Bitcoin: The dream of Cypherpunks, libertarians and crypto-anarchists

[cygan]

Adam Back's full email history with Satoshi Nakamato was entered into the court records today - this includes a total of 5 emails that i would like to share with you here
the first email was sent from SN to AB on August 20, 2008

@GazetaBitcoin perhaps you should include these important 'documents'/'evidence' in your op and supplement it with them

[GazetaBitcoin]

@GazetaBitcoin perhaps you should include these important 'documents'/'evidence' in your op and supplement it with them

Thank you cygan! I will try to find a proper place for adding these to the OP.
Are you so kind though, to share what was the context for presenting these emails into the Court of Law?

[cygan]

✂️
Are you so kind though, to share what was the context for presenting these emails into the Court of Law?

i think the reason for this is that Adam Back has long been suspected of having been involved in the creation of BTCitcoin.
these published e-mails will probably dispel this suspicion...

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-adam-backs-complete-emails-satoshi-nakamoto

[GazetaBitcoin]

i think the reason for this is that Adam Back has long been suspected of having been involved in the creation of BTCitcoin.
these published e-mails will probably dispel this suspicion...

I understood that Adam Back was connected with Satoshi and some people believed he was the real Satoshi... What I did not understand was why such papers were taken to a Court of Law. A Court of Law should involve a trial, in my opinion, which implied, eventually a trial where Adam Back was involved.

I read the article but I did not see any reference there about such trial... only that the emails were taken to a Court. So I was wondering what is the reason for this... Did anyone sue Adam Back? Did authorities require him to present the emails for some reason? There is nothing stated for what led to the emails being presented to the Court...

[cygan]

small side note:
31 years ago on march 9, 1993, Eric Hughes published a cypherpunk's manifesto called 'Cypherpunks write code.'
let's celebrate it and continue to uphold this philosophy

[JayJuanGee]

small side note:
31 years ago on march 9, 1993, Eric Hughes published a cypherpunk's manifesto called 'Cypherpunks write code.'
let's celebrate it and continue to uphold this philosophy

Since there is no link contained in your post, here's a 2015 article on the topic. My way of attempting to communicate something like: "link or it didn't happen"

[cygan]

...
Since there is no link contained in your post, here's a 2015 article on the topic. My way of attempting to communicate something like: "link or it didn't happen"

i have deliberately linked my post without a link, because the whole manifesto (with the corresponding link) from Eric Hughes has already been deposited by GazetaBitcoin in his op

[GazetaBitcoin]

Since there is no link contained in your post, here's a 2015 article on the topic. My way of attempting to communicate something like: "link or it didn't happen"

i have deliberately linked my post without a link, because the whole manifesto (with the corresponding link) from Eric Hughes has already been deposited by GazetaBitcoin in his op

Thank you JJG for this input... much appreciated... Thank you cygan as well, since you noticed the OP has a reference to that article...

And, speaking of OP, I would kindly ask cygan this: where do you think it would be best place to add the emails share by you in the earlier post? Where in OP should I put them? Since you cam with this (very good) proposal I would be flattered if you'd share also where I should add these emails. So feel free to share how the respective new paragraph of OP should look like, and I will add it I am more than certain you will come with a good idea and I'll be flattered to add your paragraph to OP.

[cygan]

✂️
Where in OP should I put them?
✂️

what do you think of this suggestion?

✂️
Satoshi, the last (?) Cypherpunk

The first signs of Bitcoin's development

If these 5 e-mails are to be believed (and there is no way to do this easily) there has been contact between Satoshi Nakamoto and Adam Back since august 2008, when Satoshi asked Adam for his opinion on the paper.
With these 5 important 'documents' we can once again map a certain period of time and realize that SN has been in contact with some cyberphunks here

[images of this 5 E-Mails]

The Times, January 3^rd, 2009, London issue, morning edition || Image source: TheTimes03Jan2009.com

✂️

[GazetaBitcoin]

what do you think of this suggestion?

Thank you for your input, cygan. I added the emails to OP, at the section you suggested. I thought for a while where they would fit best and the section you recommended was very suitable. But I added the emails a bit lower within that section, as I wanted to preserve the header with the image of Times and the quote from Satoshi.

Please take a look I hope the place where I added the emails is good and they are linked nicely with the part about Satoshi's discussion with Martti Malmi.

[franky1]

Are you so kind though, to share what was the context for presenting these emails into the Court of Law?

i think the reason for this is that Adam Back has long been suspected of having been involved in the creation of BTCitcoin.
these published e-mails will probably dispel this suspicion...

I understood that Adam Back was connected with Satoshi and some people believed he was the real Satoshi... What I did not understand was why such papers were taken to a Court of Law. A Court of Law should involve a trial, in my opinion, which implied, eventually a trial where Adam Back was involved.

I read the article but I did not see any reference there about such trial... only that the emails were taken to a Court. So I was wondering what is the reason for this... Did anyone sue Adam Back? Did authorities require him to present the emails for some reason? There is nothing stated for what led to the emails being presented to the Court...

im sure after a couple month you worked it out by now
it was about the CSW vs COPA case
where CSW falsely insinuated prolonged involvement with cypherpunks, and adam back had to give evidence of his limited communication with the real satoshi to debunk the CSW false claims of communication depth which CSW falsely claimed to had involvement in as (falsely) satoshi