BSV subforum

[Myleschetty]

When I first saw the topic of this thread I was scared because i first thought the idea was to support BSV but when I read the OP page I understand it was to expose Craig Wright and his team's false activities and also save newbies from being deceived by their lies.
Creating a subforum that's only meant for it will be a good idea 

[OgNasty]

Be careful what you wish for.  Giving BSV a platform here instead of continuing to keep the status quo would be quite a change of direction.  Would then Bitcoin Cash also deserve it's own subforum?  If your answer is, "No, because Roger isn't attacking people in the community."  Then maybe you should rethink your position.  This is a forum that doesn't moderate obvious scams because they don't want to pick and choose.  Picking and choosing a Bitcoin fork to give it's own subforum seems rather unlikely to me.  No matter who calls for it.

[PrimeNumber7]

Perhaps my proposal could be modified somewhat.

The difference between potentially libelous statements and opinions are small. Truth is a defense to a libel lawsuit.

Many forum members, I fear will make potentially libelous statements in the sub you describe. Many forum members also very much value their privacy, but I do not doubt that Theymos has information that could lead to someone learning many forum members IRL identity with additional information, for example after talking to the persons ISP. This is important because the forum could be subjected to court actions involving the disclosure of this type of information to CSW, and this may lead to the doxing of forum members who wish to remain anonymous via court filings. The forum could fight these court actions, as can the forum member who may hypothetically CSW may try to identify, but it would be costly and complex for both.

Statements made to a lawyer who represents you are generally protected by attorney client privilege. An attorney who is making statements on behalf of a client can also craft the statements carefully to avoid making the statement potentially libelous, for example by using qualifiers such as “my client believes…”, “based on documents my client has seen…”, “it is the opinion of my client…”, etc. This would reduce the risk that those who find/expose information will be revealed.

Further, once CSW lost once in court, the evidence presented in that case is public information and others subjected to similar court actions can easily use that information.

The above is in addition to my very serious concerns about the forum taking a stance on issues related to CSW. While it is my personal belief that CSW is a fraudster, and I believe this is a reasonable belief, i would rather the forum not take this position as an institution, and I feel like creating this sub would be taking this stance.

[NotATether]

When I first saw the topic of this thread I was scared because i first thought the idea was to support BSV but when I read the OP page I understand it was to expose Craig Wright and his team's false activities and also save newbies from being deceived by their lies.

That will only work if most newbies actually go to the board which I don't see happening. I see it being infested by BSV trolls instead. The actual newbies are to be found in other places off this site.

[Pmalek]

Are there enough threads and topics to warrant a new sub-forum only for the discussion of the BSV fraud? If it's going to have 5-6 threads, there isn't really a need for it. If we remember the usual responses when people requested other subs, like for the Lightning Network, mods usually explained that an existing sub-forum would need to be flooded with that particular topic for a new sub to be created. That's not really the case with BSV and craig wrong.

Despite that, I would still support the idea. Especially because people like gmaxwell have been silenced to speak out outside of the forum. Craig and his cult members are a threat to everything Bitcoin. They have the financial means to support their fraudulent campaigns even in court. It's a danger because they can always find those willing to accept a bribe.     

[hilariousetc]

Something absolutely needs to be done.  If not a subforum, I'd settle for a sticky at the top of every single forum and subforum containing the text:

Craig Wright is a proven liar, charlatan and identity thief.  SV is a worthless scamcoin.  Anyone who supports either is scum, bereft of human decency.

Followed by all the documented evidence of Wright's forgeries and lies.

Given that Craig manages to track down and sue anonymous people for a tweet don't you think that would be a terrible idea? You'd be preaching to the choir here anyway.

As far as BitCoinDream's comments go-- the "ignore it and hope it goes away" approach is what the Bitcoin community adopted previously.  It's been a disaster.  Go plug in Satoshi or Craig Wright into google news.  He already controls the media narrative.  His representatives appear to be taking as many (if  not more!) meetings with heads of state to speak about "Bitcoin",  his story with a minor amount of tempering is usually what's being told by the press.  Adding to it that there are bitcoiners fighting back wouldn't help them-- they're already on the way to a false consensus that no one seriously opposes them.

I don't think he was saying ignore it and it'll go away, just that a sub board probably isn't the right way to go about it. I think we can all agree that ignoring Craig would be a bad idea as Craig is going nowhere. The louder people are calling him out the better because he will manage to convince other people and outlets along the way if people just sit back and leave him to his scam but I don't think there's much we can do here as it's elsewhere where he's doing the damage.

All that said, your alternative suggestion is mostly what I'd been thinking before making the post--  though a big problem with that kind of diffuse response is that it's not good for bringing more participants into Bitcointalk who are primarily interest in dealing with the con because they threads will be lost in a sea of stuff they aren't interested in.  I've found here that when some wright apologist or BSV promoter wades into a thread on BCT it's not uncommon that the arguments against them end up close to 1:1 instead of many against one, with the other thread participants just irritated that you're helping the troll take things offtopic by debunking them.  I can tell you first hand that fighting misinformation 1:1 against a paid shill or a dedicated cultist feels rather sisyphean, while many against one feels like a nice game of golf.   When you're 1:1 they keep diverting the substantive discussion to making it all about you personally.

You - or whoever starts the thread(s) - could choose to self-moderate it rather than argue with trolls.

It's obviously hitting him hard, if you look at pictures of him now vs a few years ago especially when he's not sussed up for the camera, he looks like he's in his 70s now.

I'd say he looks his age - late 40s early 50s. I'm sure the stress of it all is weighing on him but he doesn't really show it, at least not publicly. I cannot imagine living a life under so many lies but maybe charlatans and fantasists or even sociopaths aren't effected the way normal people would be. He probably has to watch his back everywhere he goes for various reasons. I'm also sure he knows it's only a matter of time before the law catches up to him not to mention how much are his benefactors going to take before they pull the plug? But maybe they're already in too deep and have to see it out until the end if they hope to recoup any money.

Last we hear their criminal investigation was still ongoing.  It sounds like they're similar to US federal prosecutions-- they take their sweet time.  There was recently someone convinced of some similar rebate fraud in AU, and their fraud took place a decade before they were charged.  Wright is coming up on a similar timeframe.   Everyone of of these dumb court cases also ends up with him making claims and exposing information that should make things easier for the criminal prosecution.

So I'm hopeful there, but at the same time-- the ATO is going to chase their own interests and so we can't count on them to protect the public at large.

I agree that the only thing which will actually stop him is criminal charges... but for our purposes we don't really need him to stop:  he just has to be discredited to the point where he can be ignored and where he isn't suckering in newbies (esp governments) at a rate much greater than other bitcoin-attacking scamcoiners.

He's already widely discredited on everything but that doesn't stop him. I think him being charged or at least arrested will be the best thing that can happen. Him being tied up in a court case where his very freedom is on the line can't be ignored and will probably put the brakes on all his other court cases. If he can still weaponise the courts and convince others along the way then he won't stop until he's behind bars. It doesn't matter if he himself loses in court in his civil cases because he miraculously manages to find a way to spin it into a win regardless and has even stated that if something is not found in his favour he won't accept the verdict anyway so you really can't beat him here.

[Wind_FURY]

Be careful what you wish for.  Giving BSV a platform here instead of continuing to keep the status quo would be quite a change of direction.  Would then Bitcoin Cash also deserve it's own subforum?  If your answer is, "No, because Roger isn't attacking people in the community."  Then maybe you should rethink your position.  This is a forum that doesn't moderate obvious scams because they don't want to pick and choose.  Picking and choosing a Bitcoin fork to give it's own subforum seems rather unlikely to me.  No matter who calls for it.

Why not make/start a Discord server for Bitcointalk, and all community members who wants to join can join and discuss any Faketoshi investigations or leads there, then open a pinned topic in Bitcointalk, but locked, to post the most important updates and information from the Discord server.

[LoyceV]

As long as it would be for people to know that Craig Wright is not Satoshi.

I've read this statement so many times, and it's ridiculous we have to keep repeating it! LoyceV is not Satoshi. Great, everyone agrees.
I'm also quite disappointed that various courts allow lawsuits that are so obviously fake. Signed messages don't lie.

it should be as a sub-board under Scams or Reputation, not under Bitcoin Discussion or any of the bitcoin centric boards.

I think a sub-board under Scam Accusations suits them.

I tend to look at BSVers as just brainwashed sheep who have fallen for an enigmatic cult leader.

To me, they always feel like flat earthers. They know it's BS, but keep going at it because they love the attention it gets them.

If Crack pretends his own ShitVork is the real Bitcoin, and if he pretends to be Satoshi, why does he need to claim Satoshi's Bitcoin on the real Bitcoin chain? He can just Fork his own BSV and steal all coins there. These 50 BSV for instance. I'd say the fact that he doesn't do that adds to the evidence that's he is indeed just another con artist.

[OgNasty]

If Crack pretends his own ShitVork is the real Bitcoin, and if he pretends to be Satoshi, why does he need to claim Satoshi's Bitcoin on the real Bitcoin chain? He can just Fork his own BSV and steal all coins there. These 50 BSV for instance. I'd say the fact that he doesn't do that adds to the evidence that's he is indeed just another con artist.

He doesn't do that because then his motivations would be obvious.  I don't think many BSVers realize that getting his hands on satoshi's coins is his entire goal.  He's not going to risk letting the cat out of the bag early and get stuck with worthless BSV coins and a community that finally sees he's a con artist.  He's going for valuable BTC and the title of satoshi.  If he by some miracle did start winning court cases, his next step would be suing BTC developers and miners in order to force a fork where his coins are unlocked.  That's the goal and he's not taking his eyes off of it for some BSV...

[KingsDen]

Are there enough threads and topics to warrant a new sub-forum only for the discussion of the BSV fraud? If it's going to have 5-6 threads, there isn't really a need for it. If we remember the usual responses when people requested other subs, like for the Lightning Network, mods usually explained that an existing sub-forum would need to be flooded with that particular topic for a new sub to be created. That's not really the case with BSV and craig wrong.

When I saw the title, I was amazed how the topic recieved a great attention within a short period of time. I thought it was one Bitcoin BSV troll who is in the ignore list of many users that created it. Not until I checked the OP.
I am also of the opinion that creating a sub forum just for exposure of fraud may give more credence to the fraud and could turn the board to a war zone for bitcoin believers and BSV believers.

Despite that, I would still support the idea. Especially because people like gmaxwell have been silenced to speak out outside of the forum. Craig and his cult members are a threat to everything Bitcoin. They have the financial means to support their fraudulent campaigns even in court. It's a danger because they can always find those willing to accept a bribe.     

Yea, since it's coming from gmaxwell, it could be that he has many things to speak out but they could easily be buried when scattered in different parts of the forum.

[Igebotz]

Despite that, I would still support the idea. Especially because people like gmaxwell have been silenced to speak out outside of the forum. Craig and his cult members are a threat to everything Bitcoin. They have the financial means to support their fraudulent campaigns even in court. It's a danger because they can always find those willing to accept a bribe.     

Yea, since it's coming from gmaxwell, it could be that he has many things to speak out but they could easily be buried when scattered in different parts of the forum.

Coming from Gmaxwell doesn't make it any better even though I supported the sub-forum idea in my first comment here because I've been wanting to learn some of the BV shit myself, I realized that giving him such attention would cause real congestion here, so it would be preferable if the BV shit was buried from the Bitcoin communities. If the OP truly wants to raise awareness, a self-moderated thread would still be beneficial.

It's strange how he keep tracking bitcoin anonymous developers via social media posts.

[TheBeardedBaby]

I agree!
Who's going to moderate it?
I followed very closely the case with hodlonaut and the main attack is against his privacy. Mr.Wrong does not care about those tweets, he wants to humiliate and doxx every anonymous person who does not agree with his wild statements.
I can't wait to see what the judge will come up with on 8th of October. Basically she will have to decide whether Mr. Wrong is Satoshi or not.

[LoyceV]

Who's going to moderate it?

I was nominated, but don't want to find myself on the DOXing end of a BS lawsuit. And it's not a subject I would enjoy spending a lot of time on.

To protect against BS lawsuits, it would be good if the Mod has always used Tor.

Less people would join though, mainly because
1. You can't see the discussion without register/join. Some people would like to see what's going on before decide to register or join.

For the same reason, a .onion forum won't get the exposure it deserves.

[TheBeardedBaby]

The moderator could be anonymous, if he is chosen only by theymos and creates a fresh account only for the mod purposes.

[LoyceV]

The moderator could be anonymous, if he is chosen only by theymos and creates a fresh account only for the mod purposes.

If theymos knows who it is, that won't protect them if theymos gets subpoenaed, right? Considering the level of shitfuckery going on, that would be a real risk.

[DooMAD]

Though it's really hard to overcome Gavin's continued unwillingness to retract his endorsement-- I think doing so requires enough of everyone else to sign on to make it clear that he's alone (or close to it).

Has anyone tried authoring an open letter to Gavin, requesting that he makes a revised statement?  And then members of the community could sign it.  I'd imagine we'd get quite a few signatories.  That would be a start, at least.

[NotATether]

Though it's really hard to overcome Gavin's continued unwillingness to retract his endorsement-- I think doing so requires enough of everyone else to sign on to make it clear that he's alone (or close to it).

Has anyone tried authoring an open letter to Gavin, requesting that he makes a revised statement?  And then members of the community could sign it.  I'd imagine we'd get quite a few signatories.  That would be a start, at least.

Cripes, after bitcoincleanup.com, now I need to register gavinandressenview.com to make a petition asking Gavin to revise his statement  (Just kidding, I don't think I'll do such a thing).

[OgNasty]

Though it's really hard to overcome Gavin's continued unwillingness to retract his endorsement-- I think doing so requires enough of everyone else to sign on to make it clear that he's alone (or close to it).

Has anyone tried authoring an open letter to Gavin, requesting that he makes a revised statement?  And then members of the community could sign it.  I'd imagine we'd get quite a few signatories.  That would be a start, at least.

Cripes, after bitcoincleanup.com, now I need to register gavinandressenview.com to make a petition asking Gavin to revise his statement  (Just kidding, I don't think I'll do such a thing).

Gavin's statement is meaningless.  Bitcoin is not about trusting that Gavin was able to verify satoshi's signature.  It's about being able to verify it for ourselves.  Gavin was a great influence on Bitcoin and if people like him and Roger weren't around early on, I have no doubt that Bitcoin would not be a success today (or at least nowhere near what it has become).  Wanting him to do a retraction is foolish.  His opinion literally doesn't matter.  If everyone can't verify who satoshi is on their own, then an individual's statement means nothing.  Anyone who's been in Bitcoin long enough knows this, so it's odd reading people want a retraction.  It literally would mean nothing. 

[PrimeNumber7]

To protect against BS lawsuits, it would be good if the Mod has always used Tor.

I understand that (at least at one point) theymos asked for the dox of all the mods for tax purposes. I believe that he gave mods the option to have a percentage of their mod payments withheld in lieu of providing their dox (presumably to be given to the government). I doubt that many forum users *always* access the forum via tor, and probably few, if any of the mods do. Plus, there is always the potential that a mod would access the forum via the clearnet.

It is good that the forum allows for people with privacy concerns to access the forum via tor, but I don't think it would be a good thing to be giving people reasons to want to stay anonymous.

The moderator could be anonymous, if he is chosen only by theymos and creates a fresh account only for the mod purposes.

If theymos knows who it is, that won't protect them if theymos gets subpoenaed, right? Considering the level of shitfuckery going on, that would be a real risk.

If CSW (or anyone for that matter) were to sue a forum member for what they wrote on the forum, the first person they would likely speak to is theymos. Theymos would likely not voluntarily provide information, however once he is subjected to a subpoena, including after said subpoena is fought in court, he wont have any choice.

Though it's really hard to overcome Gavin's continued unwillingness to retract his endorsement-- I think doing so requires enough of everyone else to sign on to make it clear that he's alone (or close to it).

Has anyone tried authoring an open letter to Gavin, requesting that he makes a revised statement?  And then members of the community could sign it.  I'd imagine we'd get quite a few signatories.  That would be a start, at least.

What statement?

[Wind_FURY]

Though it's really hard to overcome Gavin's continued unwillingness to retract his endorsement-- I think doing so requires enough of everyone else to sign on to make it clear that he's alone (or close to it).

Has anyone tried authoring an open letter to Gavin, requesting that he makes a revised statement?  And then members of the community could sign it.  I'd imagine we'd get quite a few signatories.  That would be a start, at least.

No one can make Gavin officially retract his endorsement. Tin-foil hats on, JUST A THEORY, but I believe he could actually have been a CIA mole, or turned into a mole when he visited the CIA headquarters in Langley. His actions, by dividing the community through Bitcoin XT, also supports the theory. It was the basic Divide and Rule strategy.

It's probably better to invite other Bitcoin Core Developers and have their opinions, like Eric Lombrozo? Luke Dashjr?