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

[dkbit98]

Not so.  It is not necessary to identify Satoshi to prove by clear and convincing evidence, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, that a given individual is not Satoshi—and moreover, that false claims of Satoshihood are just that.

I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.  I don’t need to identify Satoshi to reach that certainty.

That is fine, but comparison with Anastasia is not good in this case, and that is my opinion.
I don't have to agree with everything I read on bitcointalk forum

Faketoshi created new identity as nobody knows Satoshi identity.

[1714748628]

1714748628

[AGD]

...

So, this unauthenticated e-mail was allegedly sent by Satoshi to Mike Mr Surveillance & Taint Hearn four days before Gavin Andresen publicly announced his visit to the CIA:

Subject: Gavin will visit the CIA

I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories:  I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community.

Why Gavin posted about this CIA invitation anyway? He pretty much knew (and wrote) about the risk of being in the center of conspiracy theories. He could have kept it secret and noone would ever know about it.

[Dabs]

While understandably there is a difference between can not and won't, in this case, it is quite clear that he won't, because he can not. Sign a message, that is.

CSW is not Satoshi.

Only the real Satoshi can sign (or whoever he gives the keys to), so until and unless anyone else does it, no one else can claim to be Satoshi.

If, for whatever reason, the real Satoshi had a boating accident and dropped all his private keys ang GPG keys at the bottom of the challenger deep in the marianas trench, then that identity is 7 miles underwater and belongs to no one.

Not your keys, not your identity.

[nullius]

http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5391/53910998.html

seems this topic doesnt want facts. so let post facts
[...]

4. seems the topic creator wants to hide reasons

No, this topic’s creator wants to protect a productive discussion from being derailed into an offtopic flamewar by a notorious troll who somehow always twists others’ wrongdoing into an attack on Core.  It is a highly effective smear tactic:  Correctly call out bad people who do bad things, and in the same breath, add false equivalencies and sinister insinuations to condemn exactly the people who are doing the most to stop them.  E.g.:

1. gmax today posted a tweet link trying to make it appear

...ninja-edited to:

1. [someone] today posted a tweet link trying to make it appear

(No, he didn’t try to present any false appearance; and it is clear that you are here more to troll Greg Maxwell than to talk about Faketoshi.)

...or, ad nauseam over the course of years:

ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror

the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo..

Yeah, right:  Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash.  A perfect “mirror”, that!

(Two decades ago, I was eager to use Dr. Back’s Hashcash as a means of stopping spam (although I knew that it was no “FUSSP” panacea—nothing is).  Satoshi delivered a stroke of brilliance, re-applying the same idea together with others, plus new innovations, in a totally different problem domain to make a Byzantine agreement for preventing double-spends without a central authority.  That is why Satoshi invented Bitcoin, I didn’t—and I never saw Dr. Back claim to have invented Bitcoin, either.  Most work builds on prior work; and if I had one of my creations used by another as a keystone in a greater edifice, then I would take bragging rights, too!)

if your just going to delete my post. also delete doomads post that is even less ontopic

DooMAD correctly predicted my response.  I will thus duly file your moderation advice in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️

Now, I have briefly deconstructed what you do, so that readers of this thread will know why I am deleting your posts—and why I intend henceforth to delete your posts without further comment.  I have also carefully archived your drivel, just in case anybody actually wants to read it.

Complaints > /dev/null

[xtraelv]

Blockchain chain analysis evidence shows fake claims by faketoshi

1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF first MTGox theft address that was claimed by CSW in court documents presented to the Supreme Court of NSW
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5223884.0

True, his claims are fake and I agree,
but I ask simple question:
- How can you know exact identity of Satoshi Nakamoto?

You need to know someones identity to say that stated identity is stolen or not.

Satoshis PGP is known and signing with the genesis block means they are Satoshi or have access to Satoshis most private data.

So the best proof is:
Sign a PGP message
Sign a Genesis block message

A lower standard of proof would be:
Sign an from an address that mined an early block.
Convince Theymos to give your bitcointalk account back.

Signing may not give conclusive proof of being Satoshi but signing means that there is a high likelihood that they are Satoshi.
There are not many hackers capable of such feat.

Not signing means that there is a high likelihood that they are NOT Satoshi. It means there is NO proof.
It means that they are as likely as the rest of the worlds population of being Satoshi.

[Wind_FURY]

...

So, this unauthenticated e-mail was allegedly sent by Satoshi to Mike Mr Surveillance & Taint Hearn four days before Gavin Andresen publicly announced his visit to the CIA:

Subject: Gavin will visit the CIA

I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories:  I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community.

Why Gavin posted about this CIA invitation anyway? He pretty much knew (and wrote) about the risk of being in the center of conspiracy theories. He could have kept it secret and noone would ever know about it.

Because maybe he doesn't want it to be used against him, when the time for hatching his "fork and control" plans for Bitcoin is started. It will not stay a secret forever.

[Dabs]

To convince someone like theymos would require signing a message with the PGP key and signing a bitcoin message using any of the keys within the first 100 blocks including the genesis block and the one with the transaction to Hal Finney.

Plus something they would know since they were both early users of the forum.

If he doesn't want to sign a message, at least send some of the early blocks to the forum treasury.

[Wind_FURY]

To convince someone like theymos would require signing a message with the PGP key and signing a bitcoin message using any of the keys within the first 100 blocks including the genesis block and the one with the transaction to Hal Finney.

Plus something they would know since they were both early users of the forum.

If he doesn't want to sign a message, at least send some of the early blocks to the forum treasury.

Plus Satoshi must have concluded from "the creation", that if Bitcoin "became big", he might need those keys from the first 100 blocks, for validation/verification, and as security for his real identity. HE WOULD NEVER LOSE THOSE KEYS.

[Wind_FURY]

Here's another one about Gavin Andresen. He was probably already corrupted by some people around him during the says of the Bitcoin Foundation, and continued to go with the big blocker after the foundation disbanded.

[xtraelv]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/sgi-denies-links-with-alleged-bitcoin-founder-craig-wright/

From 2015:

High performance computing firm SGI has denied any involvement with Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia, a supercomputer firm that was founded by suspected bitcoin founder Craig Wright under his parent company DeMorgan.

In a letter featuring the SGI letterhead and the supposed signature of SGI APAC service director Greg McKeon, SGI acknowledged it would be assisting Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia in the development of hyper-density machines and supercomputers.

The letter for some reason has been REMOVED from wayback.



https://web.archive.org/web/20151118013522/http://cloudcroft.com.au/assets/150326_sgi_letterofendorsement.pdf

Which made me just more curious what it contained.

This is the alleged text of the letter that has been removed. (URL blocked on wayback)

Silicon Graphics Pty Ltd

Level 4,

11-17 Khartoum Road,

North Ryde NSW 2113

Australia

Telephone: 1300 364 744

To whom it may concern,

SGI, the trusted leader in high performance computing, is pleased to work with Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia in assisting the development of their hyper-density machines and supercomputers. As a global leader in high performance solutions for computers, data analytics and data management, SGI considers Cloudcroft a worthy partner in the goal to accelerate time to discovery, innovation and profitability.

Cloudcroft’s proficiency in information technology is highly respected by SGI, particularly in the domains of cryptography and computer security. Cloudcroft brings this expertise to the design of its sophisticated supercomputer-based applications.

SGI and Cloudcroft have worked together with SGI’s flagship ICE platform for powerful distributed=memory supercomputers to build Sukuriputo Okane, Cloudcroft’s first supercomputer currently ranked #327 in the world. You can find more information about SGI’s ICE supercomputing platform here: https://www.sgi.com/products/servers/ice/

This super computer was tuned to 939.67 TFlops which would see it pushed into the Top 100 systems in the Top 500 HPC realm. This could have only been achieved through commitment to cooperation. SGI is very pleased with this alliance in pushing the boundaries of distributed-memory systems.

Next we must perfect the integration of Nvidia Tesla and Intel Xeon Phi accelerator cards to reach new heights in supercomputing excellence in Australia. SGI offers both accelerator options for its products thus working with Cloudcroft to ensure the next supercomputer stays green, reaches the highest ranks of the T500 list, and continues to perform through innovation is very synergistic. We look forward to a long, sustained relationship with this highly-focused Australian firm.

Yours sincerely,

Greg McKeon - Director

26 March 2015

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w8efk/wikileaks_sgi_supercomputer_letter_removed_from/

Then I found a copy of the letter on an obscure site.  
http://cdn1.spotidoc.com/store/data/001035994_1-b8959504f48a66c79da40c4acb98b77c.png






Particularly curious is the lack of ® symbol in comparison from other form letters from that era.
It could have an innocent explanation.


http://cdn1.spotidoc.com/store/data/000353610_1-ba18908db49468a78f3cf6a0eb74ec17.png

[Wind_FURY]

Some people in /r/bitcoin also said that his doctorates, and other academic achievements are also fake. The community has been "punk'd" by the Bitcoin version of Borat. BUT, who is more punk'd, the Bitcoin community, or the Craigcoin community?

[BITCOIN4X]

I have read this thread in my local language version and it is very interesting to discuss how great CW claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto and completely he cant prove the truth (cant be trusted).

CW has made this mess and has made some bitcoin communities work a little harder to make CW prove the claim is true. I have seen many community members arguing with various evidence relating to the by CW identity theft problem and I think that is a strong hold for me that CW is fakesatoshi and I want to know if identity theft like this can be punished?

BUT, who is more punk'd, the Bitcoin community, or the Craigcoin community?

I think the answer is the bitcoin community, because this case succeeded in making us all rampage about the false claim.

[fiulpro]

I do think he did something really bad with the real Satoshi that is why he is trying so hard right now to be considered the new Satoshi . He did say something like Dave Kleiman involved in the bitcoins foundation but one should understand that ,

Kleiman died in his home in April 2013 seemingly of natural causes related to complications from a MRSA infection

MRSA infection by the Super Bug can be very easily transferred and used as a bio weapon .

What if , CW killed him and is now trying to take his place . ? ?

[gmaxwell]

He did say something like Dave Kleiman involved

Kleiman involvement in Bitcoin's creation is no more credible than Wright: Kleiman was an IT guy who demonstrated no particular programming experience (the only evidence of him programming anything other than a trivial windows registry editing automation tool, written in visual basic). While it's not physically impossible, there is no particular reason to suspect him over (say) the guy behind the genius bar at your local apple store.  The only reason anyone ever talks about Kleiman re Bitcoin is because of wrights "leaked" (and now shown to be forged) documents wrapping him into wrights 'tulip trust'.

Kleiman's death is relevant... but it's relevant because by being dead he's the perfect unwitting accomplice.

When you buy into theories about Kleiman you're buying into Wright's fallback story.  Some people are never going to believe the brash and technically clueless wright was behind Bitcoin,  but they'll more easily believe the inaccessible deceased guy did the hard work and for wright's scamming purposes that is generally good enough.

[AGD]

He did say something like Dave Kleiman involved

Kleiman involvement in Bitcoin's creation is no more credible than Wright: Kleiman was an IT guy who demonstrated no particular programming experience (the only evidence of him programming anything other than a trivial windows registry editing automation tool, written in visual basic). While it's not physically impossible, there is no particular reason to suspect him over (say) the guy behind the genius bar at your local apple store.  The only reason anyone ever talks about Kleiman re Bitcoin is because of wrights "leaked" (and now shown to be forged) documents wrapping him into wrights 'tulip trust'.

Kleiman's death is relevant... but it's relevant because by being dead he's the perfect unwitting accomplice.

When you buy into theories about Kleiman you're buying into Wright's fallback story.  Some people are never going to believe the brash and technically clueless wright was behind Bitcoin,  but they'll more easily believe the inaccessible deceased guy did the hard work and for wright's scamming purposes that is generally good enough.

Since the rumour about the deceised Dave Kleiman being Satoshi floated around BEFORE Craig W. came out with his allegations, it is safe to assume, that Craig read about the rumour about his acquaintance and as a result he build up his story.

[NotATether]

Blockchain chain analysis evidence shows fake claims by faketoshi

1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF first MTGox theft address that was claimed by CSW in court documents presented to the Supreme Court of NSW
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5223884.0

Why is he claiming to own Mt.Gox addresses if it's clear to people that they don't belong to him? He never worked at Mt.Gox. He did lose bitcoins in Mt.Gox's collapse but he's claiming to own the entirety of the bitcoins in that address. Because if it's not a multisig wallet, the funds only belong to you.

[gmaxwell]

Since the rumour about the deceised Dave Kleiman being Satoshi floated around BEFORE Craig W. came out with his allegations,

No it didn't. The origin of that was entirely Wright: it came out of the fake trust documents that write created and 'leaked' to wired.  It's easy to get confused about the history because wright had a series of "coming outs".

It's not a rumour that would have made any sense at all.

Why is he claiming to own Mt.Gox addresses if it's clear to people that they don't belong to him? He never worked at Mt.Gox. He did lose bitcoins in Mt.Gox's collapse but he's claiming to own the entirety of the bitcoins in that address. Because if it's not a multisig wallet, the funds only belong to you.

He was trying to convince the AU authorities he'd spent those coins on business activities in order to get a tax rebate on expenses that never existed, and he simply picked several of the largest existent addresses. He almost certainly had no idea what any of them were. Doesn't seem to have hurt him, even people who's addresses he used -- Ver and Cypherdoc, fell for his scam.

[Wind_FURY]

I have read this thread in my local language version and it is very interesting to discuss how great CW claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto and completely he cant prove the truth (cant be trusted).

CW has made this mess and has made some bitcoin communities work a little harder to make CW prove the claim is true. I have seen many community members arguing with various evidence relating to the by CW identity theft problem and I think that is a strong hold for me that CW is fakesatoshi and I want to know if identity theft like this can be punished?

BUT, who is more punk'd, the Bitcoin community, or the Craigcoin community?

I think the answer is the bitcoin community, because this case succeeded in making us all rampage about the false claim.

We go on a rampage BECAUSE we don't want, and we are not, punk'd. Punk'd is someone like this person, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194581.0

He's "thankful" for it, and I believe it's partly our fault.

[bearexin]

OP: You’re right about that. Right now I don’t believe anyone that tries to claim that they are the Satoshi Nakamoto. Anyone that comes out and claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto without having the access to the wallet that belongs to Satoshi, I am not going to blame them. They must have something that proves that they are the real Satoshi. Craig Wright did this because he’s seeking clout. He just wants to be famous and scam people. And he already achieved that.

Almost every week I see posts here and there that has to do with Craig Wright, everyone is talking about him. And apart from that there are also people that believes in his coin and they think that it’s the right one. He has been able to deceive a lot of people. Very bad. I hope these people come to realize this and stay clear from him.

[Wind_FURY]

OP: You’re right about that. Right now I don’t believe anyone that tries to claim that they are the Satoshi Nakamoto. Anyone that comes out and claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto without having the access to the wallet that belongs to Satoshi, I am not going to blame them. They must have something that proves that they are the real Satoshi. Craig Wright did this because he’s seeking clout. He just wants to be famous and scam people. And he already achieved that.

Almost every week I see posts here and there that has to do with Craig Wright, everyone is talking about him. And apart from that there are also people that believes in his coin and they think that it’s the right one. He has been able to deceive a lot of people. Very bad. I hope these people come to realize this and stay clear from him.

Or that he might be under orders by "someone" to troll the Bitcoin community. Plus he's selling his shitcoin to innocent newbies, making millions from them.

BUT, what is Calvin Ayre doing? Who are the real people behind his "success"? Is he merely a front-man of Ayre Group, and Bodog?