Satoshi Nakamoto never used Bitcointalk - new claim by Craig Wright

[BitcoinFX]

The news recently surfaced in my inbox,

hxxps://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-claims-satoshi-nakamoto-never-used-bitcointalk-to-communicate/

Don't know how to react! The court case seems to taking unexpected twists and turns!

1. Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.

2. BCH is NOT Bitcoin. Stop reading 'news' sites that 'promote' either of these forks (copies) as being Bitcoin.

3. Bitcoin = BTC.  Always has, always will.

4. The real satoshi posted on this forum, which became bitcointalk.org.

bitcoin.org/smf > bitcointalk.org

I, 'BitcoinFX' can confirm that the real satoshi's posts on this forum have remained intact to this date ...

Welcome to the new Bitcoin forum!
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg188#msg188

...

"Exactly.

Plus the most damning evidence against Craig's claim here can include any (used or mined to) BTC addresses posted by early users of http://BitcoinTalk.org prior to the 2011 date.

These addresses have timestamps of transactions in the BTC, BCH and BSV blockchains ..."
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1245293506396073985

...

Herewith, my signed and verifiable message thread ...

Re: Verifying my (old) zero balance wallet address for blockchain research etc.,
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4630066.msg54167647#msg54167647

...

Full debunk of Craig Wight's false claims and mis-information by @MyLegacyKit on twitter ...

"Craig Wright - Satoshi NEVER Posted on Bitcointalk?

Every time when Craig is trying to rewrite history for his #Faketoshi clown act, he makes these funny mistakes. Because as usual, he has no idea what he's talking about.

Take this, for example."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343768045400064

...

"Here Craig spends some time figuring out on Wayback Machine how Satoshi did or did not post on the bitcointalk forum, and because he finds a few *discrepancies*, Craig claims Satoshi's posts have been edited and "Satoshi never posted on bitcointalk". "
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343769400090624

...

"Now the real story.

The earliest Bitcoin board was on SourceForge. In Sep 2009, Martti Malmi & Satoshi decided to set up their own forum, which happened in Nov 2009 on http:// bitcoin.org/smf. Satoshi registered Nov 19, 2009 and posted Nov 22, 2009 (with link to old forum)."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343770587127808

...

"Then, in June 2011 Jeff Garzik registered the domain http://bitcointalk.org. And the only thing they needed to do was a Dynamic Name Server change from http:// bitcoin.org/smf to http://bitcointalk.org as the forum environment did not change."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343772839489536

...

"Did not change? Yup. Craig is making up bullshit.

Forum in 2010: "Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC"

Forum now: "Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines"

So, all posts including Satoshi's were 1 on 1 *moved* by a simple DNS change."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343774462611456

...

"Our #Faketoshi got fooled here. He found a Dec 2010 Satoshi post with a bitcointalk link where a http:// bitcoin.org/smf link is expected.

But forum admins with a little coding experience can, and will, update these internal links during a move to a new domain... "
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343775762853888

...

"So yeah, Craig again shows that he has to do research for his #Faketoshi act. And while doing this research, he makes these hilarious mistakes & misinterpretations again. His cult will no doubt buy it again, but we know better.

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

End."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343777302118403

...

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.

... snip...

lady gaga - poker face (slowed) [ russian roulette is not the same without a gun ]
- https://youtu.be/IsdWl0CwS2g

[1714760015]

1714760015

[BitcoinFX]

The news recently surfaced in my inbox,

hxxps://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-claims-satoshi-nakamoto-never-used-bitcointalk-to-communicate/

Don't know how to react! The court case seems to taking unexpected twists and turns!

This is in fact true. There were (are) multiple people using the login to bitcointalk.org.

Satoshi Nakamoto was a group and at least three people from the group held the BTC login.

Clueless ! 

[WOPR]

I personally believe he did, isn't his account available showing his previous posts?

[BitcoinFX]

I personally believe he did, isn't his account available showing his previous posts?

Don't. People. Bother. To. Read. Anything. On. The. Internet. Anymore?

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts;start=520

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5244298.msg54322123#msg54322123

[LogitechMouse]

As long as we give attention to this stupid Faketoshi, he will just continue to create claims like this as long as he is alive for sure.

His coin is a trash making him a trash too. His claims are all false and he is just making himself a clown in crypto world . I don't know how can he manage to do things like this when he already knows that there isn't that many people who are believing him.

[o_e_l_e_o]

a lot of us can start ignoring him but it will never be "all" specially it won't be the media.

On one hand, I agree we should all be striving to give him as little attention as possible (read: no attention at all), as if everyone ignored him then he would almost immediately fade to irrelevance. However, whenever a thread is started about CSW, then we should be quick to debunk his lies for the sake of newbie and other inexperienced members who might be unaware that he is an identity thief and a scammer.

It is disappointing when we see senior/experienced members starting threads about him, as the only possible outcomes are to give him more publicity, and to potential lead some newbies down the path of being scammed. There is no good reason to open a thread about him unless you don't know any better.

[Ailurophile]

The news recently surfaced in my inbox,

https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-claims-satoshi-nakamoto-never-used-bitcointalk-to-communicate/

Don't know how to react! The court case seems to taking unexpected twists and turns!

What the heck! I would assume he would tell everyone that Satoshi never used crypto while claiming that the first transaction was made by him as Satoshi.
Claiming that Satoshi didn't use the forum and claiming that the Satoshi Nakamoto account on this forum is his account what a nice joke.
I think only Theymos could clarify it when the account of Satoshi from this forum finally wakes up for a long time.

[BitcoinFX]

a lot of us can start ignoring him but it will never be "all" specially it won't be the media.

On one hand, I agree we should all be striving to give him as little attention as possible (read: no attention at all), as if everyone ignored him then he would almost immediately fade to irrelevance. However, whenever a thread is started about CSW, then we should be quick to debunk his lies for the sake of newbie and other inexperienced members who might be unaware that he is an identity thief and a scammer.

It is disappointing when we see senior/experienced members starting threads about him, as the only possible outcomes are to give him more publicity, and to potential lead some newbies down the path of being scammed. There is no good reason to open a thread about him unless you don't know any better.

Sensationalism vs Rationalism.

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148607.msg51291248#msg51291248

...

Lady Gaga - Paparazzi (Official Music Video)
- https://youtu.be/d2smz_1L2_0?t=129

[amishmanish]

AWESOME!!!

Thanks for all that information BitcoinFX. You have aptly summed up what we actually need to do:

2. BCH is NOT Bitcoin. Stop reading 'news' sites that 'promote' either of these forks (copies) as being Bitcoin.

The domain Bitcoin.com as well as the twitter handle @bitcoin are controlled by Roger Ver. The idiot gives credence to conspiracy theories and the COMMON PEOPLE, who mostly lack the will as well as the skill to actually dig through complex evidence, prefer to believe what they are told by people wearing suits and spewing out slick nonsense. Both Ver and the Imposter Wright are experts at this. Thankfully, Bitcoin and Real Evidence couldn't care less. When it comes down to actual decisions, you cannot fool everyone or even the judges and lawyers who WILL do their research before falling for hearsay and sly marketing nonsense. You have given a great example here that how identity can be proven and linked with Bitcoin's history. I will just arrange that a bit here to make it easier to understand. Here it goes:

BitcoinFX is one of the earliest users (u=30) who had once started a bitcoin exchange service. As he was here on the forum, he can relate with some of the earliest events in Bitcoin history. For example, Gavin Andresen posted a topic saying he wanted to start a faucet.. The faucet address is mentioned as 15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC on the topic. BitcoinFX sent 500 BTC into that faucet. If someone has a doubt that he is not that guy, he doesn't need to start bitching like faketoshi that "they don't want to recognize my greatness on how i gave away 500 BTC". He doesn't need to use long blog posts with technical jargon without any evidence.

All the man does is show you a transaction where coinbase addresses have funded 500 BTC into the address specified by Gavin. That transaction is open for anyone to see on the blockchain to have taken place on August 4th, 2010.

On April 1, 2020, Bitcoin FX signed messages from each of those 9 addresses which you can find in this verification post he has made. This is how, someone like him can be trusted to have actually done those things. No drama, No long blog posts, No wearing suits and brushing your hair with palm-spit like faketoshi..

Thanks for sharing this BitcoinFX. I'll just quote a few of your thoughts from those threads:

• "Herewith, a Signed and Verifiable message from my (old) 2010 #Bitcoin (BTC) zero balance wallet address:
  
  1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp
  
  Why can't Craig Wright do this?
  
  Not Your Private Keys, Not Your Bitcoin. 🔑
  
  Don't trust, verify.
  

• Re: Make your "we accept Bitcoin" logo
  - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45.msg559#msg559
  
  No related transactions here - This link is simply to demonstrate how early Bitcoin enthusiasts just participated in what needed to be done.
  
  No employer, no payroll, just community volunteerism and altruism. Big 'economic cost' for most early adopters.
  

[Slow death]

The news recently surfaced in my inbox,

https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-claims-satoshi-nakamoto-never-used-bitcointalk-to-communicate/

Don't know how to react! The court case seems to taking unexpected twists and turns!

let me summarize the situation:



we have a hero (satoshi Nakamoto) and we have a bad guy (Craig Wright), what do we do with the bad guy?

1- ignore

2- we take hard measures to keep the guy from doing bad things

i am of the opinion that we have to choose option 1. why do we have to choose option1? because Craig Wright has already proved to be an obsessive and mentally ill person

[MicroGuy]

As long as we give attention to this stupid Faketoshi, he will just continue to create claims like this as long as he is alive for sure.

His coin is a trash making him a trash too. His claims are all false and he is just making himself a clown in crypto world . I don't know how can he manage to do things like this when he already knows that there isn't that many people who are believing him.

Craig Wright made the majority of the posts on bitcointalk.org. Writing style comparison examples have clearly proven this point in the past.

[BitcoinFX]

As long as we give attention to this stupid Faketoshi, he will just continue to create claims like this as long as he is alive for sure.

His coin is a trash making him a trash too. His claims are all false and he is just making himself a clown in crypto world . I don't know how can he manage to do things like this when he already knows that there isn't that many people who are believing him.

Craig Wright made the majority of the posts on bitcointalk.org. Writing style comparison examples have clearly proven this point in the past.

Proof that you are completely clueless (and/or complicit !?) @MicroGuy ...

Craig Wright (has categorically proven he is NOT satoshi with this blog post) by stating and claiming that the real 'satoshi' did not post on BitcoinTalk.org (bitcoin.org / smf) when quite clearly satoshi did post to this very forum!

Empirical sources of evidence i.e. blockchain (timechain) timestamps prove CSW to be incorrect.

CSW has completely backfired on himself here! Bitcoin's (BTC's) financial cryptography (hard verifiable facts) prove him to be a liar.

CSW has not signed a single publicly verifiable message to date and he has only provided excuses in a court of law, along with proven to be false, backdated 'evidence'.

He can't even sign with the known 'Satoshi Nakamoto' PGP key (let alone on the Bitcoin blockchain) ...

"Signed and Verifiable messages in Bitcoin are very easy. The real Satoshi could also prove identity via PGP.

- https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

At the base of the page, see PGP Key; Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc :

- https://bitcointalk.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc

Financial privacy is not broken using PGP.

5/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879720250990592

Look at the base of the archived page, its the same PGP key.

The PGP key is cryptographically signed for the satoshi email address in the whitepaper.

Its the same key satoshi posted on this forum ...

For future reference, here's my public key.  It's the same one that's been there since the bitcoin.org site first went up in 2008.  Grab it now in case you need it later.

http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc

- https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc

 

[MicroGuy]

Craig Wright (has categorically proven he is NOT satoshi with this blog post) by stating and claiming that the real 'satoshi' did not post on BitcoinTalk.org (bitcoin.org / smf) when quite clearly satoshi did post to this very forum!

Craig Wright was probably talking about how Dave K. (the "real" Satoshi) never posted here. Craig handled the forum posts while Dave was busy with jobs like coding and mining the network.

[hilariousetc]

The news recently surfaced in my inbox,

https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-claims-satoshi-nakamoto-never-used-bitcointalk-to-communicate/

Don't know how to react! The court case seems to taking unexpected twists and turns!

You react like the biggest bullshitter you know has just told you another load of unbelievable bullshit without any evidence whatsoever. You ignore it or question their sources. Whatever Craig Wright says you should probably believe the opposite. Craig is only saying this bullshit because he obviously doesn't have access to that account, never has and never will, and will never be able to provide any evidence of owning that account so this is just another distraction tactic and excuse as to why he can't do something that the real satoshi would obviously be able to do very easily.

After all this bullshit is over I really hope CW ends up where he belongs and that's in jail.

What if we all just stop giving this lunatic what he wants - attention? I don't know if it's right to stop calling him out on his bullshit though, but I feel like crypto enthusiasts are the main thing that still keeps him afloat somehow, in a weird way. Let him destruy himself on his own terms

Well I would agree, but this is bitcointalk where anything vaguely related to bitcoin is posted about numerous times and in numerous configurations and formats. It's pretty slow for news these days so this sort of stuff is going to be talked about. There's also seemingly quite a few people who think he is or may actually be satoshi so that doesn't help either.

[BitcoinFX]

Craig Wright (has categorically proven he is NOT satoshi with this blog post) by stating and claiming that the real 'satoshi' did not post on BitcoinTalk.org (bitcoin.org / smf) when quite clearly satoshi did post to this very forum!

Craig Wright was probably talking about how Dave K. (the "real" Satoshi) never posted here. Craig handled the forum posts while Dave was busy with jobs like coding and mining the network.

Nope.

...

The Stone Roses - Fools Gold (Official Video)
- https://youtu.be/NSD11dnphg0

[BitcoinFX]

AWESOME!!!

Thanks for all that information BitcoinFX. You have aptly summed up what we actually need to do:

2. BCH is NOT Bitcoin. Stop reading 'news' sites that 'promote' either of these forks (copies) as being Bitcoin.

The domain Bitcoin.com as well as the twitter handle @bitcoin are controlled by Roger Ver. The idiot gives credence to conspiracy theories and the COMMON PEOPLE, who mostly lack the will as well as the skill to actually dig through complex evidence, prefer to believe what they are told by people wearing suits and spewing out slick nonsense. Both Ver and the Imposter Wright are experts at this. Thankfully, Bitcoin and Real Evidence couldn't care less. When it comes down to actual decisions, you cannot fool everyone or even the judges and lawyers who WILL do their research before falling for hearsay and sly marketing nonsense. You have given a great example here that how identity can be proven and linked with Bitcoin's history. I will just arrange that a bit here to make it easier to understand. Here it goes:

BitcoinFX is one of the earliest users (u=30) who had once started a bitcoin exchange service. As he was here on the forum, he can relate with some of the earliest events in Bitcoin history. For example, Gavin Andresen posted a topic saying he wanted to start a faucet.. The faucet address is mentioned as 15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC on the topic. BitcoinFX sent 500 BTC into that faucet. If someone has a doubt that he is not that guy, he doesn't need to start bitching like faketoshi that "they don't want to recognize my greatness on how i gave away 500 BTC". He doesn't need to use long blog posts with technical jargon without any evidence.

All the man does is show you a transaction where coinbase addresses have funded 500 BTC into the address specified by Gavin. That transaction is open for anyone to see on the blockchain to have taken place on August 4th, 2010.

On April 1, 2020, Bitcoin FX signed messages from each of those 9 addresses which you can find in this verification post he has made. This is how, someone like him can be trusted to have actually done those things. No drama, No long blog posts, No wearing suits and brushing your hair with palm-spit like faketoshi..

Thanks for sharing this BitcoinFX. I'll just quote a few of your thoughts from those threads:

• "Herewith, a Signed and Verifiable message from my (old) 2010 #Bitcoin (BTC) zero balance wallet address:
  
  1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp
  
  Why can't Craig Wright do this?
  
  Not Your Private Keys, Not Your Bitcoin. 🔑
  
  Don't trust, verify.
  

• Re: Make your "we accept Bitcoin" logo
  - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45.msg559#msg559
  
  No related transactions here - This link is simply to demonstrate how early Bitcoin enthusiasts just participated in what needed to be done.
  
  No employer, no payroll, just community volunteerism and altruism. Big 'economic cost' for most early adopters.
  

To summarize the summary of the summary ...

"So, to Craig, Calvin and the BSV lot ...

This is how identity works in Bitcoin !

Not your lies, hearsay, fabrications or falsehoods ...

Hard cryptographic proof linked to historical evidence trails !

Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.

#Bitcoin = #BTC

End."
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1245353304743436289

[Reid]

I don't know if it's dejavu or I had really read this news somewhere.

Obviously he didn't. Satoshi did.
He should stop claiming nonsense just for popularity.
Sure he is popular now, being a clown. We all know Satoshi was here and is still here in our hearts.   He is not.
Perhaps he is advertising something new again. Did the virus eat his brain already?

[coinstrader777]

This guy is saying all kinds of ridiculous things...so that he can get free press..he is thinking himself like a celebrity who can feed off media & paparazzi...but he is not an actual celebrity!!

[MicroGuy]

This guy is saying all kinds of ridiculous things...so that he can get free press..he is thinking himself like a celebrity who can feed off media & paparazzi...but he is not an actual celebrity!!

On 26 August 2019, a US Federal Court ruled that Satoshi Nakamoto is the partnership of Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright.

So now, for the first time in history we have confirmation by a US Federal Court of the fact that CSW is at least 50% of Satoshi Nakamoto.

[MicroGuy]

In terms of my friendship with Satoshi. It is my belief that I was communicating with Craig Wright.