easily-laundered amounts.  What?  Do I want to FUD the market for the money that I enjoy stealing and spending?  Lulz, I’m rolling in gold—I will not smack the goose that lays the golden eggs.

That being said, the question of whether or not Faketoshi possesses the 1Fee key is almost irrelevant at this particular moment if he claimed possession of stolen property in a court filing.  Either he essentially confessed to interesting crimes or, more likely, he committed a whole bundle of other interesting crimes rippling outward from lies told to a court.  In terms of his fate, the question of whether or not he actually possesses said property is thus tantamount to asking if he shot himself in his left foot, or shot himself in his right foot.

Of course, that question is much more interesting to any Gox creditors; but that is a separate issue, and unlikely to be a big issue due to the unlikelihood that he actually has a private key which he may have only “proved” to his lawyer similarly to how he “proved” a Satoshi key to Gavin.

I am 99% certain that it was Craig S Wright who masterminded the Mt Gox robbery. If this can be established,

Evidence establishing 99% certainty?  I doubt it, but I want to see it proved if it’s true.  Instant “game over” for Faketoshi, Nchain, and probably a few other bad characters closely associated with him.  Maybe also even a bit more recovery for people who got Goxed.  So... proof?  (Preferably in a concise link to/quote of more discussion elsewhere.)

It might be easier to start a lawsuit to recover the $700 million in MtGox coins that were stolen in 2011 that he claimed to have the private keys to in 2013.

If CSW claims to control the keys, then those are stolen funds and must be surrendered.

I will file that under “maximum lulz”:  Obviously, his defence must be to prove that he deceived a court in 2013!  Any which way it plays out, it would be mighty tough for people with badges to ignore.

“O, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.”
   — Sir Walter Scott

I agree that it is an interesting Occams razor and it definitely is a difficult one to defend. (If not impossible)

The facts are:
In 2011 the FIRST MtGox hack involved 79956 bitcoins being sent to 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114

This was established in court evidence here: https://courts.ms.gov/appellatecourts/docket/sendPDF.php?f=dc00001_live.SCT.17.M.1681.102741.5.pdf&c=87490&a=N&s=2




In 2013 Craig Steven Wright swore an affidavit that contains another sworn statement from his lawyer that Craig Steven Wright had been shown by Craig Steven Wright that he controlled among other bitcoin addresses - 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

This affidavit was then used to take court proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW against a company controlled by Dave Kleiman. (Who by that time had died ).

The funds had been used as collateral in business transactions to claim tax credits.

This was established in court evidence here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4462663-24-4.html#document/p5/a423127


The implication is:


1) We accept his sworn statement is true: Craig Steven Wright received and controlled the funds from the first MtGox hack in 2013.

OR:

2)  We accept his sworn statement is not true: Craig Steven Wright perjured himself in the Supreme Court of NSW and claimed tax credits on the value of 79956 bitcoins that he did not control or own.


I'd love to hear his explanation.

[DooMAD]

The implication is:


1) We accept his sworn statement is true: Craig Steven Wright received and controlled the funds from the first MtGox hack in 2013.

OR:

2)  We accept his sworn statement is not true: Craig Steven Wright perjured himself in the Supreme Court of NSW and claimed tax credits on the value of 79956 bitcoins that he did not control or own.


I'd love to hear his explanation.

Common sense tells us it's 2) because he's clearly more of a 'shady used car salesman' than he is a criminal mastermind.  The only explanation he can give is that he is a liar/cheat/fraud/criminal/etc.

[vane91]

in contrast, it would be virtually impossible to impersonate vitalik buterin. the trade-off for ethereum is they forever have a "benevolent dictator". that trade-off isn't worth it IMO.

This is one of the things I find most amazing about bitcoin: The creator is totally anonymous.

Unlike Vitalik's Blockchain, where he is alive giving opinions and acting like a central planner, bitcoin is growing wildly without any central planner.

If satoshi was a real person, everything would be centralized on him.

This is why BSV is doomed, at least Vitalik has some brain and it's honest. meawhile Craig seems demented: 99,9% chance that Craig is either a liar or lost his coins.

[xtraelv]

If you thought wright couldn't top the last dozen absurd lies and idiotic baseless legal threats he's issued... you have a surprise in store for you:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200210203809/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e

He is now claiming his stole identity entitles him to complete ownership of the Bitcoin system.

I read his whole legal argument and had a good laugh. It creates so many more Occams Razors !

There are some serious flaws in the argument he creates that could have serious implications for him if we take his word seriously.

As the sole creator of bitcoin, I own full rights to the bitcoin registry.

The system within bitcoin was launched with the full issue of all tokens. At its creation, bitcoin was formulated as a system with a set number of individual tokens defined as approximately 21 million bitcoin where each bitcoin is an arbitrary verbal representation of 100 million individual and indivisible tokens.

Bitcoin has an issuer. In January 2009, as director of companies I created in multiple jurisdictions, I issued 21 million bitcoin where each individual bitcoin is an indivisible set of 100 million tokens.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200210203809/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e


SEC security licence by the issuing companies ? Prospectus for issuance in compliance with multiple jurisdictions ? Deceiving conduct to holders, node operators and developers ?
Salaries paid to other developers (or were they working for free due to deceptive practices of their employer )?
If no salaries were paid and there was no contract then they own the copyright to their respective changes to the database ?
Why was a successor appointed ? Was disappearance a breach of "duty of care" to the database users ?
Node operators have costs but do not get rewarded - since it is a commercial transaction rather than "MIT licensed database" how much can they sue for ?

If there was an issuance of 21 million bitcoin at the start then why was CVE-2010-5139 necessary ?

On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created over 184 billion bitcoins for two different addresses. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed. A new version was published within a few hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures#CVE-2010-5139

[xtraelv]

There is no one even close to Craig Wright when it comes to knowing the technical side of BitCoin. Only Satoshi Nakamoto himself would be so knowledgeable. You can't say this about identity thieves. Knowledge is ultimately what filters out imposters. Craig knows and can explain technical intricacies about BitCoin that only the creator would know.

There are a number of people that exceed CSWs knowledge about bitcoin dramatically. Wladimir J. van der Laan, Gavin Andresen and Greg Maxwell to name just a few.

CSW has often demonstrated an absence of knowledge about a lot of things that Satoshi would know and there are many things that CSW has said that contradict what has been said by Satoshi.  https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/op-ed-how-many-wrongs-make-wright

[DooMAD]

There is no one even close to Craig Wright when it comes to knowing the technical side of BitCoin.

If that's your assessment of Faketoshi's verbal diarrhoea, it only shows how susceptible some people are to indoctrination.  Coming back to the 'shady used car salesman' analogy, some of them are quite effective in selling lemons to the gullible.  You're simply choosing to believe what you want to hear.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Haha, called it:

It's difficult to make sense of their incoherent ramblings, but it also seems as if CSW and Ayre are gearing up for some kind of legal claim against the entire blockchain "database"...? They seem to be suggesting that while Bitcoin is under MIT licence, the ledger isn't and so therefore is a "breach of contractual rights": https://mobile.twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1224753981206990853

What is he even talking about though?

This year I take charge and control of my system[5]. Those on the copied systems that are passing themselves off as bitcoin, BTC or CoreCoin and BCH or BCash are hereby put on notice.

"Take control"? If it's under an individual's control, then it's not decentralized, it's not bitcoin, and it's worthless.

"Those on the copies systems are put on notice"? What's he going to do, sue every developer, every exchange, every merchant, every wallet, every user? Because he has such a strong track record when it comes to winning lawsuits.

I know the language Craig speaks very well and as a professional in my field I can say that Craig clearly knows what he is talking about.

In that case, perhaps you could start working through the long list of errors, inaccuracies and incompetence displayed by CSW and explain how someone who knows what he's talking about could make so many? See below:

In the interest of providing people with talking points, as much as it pains me to link to a BCH subreddit, I'll share this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b479rk/please_excuse_the_craig_wright_spam_but_this_is/ej4oxvj/

[nullius]

-snip-

Haha, called it:

It's difficult to make sense of their incoherent ramblings, but it also seems as if CSW and Ayre are gearing up for some kind of legal claim against the entire blockchain "database"...? They seem to be suggesting that while Bitcoin is under MIT licence, the ledger isn't and so therefore is a "breach of contractual rights": https://mobile.twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1224753981206990853

Good catch!

On the side, I am trawling through some of CSW’s older essays to show what his ultimate agenda is:  His ends sought by such means as would be merely absurd, if they were not so potentially harmful.

What is he even talking about though?

This year I take charge and control of my system[5]. Those on the copied systems that are passing themselves off as bitcoin, BTC or CoreCoin and BCH or BCash are hereby put on notice.

"Take control"? If it's under an individual's control, then it's not decentralized, it's not bitcoin, and it's worthless.

"Those on the copies systems are put on notice"? What's he going to do, sue every developer, every exchange, every merchant, every wallet, every user? Because he has such a strong track record when it comes to winning lawsuits.

The danger is that he may FUD Bitcoin analogously to how BSD was treated as radioactive by business owners worried about liability, at just the time when Linux was nascent.  (Important distinguishments:  In that case, it was not Linux’s fault that an unrelated corporation decided to do some copyright trolling—and the original lawsuit there was not totally frivolous from a legal perspective, at the time before all the remaining AT&T code was stripped out on an emergency basis.)

In the future we're going to see more crap like him threatening any business that accepts Bitcoin with patent litigation, to which the common response will be "damn, this bitcoin stuff isn't worth the trouble" from most parties who's business isn't primarily about Bitcoin.  How could you expect otherwise when your response to wright is "damn, this wright stuff isn't worth the trouble"?

I know the language Craig speaks very well and as a professional in my field I can say that Craig clearly knows what he is talking about.

In that case, perhaps you could start working through the long list of errors, inaccuracies and incompetence displayed by CSW and explain how someone who knows what he's talking about could make so many? See below:

In the interest of providing people with talking points, as much as it pains me to link to a BCH subreddit, I'll share this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b479rk/please_excuse_the_craig_wright_spam_but_this_is/ej4oxvj/

No, not unless he passes the threshold:

Observe that besides some insults (e.g., “segshit”), hv_ kept trying to lure people into an endless argument over issues that are both irrelevant to my OP, and unreasonable to even consider when Craig Wright has not produced a cryptographic authentication of his claim to the identity of a cryptographic innovator who has known public keys.

The answer to every statement he ever said about Satoshi's wallets or ownership
of same should have been "sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet ...and until such time as the message is signed you are treated as a fake"

This is called a threshold question.  An affirmative answer thereto is necessary but insufficient to conclude an argument; and if the answer is either negative or nonexistent, then further questions need not be reached.

Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood.

It’s important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point.  But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else.

I have deleted Hyena’s post (Loyce archive) due to his violation of the thread-local rule clearly stated in OP:

Moderation note:  Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood.  And I am in a bad mood.  Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi.  Thank you.

Any further posts by him in this thread will be deleted, unless he posts a threshold Satoshi-signed message identifying CSW as Satoshi.

[xtraelv]

This is what Satoshi said about minority forks :

(red = relevant part)

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

How long have you been working on this design Satoshi?  It seems very well thought out, not the kind of thing you just sit down and code up without doing a lot of brainstorming and discussion on it first.  Everyone has the obvious questions looking for holes in it but it is holding up well

Since 2007.  At some point I became convinced there was a way to do this without any trust required at all and couldn't resist to keep thinking about it.  Much more of the work was designing than coding.

Fortunately, so far all the issues raised have been things I previously considered and planned for.

[Last of the V8s]

Haha, this is awesome! Not only because I read that quote and heard Shatner's voice while I did it but that a senior citizen celebrity seems to actually be somewhat educated about bitcoin...
https://cointelegraph.com/news/william-shatner-doubts-craig-wrights-claims-to-inventing-bitcoin

“Why can’t he prove it? From what I’ve read is that some mysterious bonded courier would deliver the keys (which honestly is a scene right out of Back to the Future.)  If he is, he should be able to prove it. This is like the modern day search for Anastasia.”

Wait the Captain reads the forum? Or nullius is Shatner? etc

https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1226926687960600577?s=20