We are all Hodlonaut

[NotATether]

Judge asks Wright to help her understand why signing cryptographically is harder for him than what he's doing now.

Wright says it's harder to do because finding up to 100 people and getting them to witness is very time-consuming.

Hahahaha what? Note that question wasn't from one of Hodlonaut's lawyers - it was from the judge. Seems like she is also seeing through CSW's bullshit.

LOL. We the peanut gallery should raise a few voices and point out that we will happily witness his [non-]signing of a message. We'd easily get a hundred pairs of eyeballs watching him.

[1714079830]

1714079830

[1714079830]

1714079830

[1714079830]

1714079830

[BlackHatCoiner]

It seems that many are afraid that they too could find themselves in court face to face with Faketoshi and his 9 lawyers.

Or just we don't believe that an avatar with a linked personal text can actually help the situation? Come on, you can't seriously assert that.

Hahahaha what? Note that question wasn't from one of Hodlonaut's lawyers - it was from the judge. Seems like she is also seeing through CSW's bullshit.

Isn't this crap realized by the court? I'm a little late to the conversation, and haven't pay much attention. Can he claim identity ownership without providing the cryptographic proof, according to the law? Have the Hodlonaut's lawyers provided proof that he's a liar already (or plan to)? That list of signed messages should be sufficient proof.

[aoluain]

It seems that many are afraid that they too could find themselves in court face to face with Faketoshi and his 9 lawyers.

Or just we don't believe that an avatar with a linked personal text can actually help the situation? Come on, you can't seriously assert that.

Hahahaha what? Note that question wasn't from one of Hodlonaut's lawyers - it was from the judge. Seems like she is also seeing through CSW's bullshit.

Isn't this crap realized by the court? I'm a little late to the conversation, and haven't pay much attention. Can he claim identity ownership without providing the cryptographic proof, according to the law? Have the Hodlonaut's lawyers provided proof that he's a liar already (or plan to)? That list of signed messages should be sufficient proof.

Frustrating, I only managed to follow for about an hour this morning, the day job is
getting in the way again. trying to catch up.

Seems like the Judge has a bit of knowledge and shows she can smell something is not right.

I wanted to post this below which everybody should question. I really hope the court can
see through all this as easy as we all can. He is contracting himself below.

Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
6h
Haukaas says you need the private key to sign. No, says Wright, identity is proven by people. Control is not important. "But you did sign for Gavin and Matonis?" No, I used the private key. To keep [Wright's people] happy and shut them up.

Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
7h
Wright says he doesn't have key access now, but he used to at some point. "I created the algorithm" (wtf). Now goes into ECDSA technical things. Raises his voice, waves his hands.

Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
7h
Wright said he never had keys, only an HMAC algorithm, "I hash it and I hash it", some sort of key derivation. "I don't think I understand", says Haukaas. Nobody does, Ørjan.

[n0nce]

Judge asks Wright to help her understand why signing cryptographically is harder for him than what he's doing now.
Wright says it's harder to do because finding up to 100 people and getting them to witness is very time-consuming.

Hahahaha what? Note that question wasn't from one of Hodlonaut's lawyers - it was from the judge. Seems like she is also seeing through CSW's bullshit.

LOL; CSW, the first person who requires 100 people to do a cryptographic signature!
I thought you just need the private key and an unambiguous cleartext message to be signed..

[OgNasty]

Judge asks Wright to help her understand why signing cryptographically is harder for him than what he's doing now.
Wright says it's harder to do because finding up to 100 people and getting them to witness is very time-consuming.

Hahahaha what? Note that question wasn't from one of Hodlonaut's lawyers - it was from the judge. Seems like she is also seeing through CSW's bullshit.

LOL; CSW, the first person who requires 100 people to do a cryptographic signature!
I thought you just need the private key and an unambiguous cleartext message to be signed..

I didn't see the part where he says he needs 100 people to do a cryptographic signature in the video I watched, but maybe that was him saying he's already done it in front of Gavin (which was proven to be incorrect) so how many more people are needed?

The judge doesn't seem to be buying it.  I think, like the rest of us, if he's satoshi he's going to have to prove it with the keys. 

Not your keys, not your coins seems almost directed at CSW at this point.

[n0nce]

Judge asks Wright to help her understand why signing cryptographically is harder for him than what he's doing now.
Wright says it's harder to do because finding up to 100 people and getting them to witness is very time-consuming.

Hahahaha what? Note that question wasn't from one of Hodlonaut's lawyers - it was from the judge. Seems like she is also seeing through CSW's bullshit.

LOL; CSW, the first person who requires 100 people to do a cryptographic signature!
I thought you just need the private key and an unambiguous cleartext message to be signed..

I didn't see the part where he says he needs 100 people to do a cryptographic signature in the video I watched, but maybe that was him saying he's already done it in front of Gavin (which was proven to be incorrect) so how many more people are needed?

I haven't seen the video footage yet; I just found this statement / quote hilarious.
Apparently he's claiming that it's easier to go in court, because the other solution (signing a message) would require 100 witnesses.
Why not just sign a message and publish it for anyone to verify?

The judge doesn't seem to be buying it.  I think, like the rest of us, if he's satoshi he's going to have to prove it with the keys.

Not your keys, not your coins seems almost directed at CSW at this point.

Even with keys, it's not guaranteed, but it is required at the very least.
I'd personally say that if real satoshi actually lost his keys or something, and were to come back, trying to convince everyone of his identity, he'd just be shit out of luck.
He would need to not only sign something publicly, but also add more factors like knowledge about certain emails that only he can know and stuff like that.

the big picture game of CSW is he doesnt care about "proving satoshi". his gravy train wont earn anything from that. his income is about stirring the drama to get more people to just pay him for just turning up and saying "something". it doesnt matter what has to be said. whether its saying he is satoshi, whether its saying he knew satoshi, whether its denying it. whether its counter arguing previous statements. each event is a payday.
he can say he is male on monday, get paid. female on tuesday, get paid. argue monday didnt happen get paid. argue that there are no genders on thursday and then argue there are only 2 genders on friday. he does not care about the conversation or words said each day he just cares about getting 5 payments for 5 things

KEEP THIS IN MIND when trying to understand CSW.
you dont need to understand why he says things. because he does not care what he says

Who exactly is paying CSW? The Bitcoin SV folks?

[un_rank]

Jenssen talks about his company. Says Bitcoin represents a "zero-to-one" innovation, no middle-man. Open system, free innovation. Bitcoin brought the missing piece of the open internet. Society beginning to see the consequences, but most things are ahead of us.

Day 4 has kick-started with video evidence as well as witnesses, first of which is Torbjørn Bull Jenssen, CEO of Arcane Crypto.
He gives his opinion that CSW is unlikely to be Satoshi:

"For me, it's very difficult to believe Craig is Satoshi". Would expect signing or moving, which while not a complete proof would strengthen the thesis considerably. White paper describes an open system, while Wright changed license, uses lawsuits, very unlike Satoshi.

It's hard to ignore the constant stream of manipulated docs, broken promises etc, says Jenssen. This perception is widely shared in the field. Very few think he's Satoshi. Cites Vitalik

Starting off to be another positive day for Hodlonaut, more like yesterday was. And there was a lot to show of the character of CSW in those videos^[1] shown.

[1] https://piped.mha.fi/watch?v=0thnCDgRJfM


- Jay -

[o_e_l_e_o]

Mind editing this into the OP?

Done.

I didn't see the part where he says he needs 100 people to do a cryptographic signature in the video I watched, but maybe that was him saying he's already done it in front of Gavin (which was proven to be incorrect) so how many more people are needed?

Here it is: https://youtu.be/_zkweFcpQMs?t=13936
He is essentially saying that as soon as he signs a message, that no one will go to he effort of putting together 100 witnesses who will all attest to him being Satoshi. Because for some reason a handful of easily fooled or easily bought people is more reliable in his mind than cryptographic proof.

As a bonus, here is my favorite snippet from the video: https://youtu.be/_zkweFcpQMs?t=11926
He doesn't want keys to be required to "access the blockchain", but rather wants judges and law enforcement to be able to do this. Well, that certainly sounds like Satoshi to me. As we all know, the first line of the Whitepaper clearly states "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another with the approval of judges and law enforcement."

Edit: Actually, here is my favorite snippet: https://youtu.be/_zkweFcpQMs?t=10087
I wrote this when I was drunk.
You wrote this?
Yes, when I was drunk.
Because it says it was written by Kleiman.
.....silence.

Lol.

Why not just sign a message and publish it for anyone to verify?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Will be interesting to see what today brings. From bitnorbert's tweets, Hodlonaut's team has already started out strong with video evidence of previous CSW lies.

[n0nce]

Starting off to be another positive day for Hodlonaut, more like yesterday was. And there was a lot to show of the character of CSW in those videos^[1] shown.

[1] https://piped.mha.fi/watch?v=0thnCDgRJfM

Wow, what a language. This is borderline uncivilized and no less than more proof of discrepancy between his and satoshi's identity.

I didn't see the part where he says he needs 100 people to do a cryptographic signature in the video I watched, but maybe that was him saying he's already done it in front of Gavin (which was proven to be incorrect) so how many more people are needed?

Here it is: https://youtu.be/_zkweFcpQMs?t=13936
He is essentially saying that as soon as he signs a message, that no one will go to he effort of putting together 100 witnesses who will all attest to him being Satoshi. Because for some reason a handful of easily fooled or easily bought people is more reliable in his mind than cryptographic proof.

Also hilarious why he doesn't 'want it to be over quickly'.. Almost / barely slipped (that keeping the whole situation in 'limbo' is required for him to buy time & fool more people).

As a bonus, here is my favorite snippet from the video: https://youtu.be/_zkweFcpQMs?t=11926
He doesn't want keys to be required to "access the blockchain", but rather wants judges and law enforcement to be able to do this. Well, that certainly sounds like Satoshi to me. As we all know, the first line of the Whitepaper clearly states "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another with the approval of judges and law enforcement."

Edit: Actually, here is my favorite snippet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zkweFcpQMs&t=10087s
I wrote this when I was drunk.
You wrote this?
Yes, when I was drunk.
Because it says it was written by Kleiman.
.....silence.

Lol.

Do you know these situations when reality is funnier than actual comedy? This is it!

[franky1]

Who exactly is paying CSW? The Bitcoin SV folks?

mainly calvyn ayres
but pretty much these guys
https://bitcoinassociation.net/team/
 and a few others since then where CSW has been spinning up new companies to then grab in more investors

[Lucius]

It seems that many are afraid that they too could find themselves in court face to face with Faketoshi and his 9 lawyers.

Or just we don't believe that an avatar with a linked personal text can actually help the situation? Come on, you can't seriously assert that.

I don't think that my actions can change much in the specific case, but if I helped some people find out that this trial exists and in what way they can contribute, I think I helped. In addition, you don't want to say that advertising on this forum is worth nothing and that all those who pay forum members for their signatures, avatars and personal texts are wasting money?


OT - Your personal text "The winter is coming" is certainly strange to me, because it is something that Russian trolls on the forum persistently imply in the sense that Europeans will freeze next winter. I know you're not one of them, so don't get me wrong.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I thought you just need the private key and an unambiguous cleartext message to be signed..

Apparently, not for the "real", "legit" Satoshi. Next up: Move BSV without a signature, just because the judges say so. Lol.

I don't think that my actions can change much in the specific case, but if I helped some people find out that this trial exists and in what way they can contribute, I think I helped.

Some don't want to spend a personal space for it, that's all. And I believe it helps very little to advertise Hodlonaut when about half of the Bitcoin Twitter already does.

OT - Your personal text "The winter is coming" is certainly strange to me, because it is something that Russian trolls on the forum persistently imply in the sense that Europeans will freeze next winter.

Maybe I find it likely.

[franky1]

the only truthful thing i read today.. from the guys of CSW "witnesses"
how matthews says he CSW and ayres all met up in 2015 to start to actually do something related to bitcoin..
..
all the crap about the "drafts" white papers they "might" remember. "alleged" to have seen was the lies

none of them seen him do coding, mining, trading or anything in 2008-2014 related to bitcoin

(the 2015 is where CSW started his crypto scam of seeking investors to pay off his ATO debt, and first starts telling people he was involved in bitcoin. )

[aoluain]

the only truthful thing i read today.. from the guys of CSW "witnesses"
how matthews says he CSW and ayres all met up in 2015 to start to actually do something related to bitcoin..
..
all the crap about the "drafts" white papers they "might" remember. "alleged" to have seen was the lies

none of them seen him do coding, mining, trading or anything in 2008-2014 related to bitcoin

(the 2015 is where CSW started his crypto scam of seeking investors to pay off his ATO debt, and first starts telling people he was involved in bitcoin. )

Yea I found all the witnesses on hodlonaut's side really interesting, knowledgeable, educated
and to the point ^{thats the way it cane across on Norberts commentry}

I found CSW's side frustrating, and vague. How can anyone verify anything that they talked
about today, pure nonsense and all smoke and mirrors. I lost interest pretty much after the break

[NotATether]

I found CSW's side frustrating, and vague. How can anyone verify anything that they talked
about today, pure nonsense and all smoke and mirrors. I lost interest pretty much after the break

In the war of words that is court cases, the judge should have cryptocurrency specialists brought around to testify the true nature of (technical) stuff in their rumors like sign message.

[un_rank]

In the war of words that is court cases, the judge should have cryptocurrency specialists brought around to testify the true nature of (technical) stuff in their rumors like sign message.

Seconded. Could have cleared up issues like this^[1]:

This is what @hodlonaut's lawyer was trying to get across - unfortunately too technical for a courtroom setting.

Highlighted is a documented lie, still present today on Wright's blog. There is no way to pretend it isn't a lie, nor a way to claim it wasn't intentional. *image attached*

The 479f... string is provably a sha256 hash of two transactions we can see on the blockchain today.

This blog post claims (explicitly) that the 479f... string is a sha256 hash of a piece of Sartre text that is partially quoted.

It cannot be.

[1] https://nitter.it/tim_bitcoin/status/1570262124743766016#m

Court Proceedings have resumed with hearing witnesses and this particular one caught my eye:

Did you discuss alternatives to traditional banking? Yes, Wright pitched them a banking/payment system that would take out the middle-man and allow cheap transactions between banking institutions. Around 2008-09. Bank had a lot of interest, Swift can be expensive

*technical disruption*

Fixed, judge apologises. Helle repeats the question. The system "had this genesis block", would be alerted if something was changed. Can't explain it technically, something about "hashing of the block". Didn't need middle-man, very appealing to the bank

Bitcoin as: A system which appeals to banks and acts as a middle man between banking institutions. 

- Jay -

[dkbit98]

Interesting to watch and listen full unedited Faketoshi Craig Wright Full Testimony, this was recorded and released by Bitcoin Magazine and it's almost four hours long.
I recommend following Bitcoin Magazine youtube channel and their twitter account for more updates in next few days.
Funny thing I noticed in some inserts is that Faketoshi made some big mistakes from inserts I listened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zkweFcpQMs

Latest update for Day 4 with Witnesses Take The Stand in Hodlonaut v Craig Wright:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLhvycBEQ8

[DigitalMonk]

Who has win the Case , CWS or Hoddlonaut ?

If CSW win the case what does it mean and how does it affect the freedom of speech ?  I was watching when CWS was giving his testaments of false claims. He was sweating in the cold Norwaygian Court of Justice. 

 Now the main question is what will happen when finally the Courts of Justice will find that CSW lied in the courts in order to decieved the legally stem for his greedy motive for fame and profits from the investors ?

[aoluain]

Interesting to watch and listen full unedited Faketoshi Craig Wright Full Testimony, this was recorded and released by Bitcoin Magazine and it's almost four hours long.
I recommend following Bitcoin Magazine youtube channel and their twitter account for more updates in next few days.
Funny thing I noticed in some inserts is that Faketoshi made some big mistakes from inserts I listened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zkweFcpQMs

Latest update for Day 4 with Witnesses Take The Stand in Hodlonaut v Craig Wright:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLhvycBEQ8

Thanks for that, I will watch some of the vids at the weekend. I' m following every day
on @bitnorbert channel as most others are. Today I didnt even bother following the rest of
CSW's nonsense witnesses. Just tuned in a bit late to the KPMG session and OMG they are
really spilling the beans on the amount of fakery involved in CSW's documented claims, its
too much to even copy here....

This is where I joined ...

Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
1h
Emil from KPMG takes over. Says they've looked at the contents of files too, in addition to meta-data.
This includes fonts, paper size, margins, formatting
 discrepancies. For PDF they look at fonts, often embedded and dated. Various PDF substandard dating etc.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
1h
Refers to the report - they have 3 files as "reference files": bitcoin.pdf, SSRN doc by Wright, bitcoin-draft.pdf,
shared by Satoshi November 1, 2008.

Presents bitcoin.pdf meta-data. Written in Open Office, PDF 1.4 from 2001. Little more, but what's there
is consistent.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
1h
bitcoin.pdf has Letter paper type, 7 different fonts. Fonts have copyrights from before the document
was published. Shows how the font is embedded, says it's consistent.

orbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
1h
Content analysis of the SSRN doc: Same font size as bitcoin.pdf, but has 16 built-in fonts.
7 of them are same as bitcoin.pdf. 8 fonts have different font coding than the original fonts,
only used in later Windows versions. Some fonts are from 2015 and 2017.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
1h
In some parts, the text is different than bitcoin.pdf, indicating edited PDF and not export from Open Office,
and meta-data edits to make it appear older.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
1h
The third file has similar discrepancies, including the font issues. Judge asks to clarify her understanding.

Says they conclude the files have been made from bitcoin.pdf and made to appear older than they are.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
1h
Helle breaks in asking to confirm that the interpreters are able to keep up. They ask them to speak a bit slower.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
1h
"TimeCoin" "draft": Is stated to be from May 2008, but there are no creation and edit timestamps.
OpenOffice will always include a creation timestamp.

Uses A4 paper size, not Letter. Converting PDF to Word will inherit the paper size.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
58m
Judge asks what would happen if you print an old document and scan it, what will happen to the fonts?
 KPMG explains about OCR quality etc. But these docs do not appear to be scanned.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
52m
Another "draft" was produced in Windows 8 which came out in 2012.

Talks about Word's "editing time" record, recording how much time has been spent working on the doc.
1 day, 8 hours. Consistent with other timestamps.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
48m
Word file: 32 cases of double line spacing. Consistent with exporting bitcoin.pdf to word in Adobe software.

Scanned white paper with coffee stain! Scanned in 2019, but they don't have the original specimen.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
46m
A symbol is missing in the scanned version, should be a lambda symbol. OpenSymbol used in bitcoin.pdf,
the code number for lambda, symbol was replaced in later version of font (?), shows the doc is more recent.
Norbert ⚡️
@bitnorbert
42m
Similar changes in < and > symbols, changing the formulas.

New doc now, some sort of notes or something? Editing time 21 days, consistent with timestamps.
Indicating doc was left open that long. Doc has revision #1, indicating only 1 save. Indicates clock manipulation

[BlackHatCoiner]

Who has win the Case , CWS or Hoddlonaut ?

So far no one, as far as I can tell.

If CSW win the case what does it mean and how does it affect the freedom of speech ?

If Craig wins, I guess bitcoin dot org becomes his?

Now the main question is what will happen when finally the Courts of Justice will find that CSW lied in the courts in order to decieved the legally stem for his greedy motive for fame and profits from the investors ?

Jail, charges, some other penalty; the satoshi identity is safe, which is all that matters in the end.

I have lost some faith in justice, but I doubt he'll win the case. Hodlonaut must have some well-paid lawyers there.