Gavin Andresen calls it a "mistake" to trust CSW

[ABCbits]

According to the generation rule that says that a free transaction must be 3 blocks deep before it can be transfered again for free, which has not fully realised.

What nonsense. There's no such rule on Bitcoin protocol/consensus. In past, Bitcoin-Qt had default configuration which allow transaction with certain coin-age or all output has amount >= 0.01 BTC. But after short time, most miner decide to ignore such default configuration.

When I asked him this on Twitter I figured it proved he’s lying but perhaps this statement simply means btc was built to be programmable in a way that would allow for SC’s to run on it ..eventually?



Szabo says btc isn’t Turing complete (have seen Andreas say the same)..so doesn’t this prove he’s not Satoshi ?

1. There are plenty proof csw isn't satoshi. For example, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/op-ed-how-many-wrongs-make-wright.
2. It's true Bitcoin isn't turing complete, even after Taproot addition.
3. AFAIK there's no OP_RETURN which makes Bitcoin script turning complete.

[franky1]

alot of people think in court people can be penalised for lying
however thats things in criminal court.
no one really gets fined or prison time in civil court

also there are ways to avoid telling the truth if there was a perjury threat
a. "i do not remember/recall"
b. "in my opinion, i think, from what i remember, from what i know, from what i beleive"

that way its not stating facts/categoric answer..  that can be then proven a lie. and instead you are fighting an idea not a fact. thus you cant claim they lied if its just a uninformed thought/belief

much like defamation. if someone thinks another person is a fraud. based on what he "knows". its not a claim of fraud its just an opinion/belief

having an opinion/beleif is not a crime
and thats how liars get to say things without it being a illegal(punishable) lie

now read through all of GA messages about his BELIEFs, opinions, and thoughts that CSW was maybe more possibly X than not possibly X

its vague wording to escape being trapped into a illegal(punishable) lie

..
in earlier court cases
a question could have been asked to GA to settle it
"do you have existing verifiable, or something that can be re-creatable proof that proves CSW is X. that you can provide the court. "

"or is it simply your belief/opinion"

[hilariousetc]

Gavin should have come out and said this a long time ago. Not only that but he should have publicly denounced him as well and admitted that he was almost certainly duped. Craig has been using the so called 'fact' that he hoodwinked Gavin as one of the 'proofs' that he is satoshi and that he didn't need to sign an address because he'd already done so to Andresen and doing so would just be questioned again anyway. I don't know whether Gavin was just embarrassed about being duped and didn't want to look a fool or he was worried about legal ramifications from Craig but he should have done the right thing and actually put a nail in Craig rather than let himself be used as tool to further Craig's own agenda.

Feb 2023: I don’t believe in rewriting history, so I’m going to leave this post up. But in the seven years since I wrote it, a lot has happened, and I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did. I regret getting sucked into the “who is (or isn’t) Satoshi” game, and I refuse to play that game any more.

I'll take it.  Perhaps it could have been more explicit, but it's easy enough to read between the lines and take the inferred meaning.  Pride is probably a factor too.  It's not always easy to admit when someone has made a fool of you.

There is no shame in being caught up at some point in the fangs of a narcissistic nutcase. Happens to the best - it's a learning experience most have to go through at least once in life unfortunatelly.
Makes me a little sad that CSW is still a topic to talk about. Would be great to have his name slowly disappear from anything related to Bitcoin, he's just a meaningless, sad egocentric individual, nothing more.

He's all these things but also a very dangerous and malicious individual. It wouldn't be so bad if he was just some harmless fantasist but he isn't. He's actively tying to hijack bitcoin for his own financial gain and who knows how far he can take this. 

[Carlton Banks]

should have made allowance for recovering users lost funds not have implicated the earliest contributors more than any others?

Or the guy who designed it that way and advocated for the way it actually works (e.g. when people asked about lost coins).

and does that not implicate Gavin most of all in such a damages claim? Andresen was leading the earliest dev team in the original effort to (continue to ) e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y make it increasingly more impossible for the developers to choose who should be assigned which money, for any reason, however arbitrary?

So I take it you wouldn't consider it improper for the defandants to join GA as a defendant in the case?

I'm following the logic of Wright's claim, not my own


in my first comment from that post, I say that the courts themselves are manipulating their audience with no reasonable grounds other than to make the institution as a whole appear to be just (and authoritative, virtuous, trustworthy etc)

i.e. the courts (and it's employees) are attempting to perform a confidence trick on those attending (or otherwise observing) upon entering the chambers (or even beforehand)

[buwaytress]

My view is that much of the time much of the world is mostly benign, but we have to prepare for when it isn't: when things are benign things will go right no matter what choices we make, it's when they aren't that our choices matter.  Gavin was totally unprepared to be the target of a conman that was willing to spin an arbitrarily convoluted story -- while I was prepared.  But at the end of the day I'm the target of two lawsuits one demanding billions the other demanding hundreds of billions, sucking up my time and causing me stress and he isn't.  So much for being 'right'.  I think I'd rather be in his position: You'd all think I'm a fool or corrupt, sure, but no one who cares what random people on the internet thinks will ever be happy.

I think the world in general responds to you, or at least your surrounding environment does. Even if I compare "life" to this forum, I can draw some comparisons. Perhaps a bit of a cop-out for me, to say that I deliberately steer away from meta, where I feel I might destabilise my benign state on this forum. And if that means I don't speak out when I should, I can live with that (comments like these are as far as I go, and even so, are rare forays).

So I don't think you're a fool or corrupt. You choose your priorities, and who can fault you for choosing yourself or your happiness?

It is genuinely surprising to me that any technical person ever fell for Wright-- he just is so *obvious* with his technobabbling and bogus excuses and even was back when the endorsement happened.  But if any Bitcoin contributor fell for Wright Gavin would have been the most likely both because of his trusting perspective and the fact that Wright aligned himself with Gavin's position in the political dispute at the time (which, from my perspective Gavin was losing or even had already lost). An endorsement by Satoshi would have been a total hail Mary and hard for many people to resist.

You might not see it or see why (but that's also not your fault, the way we're all wired means we can understand and comprehend some things but not empathise). I'm one of the least technical users on the forum so CW's pronouncements appear immediately to me as a conman's ramblings. It is the perhaps the curse of the technically initiated that some of his words make sense, to the point they obscure his abberant babble.

[pawanjain]

I would say better late than never. At least Gavin realised what he did was a mistake and is acknowledging it.
CSW has been a piece of comedy right from the beginning in the crypto community.
All his claims to be Satoshi were never proven by him which made him a liar in front of everyone.
Despite that he has ben making false allegations against the bitcoin devs which is making him a villain in the community.
No wonder why he has so much of hatred from everyone.

[franky1]

in my first comment from that post, I say that the courts themselves are manipulating their audience with no reasonable grounds other than to make the institution as a whole appear to be just (and authoritative, virtuous, trustworthy etc)

i.e. the courts (and it's employees) are attempting to perform a confidence trick on those attending (or otherwise observing) upon entering the chambers (or even beforehand)

courts are just mediators/arbiters of dispute
they only handle whatever is presented to them in court. they do not delve in and do their own private investigations. they just take info from both sides and weigh up the accuracy, proof, details that sound more reliable and least doubtful

imaging you wanted to fairy tail create a narrative that you own $1bill
you and a buddy can secret handshake to play the roles of opposition

both enter a court on opposite sides saying there is a dispute over $1bill. where neither side asks to prove it exists. or shows that it exists. but simply want to show a dispute over who owns a said $1b. where the amount is not in dispute
(thus no real money needs to exist)

a few days into court your oppositions agree to settle that someone owns the $1b and the other is now happy with that decision..
now you have a judgement that X(winner) owns $1b

which is then used to be proof of collateral that X is a billionaire
.. but there was no real money

courts are not tricking anyone. they are just mediators. however the real trickers are those that abuse the courts into declaring a verdict that benefits those in the courts oppositional seats of defence and claimant