Donate to Cøbra (pending court battle against Craig Wright)

[hacker1001101001]

You're missing the point, what i ask is the reason people can't download Bitcoin Core using UK IP address. AFAIK the court order doesn't mention Bitcoin Core at all.

Which would bring us to the point where we’re asking Cøbra why he’s done that on the website?

If the court haven’t ordered that then why has he done it or approved somebody else to do it?

66,000,000 people in the UK & without a VPN or Tor none of them can now download & run Bitcoin Core.

Maybe this is the reason.



All this is sounding indigestible to me overall.

[1713309972]

1713309972

[1713309972]

1713309972

[1713309972]

1713309972

[1713309972]

1713309972

[1713309972]

1713309972

[Hueristic]

You're missing the point, what i ask is the reason people can't download Bitcoin Core using UK IP address. AFAIK the court order doesn't mention Bitcoin Core at all.

Which would bring us to the point where we’re asking Cøbra why he’s done that on the website?

If the court haven’t ordered that then why has he done it or approved somebody else to do it?

66,000,000 people in the UK & without a VPN or Tor none of them can now download & run Bitcoin Core.

Maybe this is the reason.



All this is sounding indigestible to me overall.

Looks like an intentional snowball to me.

[gmaxwell]

The primary site to download the software is https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/  and has been for years.

[ABCbits]

You're missing the point, what i ask is the reason people can't download Bitcoin Core using UK IP address. AFAIK the court order doesn't mention Bitcoin Core at all.

Which would bring us to the point where we’re asking Cøbra why he’s done that on the website?

If the court haven’t ordered that then why has he done it or approved somebody else to do it?

66,000,000 people in the UK & without a VPN or Tor none of them can now download & run Bitcoin Core.

Maybe this is the reason.



All this is sounding indigestible to me overall.

I get the point, but i find it's ridiculous. Faketoshi might as well as sue all block explorer, wallet provider and full node client for providing Bitcoin whitepaper. And since BSV blockchain also contain Bitcoin whitepaper, he should sue his own community.

[AB de Royse777]

'BSV' is an insult to Satoshi Nakamoto. It should be changed to 'BCV' as soon as possible.

How about "BFV"?

F for F**ced LOL

[shield132]

I’m sure you’ve all read about Craig Wright (Faketoshi) attempting to prove ownership of bitcoin.org & claims he wrote the bitcoin whitepaper & is Satoshi.

Was he claiming that he owns bitcoin.org? Seriously, if he owns, then why isn't he changing the DNS servers of that domain? Or from where the hell he claims the ownership?

These are quite dangerous and desperate people, so I'm still exploring ways I can fight this while keeping my anonymity. It's looking like it may actually be possible, but we'll have to see about that. I'm surprised he hasn't attracted the attention of law enforcement yet, especially after trying to seize £3B worth of Bitcoin with a totally made up story.

I am even more surprised that this case isn't closed. I am surprised that resources are wasted on such a meaningless, unuseful things, on such a cheaters/liars.

One law that will state that anyone claiming to be satoshi without proofs will be sentences in prison and this guy will shut up.

https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1137059506746286080

This is the only tweet that I know from medias about MacAfee and Craig Wright relation. Hasn't this man tweeted anything about Craig? This accident happened in April, MacAfee dead days ago.

[NotATether]

Now this might be the time for people (especially you bitcointalk users) to begin creating Github issues or bugfixes or pull requests if not actual Bitcoin Core development.

Because since CSW is targeting all the Bitcoin Core developers, you are now adding more people into the firing line, especially if you start actively developing Bitcoin Core, but the flipside of this is that the number of trustworthy custodians increases. Because chances are the people who are trusted to maintain the world's bitcoin client are also trustworthy enough to be entrusted to a responsibility such as Bitcoin.org. Also by increasing the number of developers you are adding more potential lawsuits in the mix to drain CSW's suing-money to a point where he can't feasibly sue people anymore.

You don't need to hand over the domain to Blockstream.

As I said, even github issues are good enough, if you are not a coder.

[gmaxwell]

I’m sure you’ve all read about Craig Wright (Faketoshi) attempting to prove ownership of bitcoin.org & claims he wrote the bitcoin whitepaper & is Satoshi.

Was he claiming that he owns bitcoin.org? Seriously, if he owns, then why isn't he changing the DNS servers of that domain? Or from where the hell he claims the ownership?

He vaguely alleges it was stolen from him. Of course, he's absurdly vague because he knows nothing about Cobra or the history of the domain (beyond whats been posted) he's currently unable to usefully construct any forgeries to support his lies.  It's a safe bet that a big part of why he's obsessed with doxing cobra is to facilitate taking the domain by force.

[kaggie]

He vaguely alleges it was stolen from him. Of course, he's absurdly vague because he knows nothing about Cobra or the history of the domain (beyond whats been posted) he's currently unable to usefully construct any forgeries to support his lies.  It's a safe bet that a big part of why he's obsessed with doxing cobra is to facilitate taking the domain by force.

I'm certain that much of what W does is a fishing expedition. The more W knows, the better W can start making up stories that more closely pertain to facts (those pesky things). Right now, all W has is a half baked story that doesn't align with reality in any way.

W will one day end up in prison, and will lose his current fortune. He hasn't yet because he hasn't pushed enough - even though he has pushed hard. W's stories do not align with the history of bitcoin itself, along with many other things. (We're supposed to believe that the inventor of a cryptocurrency wants to renege on the rules of software that he supposedly invented? If it were a card game, that would be called cheating. He blames others for "lost" (allegedly) multi-millions because he "wiped" his own drive.)

I know that we in this forum know he is a fraud, yet I feel it important to repeat so that new people know.

[gmaxwell]

more W knows, the better W can start making up stories that more closely pertain to facts

He already managed to get a copy of all Gavin's private communications with Satoshi from Gavin...

[kaggie]

more W knows, the better W can start making up stories that more closely pertain to facts

He already managed to get a copy of all Gavin's private communications with Satoshi from Gavin...

Satoshi was always on his guard, and Gavin joined too late for Satoshi to have that guard come down,

which leaves a whole lot of history untold before, during, and after Gavin.

[gmaxwell]

Satoshi was always on his guard

Particularly with Gavin-- no surprise if you knew what Gavin's first message to Satoshi was...

And "could have been leaked"-- is that how he rationalized handing it over to Wright?

[kaggie]

Particularly with Gavin-- no surprise if you knew what Gavin's first message to Satoshi was...

And "could have been leaked"-- is that how he rationalized handing it over to Wright?

Can you remind me what his first message was?

In the meantime, I think you might enjoy this:

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time.  It would have been an explosion of special cases.  The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates.  The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.
..
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

[gmaxwell]

Can you remind me what his first message was?

Demanding to know Satoshi's "real" identity, totally out of the blue.

[kaggie]

That would certainly put a large dent to forming trust.

Bitcoin took off in value, the forum exploded - with users and trolls (as you've posted with logs). And no doubt with scammers. ("Stone Man" could have been a forum "dust" attempt..)

As we know, such a dramatic change over a short period ended up with Satoshi disappearing, not the opposite.

Someone should remind me sometime and I'll write about when I was offered stewardship of the bitcoin.org domain and how glad I am I didn't accept it.

Did you ever write this up?

[Lucius]

Satoshi was always on his guard

Particularly with Gavin-- no surprise if you knew what Gavin's first message to Satoshi was...

And "could have been leaked"-- is that how he rationalized handing it over to Wright?

For the first time, I hear that Faketoshi got hold of private messages between Satoshi and GA, but it's not surprising how he got them given GA's attitude from the very beginning of communication with Satoshi - so I wonder how Satoshi failed to figure out who was actually GA?

As for that first question to Satoshi, some say it looked exactly like this :

“I'm very curious to hear more about you – how old are you? Is Satoshi your real name? Do you have a day job? What projects have you been involved with before?” Andresen wrote

The man obviously couldn't even imagine what it was all about - or it was all just part of his job as an external collaborator of some three-letter agency he went to visit along the way to give them a lecture on Bitcoin. As he himself later admits, this may have been the main trigger for Satoshi's disappearance.

Indeed, it would be Andresen himself who would first air the idea he believed Satoshi’s exit was connected with the CIA event, an opinion he’d give on a YouTube show in its aftermath.

[icopress]

The man obviously couldn't even imagine what it was all about - or it was all just part of his job as an external collaborator of some three-letter agency he went to visit along the way to give them a lecture on Bitcoin. As he himself later admits, this may have been the main trigger for Satoshi's disappearance.

If I remember correctly, he was not invited to the three-letter agency until two years after Satoshi disappeared. In any case, in addition to identifying the identity of the creator of Bitcoins, various agencies at that time had other concerns related to BTC, (I haven’t gone into the details of the timestamps, but it would be great if someone could find Gavin’s quote and match it with the date the Silk Road investigation began). And I doubt that he was the trigger, since after so many years almost every second person makes statements that now no one can deny or confirm ...

[DooMAD]

One of the last things satoshi publicly commented on was their hesitance for Bitcoin to be tied in with the Wikileaks controversy.  I've always taken that at face value and assumed that was what resulted in their departure (or if not that, then possibly their sudden coming-to-terms with basic mortality if you take their "moving on" comment in a slightly different context).

That said, we're kind of veering off the main subject here.  Speculation about why satoshi left isn't really applicable to the conversation about Cøbra versus Faketoshi.  

[Hueristic]

That said, we're kind of veering off the main subject here.  Speculation about why satoshi left isn't really applicable to the conversation about Cøbra versus Faketoshi.  

Well it is applicable when looked at in the lens of forces that are driving away the anonymity of the OG community.

Which in my opinion is the the clear focus of this assault on the Cobra Moniker.

With the side benefit of acquiring the domain.

[gmaxwell]

If I remember correctly, he was not invited to the three-letter agency until two years after Satoshi disappeared.

You remember incorrectly, Satoshi abruptly cut off communication when Gavin emailed him to say he would be meeting with the CIA. Gavin himself has speculated before that this is why Satoshi went away. As doomad notes, this should totally have not been a shock.

Back on topic... Cobra is still trying to pay as demanded by the court, but ontier is evading every effort (cobra is copying me on the emails).  Ironically, they've stopped attaching their own name to their communications with Cobra.  "Anonymity for me but not for thee".