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

[Searing]

Craig Wright options 1 and 2.

1) If Craig Wright 'loses' the case with the Kleiman Estate and is forced by the court to pay. (even though can't because NOT Satoshi) he will

use this to claim this proves he 'is' Satoshi.

2) If Craig Wright 'wins' the case with the Klieman Estate and is NOT forced by the court to pay. (even though again he could not, because he is NOT

Satoshi) he will claim that this proves he 'is' Satoshi.

So no matter what, this 'idiot' is never going to go away unless the 'real' Satoshi signs and address and proves he is the 'real deal'...man I'd love to

see Craig Wright 'explain' his way out of that!

But until then...this guy will continue to be around in all his 'scummy' glory.

[1714834091]

1714834091

[1714834091]

1714834091

[1714834091]

1714834091

[1714834091]

1714834091

[1714834091]

1714834091

[Wind_FURY]

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

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.

An errouneous conclusion of a case which other similar cases "COULD" be based from, and reduce Bitcoin addresses into mere accounts that can legally be "scantioned" and "censored".

Remove what "CSW Personally Wants". We don't know his true motives.

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

He's always gaslighting. I learned a lot just by debating him because it forces me to research.

[BitcoinFX]

"Why Kleiman v Wright is a redo of the ATO fraud inquiry.

ATO 2014: "We do not accept that the Seychelles Trust existed"

Court Florida 2019: "The totality of the evidence in the record does not substantiate that the Tulip Trust exists"

And Craig just keeps doubling down... "
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1280049666462224384



...



...



 

...

~ I'm 99.9% sure that whatever else happens the 'real' Nakamoto might show up after all.  

...

Metallica: Nothing Else Matters (Official Music Video)
- https://youtu.be/tAGnKpE4NCI

[franky1]

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.

in this whole topic you have not once talked about the topic of the case of IRA/CSW or referenced any documents or paragraphs of documents

i have
and its clear BOTH IRA and CSW BOTH want a judge to validate that the partners were part of bitcoins creation.
it is other buddies of your that pretend that the nail in the coffin is the imaginary future cases where ira asks for damages.
its of your other buddies that flip flop(your trick) that MIT licence is an immortal shield. but then have been advertising their own DPL which have highlighted the whole risk of SLAPP lawsuits

heck it doesnt seem they even bother reading what a SLAPP is. to know its not about getting to the end of a trial to get a verdict. but to cause issues for years before even getting to trial and making requests that work in their favour BEFORE trial

if you cant see the documents or dont want to actually get involved in the topic. then find another topic.
because so far you have added ZERO relevance to the topic
the rest of the community know CSW games. they seen him saying how he wants to SLAPP loads of devs
but it is funny how certain people think it is actually fine to let a judge rule that CSW is bitcoins creator.
funny amazes me how much you guys are happy if bitcoin fails or causes tensions in the community.

next time atleast try to bring some relevance to the topic and not just be a flip flop troll

[franky1]

If Craig Wright 'loses' the case with the Kleiman Estate and is forced by the court to pay. (even though can't because NOT Satoshi) he will

IRA has not in the last fortnight asked for 410k coins payout
he asked for default judgement in his favour that CSW/DAVE were bitcoins creator

meaning: a win for ira and loss to CSW in this case.. is actually a win to CSW in his long con game
lets be more exact. losing the case and just paying court costs.. well thats the price of doing business
and its something i bet CSW planned out years ago as the cost to receive the title he wants. and thats what his 'money guys' are funding right now. they would have been promised future riches from his story exclusive and his future patent trolls.. if they invest and fund his case now.(same promise he made to calvin basically)

decisions about who buys out who from the partnership is for later speculative discussions way outside the scope of this case. so its not about the 410k coins. this case is about the partnership IP and establishing CSW as part of bitcoins creation. BOTH IRA AND CSW want that claim certified by a judge

again (avoid repeating in new posts)
this case right now. in this reality:
is about claiming rights to the partnership of bitcoins IP/creation.
after this judgement if judgement is in IRA favour. all that is included in the verdict is that there is a partnership and IRA gets to be part of FUTURE asset decisions

if your expecting this trial to be the trial that will see payout/no pay out. you wont.
thats for other speculative future scenarios of flip floppers

and any smart person knows. if ira is only after money. he would gain more working with CSW on patent trolling than he would trying to get compensation from CSW

[Wind_FURY]

If Craig Wright 'loses' the case with the Kleiman Estate and is forced by the court to pay. (even though can't because NOT Satoshi) he will

IRA has not in the last fortnight asked for 410k coins payout
he asked for default judgement in his favour that CSW/DAVE were bitcoins creator

meaning: a win for ira and loss to CSW in this case.. is actually a win to CSW in his long con game
lets be more exact. losing the case and just paying court costs.. well thats the price of doing business
and its something i bet CSW planned out years ago as the cost receive the title he wants. and thats what his 'money guys' are funding right now. they have been promised future riches from his story exclusive and his future patent trolls.. if they invest and fund his case now.

decisions about who buys out who from the partnership is for later speculative discussions way outside the scope of this case. so its not about the 410k coins. its about the partnership IP

this case right now. in this reality:
is about validating and solidifying the partnership of bitcoins IP/creation.
after this judgement if judgement is in IRA favour. all that is included in the verdict is that there is a partnership and IRA gets to be part of FUTURE asset decisions

if your expecting this trial to be the trial that will see payout/no pay out. you wont.
thats for other speculative future scenarios of flip floppers

and any smart person knows. if ira is only after money. he would gain more working with CSW on patent trolling than he would trying to get compensation from CSW

Let's assume that, tin-foil hats on, franky1's theory is right. gmax, BitcoinFX, JayJuanGee, and all the smart guys, how plausible is that it would end with Craig Wright "owning/controlling Bitcoin's IP"?

[BitcoinFX]

I'm guessing around a 0.00000001% chance that Craig Wright will actually waltz off with any Bitcoin related Intellectual Property in this case.

Craig Wright is not satoshi and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

Dave Kleiman is not satoshi either and he had nothing to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

One of Dave's hard drives contained a text note which stated "Is this a Satoshi address ..." (in a recent court doc.) ... he was a digital forensic investigator ...

Which is why I recall this ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4359615.msg42180805#msg42180805

...

Craig Wright attempting to obtain Bitcoin related Intellectual Property through this court case (now a total farce) is quite clearly the 'end game' to justify his means. He has tried to 'hijack' the Bitcoin project, although he has only provided proven fabrications and circumstantial evidence to date, and therefore he will fail.

The only winners in this case are already the lawyers, which is usually the case!

...

The patents that both Craig and nChain 'hold' are completely worthless i.e. Prior Art ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5216304.msg53820493#msg53820493

Highlights ...

"Worthless and unenforceable patents !?

- https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5960/can-i-patent-open-source-project

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something..."

...

"... Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent..."

...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg52932888#msg52932888

Quote: "The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://cypherspace.org/CPL/ ... "

...

"Background ...

The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society ..."

...

"... Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas..."

...

"... It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. ..."

...

"CSW's and nChain's patents are likely Prior Art i.e. worthless and unenforceable without said cryptographically assured proof."

...

Returning to the OP ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960.0

CSW has provided zero cryptographically assured proof, to date, whilst others have cryptographically proven him to be a liar and a fraud.

...

satoshi, in many respects, was Hal Finney.

Nakamoto, the originator, was/is someone else entirely ... N+1

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155191.0

...

For Whom The Bell Tolls ...
- https://youtu.be/eeqGuaAl6Ic

[DooMAD]

and its clear BOTH IRA and CSW BOTH want a judge to validate that the partners were part of bitcoins creation.

a) That's not clear at all, that's merely your (seemingly lone) interpretation and no one here is convinced by your claims
and
b) It doesn't matter what they want.  What matters is what they can prove.  They're dealing with a judge, not a genie.  They don't grant wishes.

he asked for default judgement in his favour that CSW/DAVE were bitcoins creator

Again, they can ask for anything, doesn't mean they're going to get it.  Ira could ask for half the coins in the genesis block, which is impossible, so why aren't you having a shit-fit about that too?  Maybe, instead of just blindly asking "what if" and letting your imagination run wild without a hint of limitation or reason, just try considering what's actually practical for once.

And, since you seem adamant that any utterance of common sense in opposition to your total lack thereof isn't permitted or justified unless there's some quoting of a legal document from the cases, I give you the following.  The courts have expressed zero interest in validating any claims that either party were responsible for Bitcoin's creation, as has already been confirmed to you by the documents you claim to have read:

First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.

For someone to interpret that as a likelihood that a judge is going to validate faketoshi's claims would suggest they aren't fond of critical thinking and have a flair for the dramatic.

[rdbase]

Craig Wright options 1 and 2.

1) If Craig Wright 'loses' the case with the Kleiman Estate and is forced by the court to pay. (even though can't because NOT Satoshi) he will

use this to claim this proves he 'is' Satoshi.

2) If Craig Wright 'wins' the case with the Klieman Estate and is NOT forced by the court to pay. (even though again he could not, because he is NOT

Satoshi) he will claim that this proves he 'is' Satoshi.

So no matter what, this 'idiot' is never going to go away unless the 'real' Satoshi signs and address and proves he is the 'real deal'...man I'd love to

see Craig Wright 'explain' his way out of that!

But until then...this guy will continue to be around in all his 'scummy' glory.

So is he what this person was referring to a scummer on the internet?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5259965.0

I think we have a new term and craig wright's face should be on the wiki for this one.

[nutildah]

he asked for default judgement in his favour that CSW/DAVE were bitcoins creator

Again, they can ask for anything, doesn't mean they're going to get it.  Ira could ask for half the coins in the genesis block, which is impossible, so why aren't you having a shit-fit about that too?  Maybe, instead of just blindly asking "what if" and letting your imagination run wild without a hint of limitation or reason, just try considering what's actually practical for once.

And, since you seem adamant that any utterance of common sense in opposition to your total lack thereof isn't permitted or justified unless there's some quoting of a legal document from the cases, I give you the following.  The courts have expressed zero interest in validating any claims that either party were responsible for Bitcoin's creation, as has already been confirmed to you by the documents you claim to have read:

First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.

For someone to interpret that as a likelihood that a judge is going to validate faketoshi's claims would suggest they aren't fond of critical thinking and have a flair for the dramatic.

I tried explaining to franky earlier that a "default judgment" does not mean that the judge ruled Craig and/or Dave is Satoshi, but he glossed right over it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/default_judgment

Default judgments arise in circumstances whereby one party to a suit has failed to perform a court-ordered action, and subsequently that failure has not only prevented the issue from being presented before the court but also results in the court settling the legal dispute in favor of the compliant party. For example, when a defendant is summoned to appear before the court in a case brought by a plaintiff, but fails to respond to the court's legal order, the judge can rule for default judgment and thereby decide the case in the plaintiff's favor.

I think he needs to go back and do some more Research™.

[franky1]

and its clear BOTH IRA and CSW BOTH want a judge to validate that the partners were part of bitcoins creation.

a) That's not clear at all, that's merely your (seemingly lone) interpretation and no one here is convinced by your claims

guess you are also ignorant of the documents.
heck i did even screen shot it because certain people couldnt even page count a pdf file..(or used it as an ignorant excuse to not even read the content of the links)
maybe read it first. and see the actual words

also your other little dun goofed

First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.

ill quote you the rest of the page

 For purposes of this proceeding, the Court accepts Dr. Wright’s representation that he controlled (directly or indirectly) some bitcoin on December 31, 2013, and that he continues to control some today.PROCEDURAL HISTORYThis  case  arises  from  a  dispute  over the  ownership  of bitcoin  and  Bitcoin-related intellectual property.  Plaintiffs allege in the Second Amended Complaint that David Kleiman and Dr. Wright were partners in the creation of the Bitcoin cybercurrency and that they “mined” (i.e.,acquired)  a  substantial  amount  of  that  currency  together.DE  83.Dr.  Wright denies  any partnership with David Kleiman, and further deniesthat David Kleiman had anownership interest in the bitcoin that was mined.  Alternatively, Dr. Wright assertsthat David Kleiman transferred any interest he had in the bitcoinand the intellectual property to Dr. Wright in exchange for equity in a company that ultimately failed.See DE 87.David Kleiman died in 2013

which. thanks to doomad .. debunks nutilduh
its not about the coins. or amount of coins or who should pay out the coins or when or how
its not about claiming CSW is a username 'satoshi'
its about.. wait for it.. take a breathe.. bitcoin IP

so dont make out that i am saying this case is about coins.
so dont make out im saying this case is about trying to claim that is was CSW physical person at the keyboard writing posts under the username satoshi

its actually about the IP rights to the invention named bitcoin.

have a nice day though..

one last thought
ill leave this last stick on your camp fire for you lot to huddle around and stay warm
if the MIT licence was so protective. why just a few years did gmax do these two things
1. promote a DPL
2. forum rage dev's who made clients that simply didnt write the MIT licence

if it doesnt matter after the fact 'because prior art'.. 'because MIT licence 2009'. then why did he do those two acts.
(hint: because he knows that patent trolls can still SLAPP people for years)

[DooMAD]

also your other little dun goofed

First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.

ill quote you the rest of the page

 For purposes of this proceeding, the Court accepts Dr. Wright’s representation that he controlled (directly or indirectly) some bitcoin on December 31, 2013, and that he continues to control some today.PROCEDURAL HISTORYThis  case  arises  from  a  dispute  over the  ownership  of bitcoin  and  Bitcoin-related intellectual property.  Plaintiffs allege in the Second Amended Complaint that David Kleiman and Dr. Wright were partners in the creation of the Bitcoin cybercurrency and that they “mined” (i.e.,acquired)  a  substantial  amount  of  that  currency  together.DE  83.Dr.  Wright denies  any partnership with David Kleiman, and further deniesthat David Kleiman had anownership interest in the bitcoin that was mined.  Alternatively, Dr. Wright assertsthat David Kleiman transferred any interest he had in the bitcoinand the intellectual property to Dr. Wright in exchange for equity in a company that ultimately failed.See DE 87.David Kleiman died in 2013

which. thanks to doomad .. debunks nutilduh

No it doesn't.  Once again you are just seeing what you want to see.  The key word is allege.  It's a word you should be familiar with, because that's what you do.  The court is not going to rule that those allegations are true.  They are simply recording the allegations that have been made.  That's common procedure.  The court have already said they are not going to do make a ruling on who created Bitcoin.  Stop jumping to ludicrous conclusions.  

its not about the coins. or amount of coins or who should pay out the coins or when or how
its not about claiming CSW is a username 'satoshi'
its about.. wait for it.. take a breathe.. bitcoin IP

No one cares what he claims or alleges over the IP.  The judge will not be convinced by such claims.  And even if they were, the judge has made it clear that his judgement will have no bearing on such claims.  Now either write a screenplay for a fictional drama movie, where your fantasies belong, or come up with something that might actually convince us that you aren't an even bigger nutjob than faketoshi.  

[gmaxwell]

So no matter what, this 'idiot' is never going to go away unless the 'real' Satoshi signs and address and proves he is the 'real deal'...man I'd love to
see Craig Wright 'explain' his way out of that!
But until then...this guy will continue to be around in all his 'scummy' glory.

We've already had something which is almost that happened. Craig submitted to the court a huge list of early blocks that he claimed he "satoshi" mined,  it got made public, and wham 145 signatures calling Craig a fraud.

Wright just claimed he was hacked and the keys were stolen -- never mind that the coins those keys controlled have never been moved.  Of course his followers believed it, BSV price didn't even go down. Shit, even the fucking media repeated the lame excuses as if they were credible!

So I think we know exactly what would happen in your hypothetical, and it wouldn't put a stop to wright.  The media has already shown with wright that they're happen to ignore extremely strong cryptographic evidence (e.g. wrights earlier forgeries or these recent signatures)-- and Joe Sixpack is going to go along with whatever the media is selling.  And that is good enough for wright to continue his con in perpetuity.

Let's assume that, tin-foil hats on, franky1's theory is right. gmax, BitcoinFX, JayJuanGee, and all the smart guys, how plausible is that it would end with Craig Wright "owning/controlling Bitcoin's IP"?

The problem with Franky1's fan fiction isn't what he thinks Wright wants-- that may actually be what Wright wants, or at least what Wright is selling as his plan to some of his sucker-victims. There has been no evidence that Kleiman wants that too, but lets go ahead and pretend he does.  The problem is more fundamental and based on Satoshi's lack of applicable intellectual property rights:  Satoshi doesn't have and couldn't have any relevant rights to important Bitcoin "IP"-- e.g. after Satoshi published bitcoin without applying for patents, he perpetually lost any ability to do so because Bitcoin itself became prior art--, so a conman can't gain such rights by successfully pretending to be Satoshi.

That would be like me trying to claim that I own your home because I'm really Elvis. ... Even if I successfully impersonated elvis and tricked all the courts, I still couldn't get ownership of your home that way because the actual Elvis has no right to your home.  Franky1's theory is predicated on a misunderstanding of patents.

If Wright wants to patent troll, he'd falsely claim that Bitcoin recently incorporated something that he patented prior to Bitcoin's use, avoiding the problem of Bitcoin's publication itself constituting prior art-- but for that, there is no benefit to claiming to be Satoshi.  Wright's ability to make baseless patent claims isn't amplified by his Satoshi act, in fact it's hurt by them because his constant dishonest antics will make it hard for him to get taken seriously and has a established a track record as an unrepentant liar.

That said, even though it would be misguided and pointless "pretend to be satoshi to gain patent right over Bitcoin" could still be his plan. He's had plenty of other really dumb plans and his target audience might well even believe it, after all they're stupid enough to believe that Wright is Satoshi (and even franky1 isn't falling for that).  If so, that's good news for all of us since his incompetency ultimately limits the amount of harm he can cause.  If he tried to bring lawsuits claiming patent rights based on his claim of being Satoshi, they'd get easily dismissed.

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.  

As usual, franky1 is gaslighting.  He's referring to this.

Basically, Blockstream open sourced any patents it had or would later obtain.  This helped make sure that blockstream's efforts couldn't later be abused to harm or disrupt the bitcoin ecosystem (e.g. if the company failed and its rights were acquired by some dirtbag). The DPL is one of the components of that, and wasn't created by blockstream-- contrary to Franky1's claims, which is presumably why he wouldn't explain when you asked.  There wasn't really potential for that to begin with, but better to be sure.

The situation is distinct from the original invention of Bitcoin itself because Satoshi published it without patenting it, for the first year there would have been a legitimate concern that Satoshi could have turned around and patented it, that the implied patent license created by the MIT license wouldn't be great enough, and so it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the community to ask for an explicit open patent license. But no one cared at the time and after a year the window for Satoshi applying for a patent closed, mooting the issue.

[BitcoinFX]

Via: Arthur van Pelt @MyLegacyKit (twitter) Jun 24 ...

"BREAKING

Surprisingly, NO DEFAULT SANCTIONS for Craig Wright in the Kleiman v Wright case. Trial by jury it is.

“perjury and fabricated evidence do not constitute fraud upon the court, because they ‘are evils that can and should be exposed at trial.’”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.595.0.pdf "

- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1275894562821681154



...



...

"This part summarizes it nicely. The bar is pretty high for case terminating sanctions."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1275902570121306112



...

"So when you think of it, judge Bloom is basically saying:

"Craig is a bad liar and a sloppy forger. Because if he was a convincing liar and a master forger, I would have eaten the guy alive right now already." ..."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1275905525922881538

...

“Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss”
― John Milton, Paradise Lost

 

[JayJuanGee]

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

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.

An errouneous conclusion of a case which other similar cases "COULD" be based from, and reduce Bitcoin addresses into mere accounts that can legally be "scantioned" and "censored".

Remove what "CSW Personally Wants". We don't know his true motives.

Wow, you seem to be giving way too much credit to what would be possible, merely based on court fuckery, whether it is erroneous or purposeful, there should be little to no reasons to give too many shit.

Sure, if the court really fucks up, and the government get's behind them, then yeah, they have made a choice to force bitcoin underground.  Bitcoin is a bearer asset, so if you do not have the keys, then it does not matter any way at all what others say, including courts or governments regarding who supposedly owns those coins, if they actually do not.

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

He's always gaslighting. I learned a lot just by debating him because it forces me to research.

Wow.... the punchline is that franky1 is wonderful, and you just feel a need to say it out loud.    

I find it amazing when members are making posts proclaiming how wonderful certain nutjob trolls are because they make them think MOAR better.. blah blah blah..

 

Let's assume that, tin-foil hats on, franky1's theory is right. gmax, BitcoinFX, JayJuanGee, and all the smart guys, how plausible is that it would end with Craig Wright "owning/controlling Bitcoin's IP"?

No need to assume anything.


It's like saying:  Let's assume toothfairies, then... blah blah blah...

We do not advance anything by getting into the assumption of fantasies... Makes no sense, unless you either want a fantasy outcome or to just want to enter into a fantastical trip.

[AGD]

...

We do not advance anything by getting into the assumption of fantasies... Makes no sense, unless you either want a fantasy outcome or to just want to enter into a fantastical trip.

I agree with 90% of your posting, but if your goal is to 'advance anything' in a public discussion forum, you might be in the wrong place. Everybody can come up with their fantasy stories and get either ignored or - in case of Franky1 - people get obsessed by the need to debunk every brain fart he sets free and fill 15 pages of 'CSW and Ira are colluding!' and 'No, they are not!'

[gmaxwell]

problem with franky1 isn't that he posts his stupidity once, but he flooded the thread out with his endless multiposted stupidity, constantly bringing the discussion back to his deranged theory. I have him on ignore, and only look at his posts if other people have started responding to them.

[franky1]

problem with gmax is.
he thinks he is THE judge of all courts, where gmax has the power himself to auto dismiss any bitcoin related cases no matter where, when or by whom they are filed by. (unless its blockstream and then its ok)

but it is a shame gmax didnt use his secret power 2 years ago to dismiss the IRA/CSW case
oops did gmax forget this case didnt get dismissed.. oh well that debunks gmaxs claims that bitcoin related cases get auto dismissed.

yes we all get it many cases should have got thrown out years ago.. yes we know many cases are just a sham.. but dont expect instant dismissals because the community outside the courtroom know its a sham

Let's assume that, tin-foil hats on, franky1's theory is right. gmax, BitcoinFX, JayJuanGee, and all the smart guys, how plausible is that it would end with Craig Wright "owning/controlling Bitcoin's IP"?

The problem with Franky1's fan fiction isn't what he thinks Wright wants-- that may actually be what Wright wants, or at least what Wright is selling as his plan to some of his sucker-victims. There has been no evidence that Kleiman wants that too, but lets go ahead and pretend he does.  

one week on and you forgot the pdf link and the screen shot of ira's teams actual request
shame on you
its clear and in writing and logged into case records that he wants what CSW wants.(a partnership involving bitcoins creation deemed as fact)

you cant change legal or written history by just making a post saying 'fantasy' and 'pretend' or i ignored a forum user to hide your ignorance
by you not referring to it/avoiding talking about it. doesnt mean it didnt happen. it just means YOU are unaware of the facts of whats really going on

next time read the documents and show me that it never had a request from ira's team asking for a default judgement that finds that the partnership and the creation of bitcoin by the partnership be deemed fact
....oh wait you cant

The problem is more fundamental and based on Satoshi's lack of applicable intellectual property rights: Satoshi doesn't have and couldn't have any relevant rights to important Bitcoin "IP"-- e.g. after Satoshi published bitcoin without applying for patents, he perpetually lost any ability to do so because Bitcoin itself became prior art--, so a conman can't gain such rights by successfully pretending to be Satoshi.

^ you flip that its impossible

v then you flop

If Wright wants to patent troll, he'd falsely claim that Bitcoin recently incorporated something that he patented prior to Bitcoin's use, avoiding the problem of Bitcoin's publication itself constituting prior art-- but for that,

yep many ways to get around the prior art thing. even flimsy enough to atleast get a court to not auto-dismiss
1. claim you invented it a couple years early then prior art date and then sue people pretending they too were involved before then and stole your idea to ruin your financial potential by making it freeware without your consent. thus seeking damages
2. using the limitations that gmax knows the MIT doesnt immortally protect bitcoin for. and obviously wanted people to be protected by handing their alterations to blockchain. under the DPL

If he tried to bring lawsuits claiming patent rights based on his claim of being Satoshi, they'd get easily dismissed.

really? so a case right now running for about 2 years. dealing with bitcoins IP claims.. has been auto-dismissed.
seems like its still playing out. and still going to cause drama untill atleast october.
or are you going to pretend this whole case is not playing out 'coz franky said its playing out makes it now fiction'

instead of trying to play my forum words. try reading the legal documents of ira's teams words. like i asked many times already

Basically, Blockstream open sourced any patents it had or would later obtain.  This helped make sure that blockstream's efforts couldn't later be abused to harm or disrupt the bitcoin ecosystem (e.g. if the company failed and its rights were acquired by some dirtbag). There wasn't really potential for that to begin with, but better to be sure.

how can blockstream even have or try to obtain patents.. oh wait we both know they can gmax has done this
kinda funny that.

flip 'no one can patent bitcoin or any future element/alteration' flop 'apart from blockstream'
flop 'gmax has filed blockstream patents of bitcoin tech and offered other licences'

again patent trolling is not about getting to the final trial victory parade. its about atleast getting a foot in the door at a party so that you can slapp everyone at the party. before the music even begins
by atleast getting on the guest list with a court endorsed document opens many doors

[nutildah]

A couple people described it pretty well earlier: the only way to "win" against franky is either to tell him he is correct or else let him have the last word. In other words, there is no winning. His head is like a perfectly reflective ball bearing in which no light can permeate.

Surprisingly, NO DEFAULT SANCTIONS for Craig Wright in the Kleiman v Wright case. Trial by jury it is.

Wonder if they will again attempt to settle before the trial. They tried once in September of last year but that fell through. The trial was originally scheduled for March 30th, then again for this month, so I hope they don't push it back too much further. But you know, covid is also a pretty good excuse not to have to do anything.

[Wind_FURY]

Let's assume that, tin-foil hats on, franky1's theory is right. gmax, BitcoinFX, JayJuanGee, and all the smart guys, how plausible is that it would end with Craig Wright "owning/controlling Bitcoin's IP"?

The problem with Franky1's fan fiction isn't what he thinks Wright wants-- that may actually be what Wright wants, or at least what Wright is selling as his plan to some of his sucker-victims. There has been no evidence that Kleiman wants that too, but lets go ahead and pretend he does.  The problem is more fundamental and based on Satoshi's lack of applicable intellectual property rights:  Satoshi doesn't have and couldn't have any relevant rights to important Bitcoin "IP"-- e.g. after Satoshi published bitcoin without applying for patents, he perpetually lost any ability to do so because Bitcoin itself became prior art--, so a conman can't gain such rights by successfully pretending to be Satoshi.

That would be like me trying to claim that I own your home because I'm really Elvis. ... Even if I successfully impersonated elvis and tricked all the courts, I still couldn't get ownership of your home that way because the actual Elvis has no right to your home.  Franky1's theory is predicated on a misunderstanding of patents.

If Wright wants to patent troll, he'd falsely claim that Bitcoin recently incorporated something that he patented prior to Bitcoin's use, avoiding the problem of Bitcoin's publication itself constituting prior art-- but for that, there is no benefit to claiming to be Satoshi.  Wright's ability to make baseless patent claims isn't amplified by his Satoshi act, in fact it's hurt by them because his constant dishonest antics will make it hard for him to get taken seriously and has a established a track record as an unrepentant liar.

That said, even though it would be misguided and pointless "pretend to be satoshi to gain patent right over Bitcoin" could still be his plan. He's had plenty of other really dumb plans and his target audience might well even believe it, after all they're stupid enough to believe that Wright is Satoshi (and even franky1 isn't falling for that).  If so, that's good news for all of us since his incompetency ultimately limits the amount of harm he can cause.  If he tried to bring lawsuits claiming patent rights based on his claim of being Satoshi, they'd get easily dismissed.

OK, then new theory. Craig Wright and his legal team believe that the only way out of the bad situation they currently made themselves, is to dig and go deeper into the hole.