Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud - Tulip Trust addresses signed message

[DooMAD]

gmax fails to understand the whole game of patent trolling

I think it's safe to say they have a better grasp of it than you do, as they have already explained where the limitations are and how little faketoshi could achieve in practice if your fairytale story did somehow come true.

Another thing we're all very keenly aware of is the game of forum trolling.  I suggest you tread carefully, as there are consequences when you lose that game.

[1714851911]

1714851911

[1714851911]

1714851911

[1714851911]

1714851911

[1714851911]

1714851911

[franky1]

gmax fails to understand the whole game of patent trolling

I think it's safe to say they have a better grasp of it than you do, as they have already explained where the limitations are and how little faketoshi could achieve in practice if your fairytale story did somehow come true.

Another thing we're all very keenly aware of is the game of forum trolling.  I suggest you tread carefully, as there are consequences when you lose that game.

well i now understand why you fear not having an independant thought and instead just kiss mod's ass.. you fear the consequences

anyway. the whole dream that gmax can fight off any SLAPP by mentioning the MIT licence.. does not equal instant dismissal.
read the wiki about slapp. its been pretty dumbed down terminology even the most naive person can understand. like yourself.
patent trlls aim is not to win at trial. its to play an opposition at the pre-trial stage.
heck. this topics case is a good example of 2 years of drama and back and forth nonsense before even getting to a trial to then have the other side truly defend

heck a patent troll can easily word his claims around any MIT licence. by saying a certain person they are suing worked on a project pre licence date and there fore not protected back then.. or was the instigator of stealing confidential info and making it public therefore damaging the first party by making it public.

patent trolls have many strategies. and all they need is some legalised notoriety/judgement. valid enough for a court to listen to that they had some involvement in something. for the court to atleast think its worthy of hearing. then the SLAPP begins

[gmaxwell]

gmax fails to understand the whole game of patent trolling
(ill link the tactic at bottom. spoilers its not about winning at trial its the pre-trial strategy)

Oh jesus christ.  Anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason.  Their bullshit lawsuits will get dismissed, of course, after some cost and expense.

Wright's ability to sue is not improved an ounce by claiming to be Satoshi:  In fact, if he claims the basis for his lawsuits arise from being Satoshi, he would undermine them and make them much easier to dismiss because the claims would not be timely, because satoshi applied for no patents etc.

firstly. imagine CSW was judged as part of team satoshi
he can then go find anyone that tried to file patents in their name. and sue them

No court is going to judge that, it's not even a matter on the table in the Kleiman v/ Wright case.

But even if that somehow happened it would have no effect on patents.  EVEN SATOSHI CANNOT FILE (valid) PATENTS ON BITCOIN NOW. Everyone is blocked from filing patents on Bitcoin itself now because bitcoin was made available to the public.

he can do the same at the trademark office too

No, again, he cannot: Even Satoshi himself could not do that because he has abandoned the mark.

CSW could instantly sue GMax for a whole host of reasons

No, he cannot, except in so far that anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit. There is nothing he could file against me that wouldn't end up instantly dismissed (and likely end up with him having to pay fees).

all CSW would need is a small amount of grace that he has some relevance to the claims he makes to prevent a patent troll case being instantly dismissed.

Claiming to be Satoshi would not add grace to a patent lawsuit. In fact, if he claims his patent claim is related to his origination of Bitcoin it will guarantee an immediate dismissal.

As I said up-thread, I would totally buy your theory if it weren't for the case that being Satoshi doesn't help a patent claim in court, so fraudulently claiming to be Satoshi woudln't help Wright in court.  Instead, all it will do is help him rip off idiots that think Satoshi has (or could have) patent rights over Bitcoin-- so good job helping wright scam people.

[gmaxwell]

I don't know. Why did Gavin Andresen vouch for Craig Wright?

Because he's an idiot.

Why did Satoshi leave?

There is an old video where Gavin speculates that Satoshi left because Gavin spoke with the CIA because Satoshi stopped responding to him when he wrote and said he would be meeting with them.

[franky1]

Why did Satoshi leave?

There is an old video where Gavin speculates that Satoshi left because Gavin spoke with the CIA because Satoshi stopped responding to him when he wrote and said he would be meeting with them.

there were posts and emails of satoshis actual words.. where satoshi was also realising too many people were relying on satoshi as a decision maker..
also things like wikileaks accepting BTC was one of the last few posts satoshi made an opinion as being negative for bitcoin before no longer writing on the forum

need we forget the actual time line of events. and not the speculation

EG
way way before april 20th satoshi already left.
april 20th Mike hearne asked if he was coming back
april 20th satoshi said he moved onto other projects but keys were safe in gavins hands

april 27th gavin said he was preparing to talk do a talk at a CIA conference

so satoshi left before any CIA drama

edit to note the trolling below
majority of my psts have been about the legal strategy CSW is playing
but a certain group of people have been trying to discuss me..
seems they cant actually think about the topic and instead want to just be trolls

oh well ill stick to the actual document words and the actual details.
ill leave them to be trolls. seems they have no other hobbies nor friends outside of this forum

[JayJuanGee]

gmax fails to understand the whole game of patent trolling

Yes, of course.  Everyone fails to understand a lot of things, but you, franky1, you do not fail to understand.  That's for sure.   

[edited out]

Another thing we're all very keenly aware of is the game of forum trolling.  I suggest you tread carefully, as there are consequences when you lose that game.

hahahahahaha... Yes... frank1, might find out that he is not such an "expert" in forum trolling as he thought he was (aka dunning-kruger effect) Poor lil franky1.   

[gmaxwell]

but keys were safe in gavins hands

Stop lying. What "keys"? there are no fucking keys. Unless you mean the alert key-- which many other people, including Theymos and myself had.

Mike's claim was that Satoshi told him that he was moving on ... on Apr 23, 2011.

april 27th gavin said he was preparing to talk do a talk at a CIA conference

Another lie. Gavin's first public announcement was on (or before) April 20th, presumably he wrote to Satoshi days prior to that, before accepting:


2011-04-20 23:06:11 <gavinandresen> Oh, "they" are already paying attention.  I committed a couple of days ago to give a presentation down in DC to some of "them"
...
2011-04-20 23:07:52 <gavinandresen> (at CIA headquarters... no, I'm not making that up)


So, if we believe Mike Hearn, we find that Satoshi said that he was moving on immediately after Gavin contacted Satoshi to tell him about the CIA thing.

("If" because we know people have distorted private records when they've published them. And it's not like Mike's ethics are in good standing, e.g. giving vague support to wright by saying that wright is interesting and otherwise 'no comment').

According to Gavin, Satoshi's last message to Gavin was:

I wish you wouldn’t keep talking about me as a mysterious shadowy figure, the press just turns that into a pirate currency angle. Maybe instead make it about the open source project and give more credit to your dev contributors; it helps motivate them.

Which I think speaks for itself. Pretty unfortunate that Gavin didn't follow Satoshi's advice.

Perhaps it was coincidence-- likely even, but back when Gavin wasn't trying to fraudulently convince people that he was Satoshi's appointed successor he, himself, didn't have any problem speculating his decision to meet with the CIA might have triggered Satoshi to bow out.

Tying the subject back in-- perhaps part of the reason Gavin went along with Wright's claims is the same reason Wright goes along with various crazy things: it was consistent with the bullshit that they'd been slinging for a while previously. I mean, sure, ultimately idioicy underlies all of it-- but "they were stupid" is just too universal of an answer to be satisfying on its own.

[Wind_FURY]

I don't know. Why did Gavin Andresen vouch for Craig Wright?

Because he's an idiot.

Why did Satoshi leave?

There is an old video where Gavin speculates that Satoshi left because Gavin spoke with the CIA because Satoshi stopped responding to him when he wrote and said he would be meeting with them.

I have heard of that. I'm placing out the thought that the people behind Craig Wright's Borat-like-character-with-unclear-motives might be the same people Gavin has met with in Langley. Tin-foil hats on.

[AGD]

I don't know. Why did Gavin Andresen vouch for Craig Wright?

Because he's an idiot.

Why did Satoshi leave?

There is an old video where Gavin speculates that Satoshi left because Gavin spoke with the CIA because Satoshi stopped responding to him when he wrote and said he would be meeting with them.

I have heard of that. I'm placing out the thought that the people behind Craig Wright's Borat-like-character-with-unclear-motives might be the same people Gavin has met with in Langley. Tin-foil hats on.

I've been pointing that out for a long time. There is no tin foil hat necessary to assume, that Bitcoin affects US national security. In their centralized mindset they might have thought, that by corrupting the 'leaders of Bitcoin' it would be possible to gain control over the network. I would even bet, they are trying very hard to find weaknesses in the source code and/or infiltrate the development process.

[Wind_FURY]

I don't know. Why did Gavin Andresen vouch for Craig Wright?

Because he's an idiot.

Why did Satoshi leave?

There is an old video where Gavin speculates that Satoshi left because Gavin spoke with the CIA because Satoshi stopped responding to him when he wrote and said he would be meeting with them.

I have heard of that. I'm placing out the thought that the people behind Craig Wright's Borat-like-character-with-unclear-motives might be the same people Gavin has met with in Langley. Tin-foil hats on.

I've been pointing that out for a long time. There is no tin foil hat necessary to assume, that Bitcoin affects US national security. In their centralized mindset they might have thought, that by corrupting the 'leaders of Bitcoin' it would be possible to gain control over the network. I would even bet, they are trying very hard to find weaknesses in the source code and/or infiltrate the development process.

I believe they tried finding technical weaknesses first, but found nothing. The next step is the socio-political attack so confusing that it makes gmaxwell and franky1 agree on an issue.

We may disagree on who Satoshi truly is, but everyone who is not a Bitcoin flat-Earther can agree who he isn't.

[JayJuanGee]

We may disagree on who Satoshi truly is, but everyone who is not a Bitcoin flat-Earther can agree who he isn't.

Actually, you may be raising a decent point here, Wind_Fury.

It does not matter who we agree or disagree to be satoshi, at least not in terms of bitcoin and how it works and who has rights.

It also does not matter if we agree or disagree about the property rights of bitcoin or who owns which coins or alternative it does not matter how the court rules in that direction or even in the direction of property rights that may be attached.

In terms of coin ownership, you either have the keys or you don't, and in terms of the property rights overall, does anyone believe bitcoin is anything other than open source and any traction would come from such a declaration of ruling it to be other than open source?

I suppose that the court could make some erroneous conclusions about who supposedly owns certain bitcoin or not, the when push comes to shove, they still have to be able to move the coins, so if they do not really own the coins, then what good could it do for the court to rule that they do own the coins when either someone else has the keys or the keys have been lost/destroyed?

I suppose that CSW is hoping for preposterous rulings in his favor that are not possible to enforce, and giving him the option to attempt to play hardball in a variety of respects to nonsensical findings, while the rest of us might be sitting back and investing in popcorn shares, while watching such fruitless and ineffective theatrical outcomes.

Sure, after such rulings, Ira could get paid through liquidation of Craigs other assets, if really Craig has been attempting to limit his liability by supposed earlier creation of a variety of companies.. that may or may not save him from getting liquidated, personally.. and which also could take years more to play out.

[BitcoinFX]

This is apparently how the real world works in the minds of (BSV) folks supposedly being well versed and working on 'digital identities' ...

- https://twitter.com/Bitstocks_/status/1279077184670437376

- https://twitter.com/ari_offchain/status/1278607706585169922

"You can compare it with if you lose your house key and I find it... do I have ownership of your house now?"

 

1. No you don't have ownership of the house, although you might try to steal from it!

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

2. Your going to need the keys and the deeds for rightful ownership.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deed

More proof that these people don't understand how identity works in Bitcoin.

...

Craig Wright has failed to produce any valid Private Keys or signed messages whatsoever. Is he even in possession of someone else's keys?

He has effectively produced false deeds in a court of law though ...

Good luck with that!


Seriously, do these folks think they are actually getting away with this BS fake news and propaganda ...

- https://twitter.com/Bitstocks_/status/1278994265725689856

- https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1279511542451634184

To clarify, Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.

Bitcoin = BTC

[franky1]

Another lie. Gavin's first public announcement was on (or before) April 20th, presumably he wrote to Satoshi days prior to that, before accepting:

'you presume'

yet lets be more specific.. satoshi gave the alert key to gavin way earlier
infact it was not even a package deal where you got one too at the same time.. you joined github later.. in like june 2011.. if i recall
so i dont know why you felt the need to try to make yourself look like you were one of the chosen

by this i mean you didnt have any direct contact with satoshi in the first place. you got a 'hand-me-down' from someone else

also funny how satoshi stopped making posts and code updates in december 2010

satoshi also made gavin the main contact on bitcoin.org
satoshi gave gavin access to the sourceforge too

so when satoshi told hearne he moved on
it was past tense..
not 'i will be moving on'
or 'im about to move on'
he moved on long before april

......

as for the MIT licence.. real funny thing is
not so long ago Gmax and his boss were promoting their own patent/licence
even saying as much as
"What can still be patented are the incremental improvements, complementary technologies, or additional applications of the technologies that are currently being developed. We think the open strategy has been a good one, and we want to ensure that our work can be used to further open development, like Bitcoin itself, rather than risking it being locked up by short-term opportunists."

and thats where the lightbulb moment should be.
patent trolling anyone that tries to patent the 'incremental improvements  complementary technologies, or additional applications of the technologies that are currently being developed'

i did find it funny how Gmax says everyones protected by MIT but was happily promoting a DPL
wouldnt a DPL be dismissed due to MIT licence.. if we use Gmax's same logic

..
as for gmax's assumptions that cases get instantly dismissed as frivolous
well this topics case has been going on for 2 years
yes we know its frivolous.. but it was not instantly dismissed 2 years ago
so assuming that a judge would just throw a case out. is a bad assumption
as this case is showing clearly.
2 years of drama and its not even got to the trial stage but wasted many peoples time in the process

[gmaxwell]

Man, I love these messages from Franky1 now. Chalk full of easily disproved lies.

yet lets be more specific.. satoshi gave the alert key to gavin way earlier

Nope. Gavin received it tacked onto the end of the last email Satoshi sent him. Here is a picture.

you joined github later.. in like june 2011.. if i recall

Bitcoin development wasn't originally on github, Satoshi never participated there-- but you can happily see me participating before then e.g. on bitcointalk,  the mailing lists, or IRC. ... Mike Hearn didn't first show up on the Bitcoin github until June 2012.

also funny how satoshi stopped making posts and code updates in december 2010

That isn't technically true-- though you couldn't be blamed for not knowing it. After Bitcoin started using github Satoshi sent patches to other people that weren't submitted under his name.  For example, the transaction signature caching in Bitcoin was one of these email patches.

he moved on long before april

If you want to call Gavin a liar, by all means.  It's not a violation of the laws of physics for you to say something I agree with.

But you're not arguing with me here, you're arguing with gavin.

i did find it funny how Gmax says everyones protected by MIT but was happily promoting a DPL
wouldnt a DPL be dismissed due to MIT licence.. if we use Gmax's same logic

MIT license is a software license not a patent license (except to the extent a limited implied license may exist).  You used the term "IP" vaguely, which could mean patents, copyright, or trademark  (or a few other things in backwards freedom hating jurisdictions).  Satoshi wouldn't be able to create trouble for Bitcoin from a copyright perspective because of the MIT license. He wouldn't be able to create trouble from a patent perspective because of Bitcoin itself being prior art. And he wouldn't be able to create trouble from a trademark perspective due to abandonment (among other issues).  So wright, by pretending to be satoshi, would be in no better a position even if his con was successful (it wouldn't be).

Blockstream's patent licensing is like free software licensing, except for patents. Unlike Satoshi, blockstream worked on new things that could potentially have created licensing problems if they weren't freely licensed.

Wright hasn't contributed anything new to Bitcoin, so there isn't any risk for his contributions to be patented.

And if he did create something new and patented it and alleged Bitcoin used that thing, his claim would no in way be improved by claiming to be Satoshi.

Franky, why can't you just admit you were mistaken on something?  It's not a crime, it's not even embarrassing.   What is embarrassing is you arguing yourself into a loop arguing about a subject you're generally ignorant about with people who have real professional experience in it.

[JayJuanGee]

i did find it funny how Gmax says everyones protected by MIT but was happily promoting a DPL
wouldnt a DPL be dismissed due to MIT licence.. if we use Gmax's same logic

What is a DPL?

[franky1]

in the past i have owned up to my mistakes.
but funny thing is when your club of people try a little too hard to avoid the actual topic/debate and instead want to make it about my grammar or my opinion, or try to use presumed and probably statements, or even flip floppy statements to make it sound like a debunk. your group are the ones muddying the water.

when satoshi emailed gavin. it was not when he was leaving. its when he informed gavin he ALREADY left
again it wasnt satoshi singing 'im leaving, on the next train' (present)
it was 'ive moved on'(past)

let me word it this way
satoshis 'trigger' date for pulling back and not involved in the day-to-day of bitcoin was december 2010
again the trigger was in december. gavin didnt even get any CIA request in december
what was getting satoshi triggered in december was things like wikileaks and how loads of people were becoming to dependant on satoshi

so when he informed people he already retired out of bitcoin was april

its like retiring from a job. and months later your co workers ask if your alright because they havnt seen you in the office for a while and then you inform them you already retired. then remembering you still have the namebadge and the key to the executive bathroom in your pocket so you hand them back.
your retirement date is not the last communication you make with your co-workers
otherwise we could debate your communication dates of blockstream and your supposed retirement date.. (get my point)
or should we use the date of when you months later were telling people you moved on and no longer part of blockstream as your new retirement date.
if i remember you mentioned it like 10 months later in some conversations
(see my point)

........
anyway the flip flop strategy of trying to muddy the water about patent trolls
gmax involvement with DPL infers that the MIT/prior art would only cover the early versions of bitcoin. but blockstreams patents/DPL would cover latter incarnations/variants
thus opens the gates for patent trolls to fight such.
(ding ding. is anyone seeing the attack vector here)

can you atleast admit your mistakes that either:
MIT/prior art is not immortal hense the possible need for DPL you previously advertised years ago..
or admit
that a DPL is never needed as bitcoin and all its updates are protected forever.. like you suggest now
pick one.. flip or flop?

you cant say bitcoin is locked tight from any legal battle.. and then in same breathe say certain things can lead to patent trolling so need something like a DPL
(again do you get my point)

i do love the flip floppy statements you made, seems to be a well known strategy to just try muddying the water and not staying ontopic for a certain few people that are in your social group


CSW himself years ago was posting how he wants to fight those making latter alterations

yes i know he doesnt have much to fight on such as his 'i own the databases' which in itself is a laugh.. but in a courtroom wont get him instantly dismissed should a judgement be made that the IP is CSW/IRA's

a patent troll is not about getting their claim to a trial judgement to win. its about having the mere relevance enough to not get auto dismissed a day after filing the claim and try to make requests that happen in their favour before any judgement.
again as CSW/IRA case wasnt auto dismissed and has been playing out for a couple years while the world knows CSW wasnt involved as satoshi. just proves that its no auto-dismiss thing.
otherwise this 2 year case drama would not have even begun

if CSW and ira can keep a case going for 2 years without even having the bitcoin IP legitimised as theirs. imagine the games to be played if they do

[franky1]

i did find it funny how Gmax says everyones protected by MIT but was happily promoting a DPL
wouldnt a DPL be dismissed due to MIT licence.. if we use Gmax's same logic

What is a DPL?

few years ago Gmax and his (ex)boss were trying to sell/promote the community into adopting a blockstream licence under the guise it would protect them

kinda funny really
(ex) = unsure. because retirement seems to no longer be linked to when they stop being involved daily. but when their very last possible response months later saying 'i already moved on' is. (in the eyes of gmax, anyway)

[JayJuanGee]

i did find it funny how Gmax says everyones protected by MIT but was happily promoting a DPL
wouldnt a DPL be dismissed due to MIT licence.. if we use Gmax's same logic

What is a DPL?

few years ago Gmax and his (ex)boss were trying to sell/promote the community into adopting a blockstream licence under the guise it would protect them

kinda funny really
(ex) = unsure. because retirement seems to no longer be linked to when they stop being involved daily. but when their very last possible response months later saying 'i already moved on' is. (in the eyes of gmax, anyway)

Maybe you would convince a few more people if you were not speaking in riddles so frequently, but I am afraid that if you define your terms and you spell out what you mean and what you are trying to argue with greater clarity, they you suffer the likelihood that what you are saying makes little to no sense, and that is why you feel a need to ongoingly outline your various ideas (to the extent that there are any ideas) in riddles.  You still have not said, what is DPL.   

[sandra_x]

Craig Wright the Faketoshi. It has been one lie after another. He did mention he will receive a flashdrive/hardrive (containing the private keys) delivered to him that will enable him unlock the satoshi bitcoins, we are still waiting for him to move the bitcoins. We are all Satoshis and that is what is good for the bitcoin space

[DooMAD]

imagine the games to be played if they do

This right here is your problem.  You imagine a little too much.  Then you confuse your imagination with what's actually possible in the real world. 

Just because you can imagine it, that doesn't automatically make it fact.  Seek help if you believe otherwise.  The theatre that plays out in your mind is not real.  The rest of us can't see it.  We can't form conclusions based on your fantasies.  Stop expecting that of us.