Topic: #28719 “jbreher” is a liar (Read 475 times)
I wouldn't mind it if jbreher posted that BSV/BCH is a super investment - for micropenis panic sellers - in any altcoin thread/section.
saying jbreher is deliberately lying to mislead people seems a bit much.
i only encounter him in the WO thread so maybe im missing things. but he usually just refers to bitcoin (and i take it as all three as i have some pre 2017 coin so have all three by default).
does he think bsv or whatever is closer to the whitepaper? seems so. who cares. we use btc, and may do whatever we want with whatever we have.
now i do wish he would be a bit more careful when referring to a particular version as some may think thats he talking about one when he means another.
i think he brings a lot to the table as far as knowledge and experience. doesnt seems like he using it to deliberately deceive. he often just points people to information on the particular coin hes talking about.
but clarification would be appreciated going forward.
i only encounter him in the WO thread so maybe im missing things. but he usually just refers to bitcoin (and i take it as all three as i have some pre 2017 coin so have all three by default).
does he think bsv or whatever is closer to the whitepaper? seems so. who cares. we use btc, and may do whatever we want with whatever we have.
now i do wish he would be a bit more careful when referring to a particular version as some may think thats he talking about one when he means another.
i think he brings a lot to the table as far as knowledge and experience. doesnt seems like he using it to deliberately deceive. he often just points people to information on the particular coin hes talking about.
but clarification would be appreciated going forward.
To the subject of this thread:
You may not be a direct liar, or even a technical liar. But your statements have been misleading, could be misunderstood and, it just feels wrong. You're trying to say something without saying it. Maybe you're a lawyer or something. Anyway, nullius is the one crucifying you, not me, I've stopped debating with you on the WO thread about a thousand pages back already.
But take an honest look at what you're trying to do, or if you are not aware it is what you are doing, then take a step back and see what you've been doing, intentional or not.
It does not affect you personally in any way, since the strategy you employ calls for just buying all of them forked coins anyways, or hodling what you do have since the forks gave them to you.
You're not going to trade with anyone here, because you don't need to. Your honesty and integrity is in question is what everyone else has been saying, and I'm not alone, I've just been a little bit kinder since it's mostly none of my business.
Lying isn't just what you've said, it also includes what you didn't say. If it were just opinion, then everyone has a right to one, no matter how ill informed.
But the level of support you lend to fork coins like BCH and BSV and everything you've said about them ... well, it doesn't need to be said, so it's not lying.
You could technically be telling the truth. In D&D, I'd call such characters as Lawful Evil of alignment. (or maybe Lawful Neutral.)
Anyone who isn't in it for speculative profit has already dumped BCH and BSV, and the only ones who keep them are either waiting for something, or have been misinformed.
If you are seriously secure in your convictions and stand by your statements, then that I admire about you. I still think you've gotten it all wrong though. (You could be thinking the same about the rest of us too.) It is possible that you know what really is going on but just not saying anything.
What ever the case, good luck. You like BCH and BSV, I don't.
You may not be a direct liar, or even a technical liar. But your statements have been misleading, could be misunderstood and, it just feels wrong. You're trying to say something without saying it. Maybe you're a lawyer or something. Anyway, nullius is the one crucifying you, not me, I've stopped debating with you on the WO thread about a thousand pages back already.
But take an honest look at what you're trying to do, or if you are not aware it is what you are doing, then take a step back and see what you've been doing, intentional or not.
It does not affect you personally in any way, since the strategy you employ calls for just buying all of them forked coins anyways, or hodling what you do have since the forks gave them to you.
You're not going to trade with anyone here, because you don't need to. Your honesty and integrity is in question is what everyone else has been saying, and I'm not alone, I've just been a little bit kinder since it's mostly none of my business.
Lying isn't just what you've said, it also includes what you didn't say. If it were just opinion, then everyone has a right to one, no matter how ill informed.
But the level of support you lend to fork coins like BCH and BSV and everything you've said about them ... well, it doesn't need to be said, so it's not lying.
You could technically be telling the truth. In D&D, I'd call such characters as Lawful Evil of alignment. (or maybe Lawful Neutral.)
Anyone who isn't in it for speculative profit has already dumped BCH and BSV, and the only ones who keep them are either waiting for something, or have been misinformed.
If you are seriously secure in your convictions and stand by your statements, then that I admire about you. I still think you've gotten it all wrong though. (You could be thinking the same about the rest of us too.) It is possible that you know what really is going on but just not saying anything.
What ever the case, good luck. You like BCH and BSV, I don't.
Theymos green-lighted my negative ratings on people who were stating that Btrash is Bitcoin a couple of years back, this is in no way different.
If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
I fully agree.
When I used to give a damn about some twatweasel lying on that internet, his grossest disingenuousness came when he tried to claim 'nodes don't matter' or some such guano. That kind of dishonesty could lose some noob some money. So he's at least a shun for me, an ~exclude, scroll through the baloney quickly and with barf-bag, but watching out for lies and the long con.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20962156
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21614902 good page
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.22768613
sorry i'm bored
just shun and move on
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20962156
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21614902 good page
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.22768613
sorry i'm bored
just shun and move on
Is jbreher actually selling BCH as BTC or is he simply saying that BCH is in some way better than BTC?
As I quoted, he repeatedly said that BCH is Bitcoin (before he switched to BSV...). Indeed.
I have never said (at least as far as I can recall) that BCH is BTC.
And inasmuch as the BCH protocol is a more faithful rendition of the protocol that Satoshi left us with than is BTC, and inasmuch as BCH is more faithful to the Bitcoin white paper (i.e., the actual encoded definition of what it is for something to be Bitcoin, and as encoded by its creator, at that) than is BTC, I at least have a principled leg to stand upon in stating that BCH is Bitcoin.
All you have buttressing any supposed claim of BTC upon that title is popularity. Which can flip on a dime. IOW, no objective basis for the claim.
Well, other than the facts that BTC is SHA256 PoW, and that the BTC chain traces directly back to the Satoshi genesis block.
Which, to belabor the obvious, are not properties exclusively claimed by BTC.
This is rich:
we will reach the point of debating whether jbreher would have a “free speech” argument when I kick his door down and drag him off to forking prison. Or when I otherwise effectually censor him
'kick my door down'? What is this metaphorical door of which you speak? 'drag him off'? You realize this is not a physical encounter we are having here, right? (I mean, I guess you could try...) 'forking prison'? What is this mythical place? Where be it? What are its (presumably nasty, brutish, and short) attributes? 'censor him'? Go ahead and try, junior. I am secure in my convictions. I stand by my statements, and have nothing to fear by you calling attention to them. Indeed, such will only serve to buttress my arguments. As such, I have nothing to 'lose' by any attempts you make to 'trash' my 'reputation'. Even to any extent that you may think yourself 'successful' to that end.
Incidentally, you sound like a third-grader in that outburst.
Local rules: In the interest of fairness, jbreher shall be accorded the reasonable right to answer in his own defence
How magnanimous of you We've already seen how unreasonable your 'reasonable' can be.
Though I guess I should be ecstatic you're donning a public veneer of fairness. Woo-hoo! Here - have a merit. The forum doesn't support me awarding you 1/2016 of a merit.
Is jbreher even trading here,
No.
Quote
or attempting to trade
No.
Quote
or showing any intent to trade here
No.
Quote
particularly with a fraudulent intent?
No to the noth power.
Quote
You haven't really shown how exactly he's a high risk in a trade. You have shown him having unpopular opinions.
Indeed. I have committed the tallest unspeakable blasphemies against the high priests and priestesses of the only true religion of BTC. For this, I must be simultaneously drawn and quartered, and burned at the stake. Lest Satoshi himself rain down unimaginable retribution and pestilence against those of insufficient zealotry and misguided mercy.
~
Is jbreher even trading here, or attempting to trade, or showing any intent to trade here, particularly with a fraudulent intent? You haven't really shown how exactly he's a high risk in a trade. You have shown him having unpopular opinions.
Regrettable descent into fallacies again with your butthurt about that exclusion. Try to stay on topic in your own thread at least.
I won't bother a point-by-point. Indeed, I expect chickenshit nullius will delete this post as well in this self-moderated thread.
Is that all? Don’t be shy, now.
Local rules: In the interest of fairness, jbreher shall be accorded the reasonable right to answer in his own defence—without regard to whether he wishes to start telling the truth, or just lie some more. Others shall be moderated at my sound discretion.
Is jbreher actually selling BCH as BTC or is he simply saying that BCH is in some way better than BTC?
Don’t twist terminology with your usual aptitude for pretzel logic: He did not conflate the ticker symbols, but rather, the identity of “Bitcoin” per se.
As I quoted, he repeatedly said that BCH is Bitcoin (before he switched to BSV...). Did you read OP? I also quoted theymos as stating that “the most appropriate response” to a user passing off forked altcoins as Bitcoin is “probably to give that person negative trust.”
For the record, suchmoon, a question for you that I will pose in two forms:
- Are forked shitcoins scams, or not?
- Is it fraudulent to portray a forked shitcoin as “purely and simply Bitcoin”?
No doubt, I will not be the only one interested in knowing what you say to this.
I think it's appalling that this red-trust-for-opinions nonsense is happening on a forum pretending to support "free speech".
That argument would make more sense if red-distrust itself were not an unmoderated expression of an “opinion” that a person is untrustworthy. Tossing your argument back where it belongs, I think it’s appalling that this ~exclusions-for-opinions nonsense is happening on a forum pretending to support “free speech”. Why are you oppressing me, suchmoon? /s
Quote
~nullius's judgement is Distrusted by:
[...]
10. suchmoon (Trust: +14 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (38) 3832 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
[...]
10. suchmoon (Trust: +14 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (38) 3832 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
Now, since you have evidently been successful at censoring me (LOL), we will reach the point of debating whether jbreher would have a “free speech” argument when I kick his door down and drag him off to forking prison. Or when I otherwise effectually censor him—instead of expressing my own judgment of him, whilst carefully archiving his posts which I deleted from a self-moderated thread where they contravened local rules. (I don’t believe in chucking such things down the memory hole—to the contrary, I want for all of his posts to be readily accessible for examination.) Till then, I will duly oppress your opinion by filing it in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️
I think it's appalling that this red-trust-for-opinions nonsense is happening on a forum pretending to support "free speech". Is jbreher actually selling BCH as BTC or is he simply saying that BCH is in some way better than BTC?
What do you think?
The shrieking hordes of belligerent brigading baboons have descended upon me. In blathering rictus of righteous indignation. Because I don't subscribe to their particular sect of the Bitcoin religion.
Nullius even went so far as to post a quote of my quote of Dr. Back's own words as proof that I am a liar. It beggars the imagination. Please follow this if not immediately apparent: I posted verifiable truth, so nullius claims that makes me a liar.
I won't bother a point-by-point. Indeed, I expect chickenshit nullius will delete this post as well in this self-moderated thread. But for as long as it remains up, I suggest the reader go over the items attributed to me above, and ask themselves if these are, or are not actual lies. The reader may also wish to ponder the reason that -- in this thread purportedly purposed with portraying me as phraudulent -- the vast majority of verbiage is not mine, but rather nullius' commentary thereof.
I think it's appalling that this red-trust-for-opinions nonsense is happening on a forum pretending to support "free speech". Is jbreher actually selling BCH as BTC or is he simply saying that BCH is in some way better than BTC?
reserved
To avoid making people scroll too much, posts by those who are just trolling me will be linked in Loyce’s archive, where they can easily be read. I will also provide code-block archives of what the “quote” button gave me before I hit the “delete” button, for easy copying and pasting.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5398/53985462.html
By hacker1001101001
Merited by TECSHARE (1)
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5398/53985577.html
By TECSHARE
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5399/53994639.html
By bonesjonesreturns
Note: Edited within 10 minutes after posting.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5399/53997476.html
By TECSHARE (with some wildly out-of-context quotes)
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5398/53985462.html
By hacker1001101001
Merited by TECSHARE (1)
Code:
[quote author=hacker1001101001 link=topic=5231181.msg53985462#msg53985462 date=1583640496]
I am an hard core BTC supporter, but yet though I don't think someone should be tagged for showing the technical barriers and advantages between two crypto currencies here. jbreher doesn't even seem to say that BCH is BTC which would still be a considerable deception but it's not the case.
You merely red trust users to crush there speech, you even exist here for the same as reflected in the effortful but baseless OP indicating no real danger of trading with jbreher in all. This probably shows your lapse in judgement and inability to be an objective DT.
[/quote]
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5398/53985577.html
By TECSHARE
Code:
[quote author=TECSHARE link=topic=5231181.msg53985577#msg53985577 date=1583642813]
[quote author=hacker1001101001 link=topic=5231181.msg53985462#msg53985462 date=1583640496]
I am an hard core BTC supporter, but yet though I don't think someone should be tagged for showing the technical barriers and advantages between two crypto currencies here. jbreher doesn't even seem to say that BCH is BTC which would still be a considerable deception but it's not the case.
You merely red trust users to crush there speech, you even exist here for the same as reflected in the effortful but baseless OP indicating no real danger of trading with jbreher in all. This probably shows your lapse in judgement and inability to be an objective DT.
[/quote]
That is why he is not on DT 1 or 2 any more. He has made his own ratings largely irrelevant with this kind of behavior. I get the distinct impression this account is either acting in coordination with, or is under the direct control of other well known trust system abusers here.
[/quote]
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5399/53994639.html
By bonesjonesreturns
Note: Edited within 10 minutes after posting.
Code:
[quote author=bonesjonesreturns link=topic=5231181.msg53994639#msg53994639 date=1583759806]
The title of this thread is unsubstantiated and could be false.
You can not prove he believes that he is preventing false information.
He is presenting his opinion which nullius believes is misleading and dangerous to investors.
Nullius is a hypocrite and deceptive for red tagging for this reason.
The person in question would be better to just say he believes that btc current design would not be bitcoin in satoshis view.
He believes bch remains true to the original fundamental principles
Something like that.
I would recommend that target of this hypocrisy join the guild tecshare started in meta to ensure fair treatment for all members and the end of double standards and hypocrisy.
Nullius is also a coward so will not debate this and will delete it.
[/quote]
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5399/53997476.html
By TECSHARE (with some wildly out-of-context quotes)
Code:
[quote author=TECSHARE link=topic=5231181.msg53997476#msg53997476 date=1583790346]
[quote author=Lauda link=topic=5231181.msg53993654#msg53993654 date=1583749932]
Theymos green-lighted my negative ratings on people who were stating that Btrash is Bitcoin a couple of years back, this is in no way different.[/quote]
I will quote some of your best buds here:
[quote author=suchmoon link=topic=5210651.msg53920410#msg53920410 date=1582775675]Stop using theymos as a crutch when it suits you.[/quote]
[quote author=Vod link=topic=5210651.msg53916505#msg53916505 date=1582723776]
I'm curious why [b]you [/b]continue to quote Theymos from five years ago.
[b][i]How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this?[/i][/b]
[i]#hypocrite[/i][/quote]
[quote author=TMAN link=topic=5210651.msg53517617#msg53517617 date=1578140392]
Your such a pajeet. How can you reference a 2015 post when the system has changed so much, only a Sexually transmitted disease like you would stoop so low.
Keyboard fucker[/quote]
[/quote]
N.b. that jbreher edited some posts after Loyce’s scrape. The quotes hereby reflect the content at the time that I hit the “quote” button (in some cases, immediately before deleting). The only edits that I noticed were clearly marked; but I did not bother collating against Loyce’s archive to double-check.
Archived Post 0
(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS. No other edits.)
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
You seem driven by illogical emotion. How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever.
Another illogical emotional outburst?
Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts?
And WTF does hearsay about what you claim Szabo said have to do with anything germane?
OTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.
Other than, you know, the fact that it is humming right along, totally unaffected by your FUDspread.
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
Yes, such a claim, should your characterization be accurate, is absurd on its face. I'm a bit weirded out by how Wayback is treating it, however.
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.
You wield your supposed razor as would a religious zealot.
I fail to see how Gilder's being convinced that Gavin is convinced says anything about the morality of Gavin's claim.
Haha. No truer words have been spoken. Yet I wonder how aware of self is the speaker?
Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect “mirror”, that!
Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect.
edit: found it:
Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here.
Archived Post 1
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
"Bequeathed unto us?" Do you believe Satoshi's last build to be some kind of religious instruction?
No.
Would Satoshi ever had the nerve to create a rival technology to Bitcoin, and call it SegWit? The point remains that, in some supposed reckoning regarding whether BTC or BCH is 'rival technology' to Satoshi's ... errmmm ... design, it is BTC which is more divergent thereof, and therefore of the two would be the 'rival technology'.
Archived Post 2
N.b., I have not (yet?) deleted this one. I archive it nevertheless.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53977798.html
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
He will have requested (or demanded) to have his content removed.
"He". Presumably Craig? Seems plausible, even likely. Does Wayback provide any attribution traceability? I.e., is there any way to prove that removal was requested, and if so, by whom?
While I never had any reason to look into it, I had always just sort of assumed that Wayback was an incorruptible, unalterable record of past states of parts of the internet. Imagine my surprise to learn that this is not the case.
Thanks. That even worked: http://archive.ph/LMrM4
I may have more to say after I read it.
Though it does occur to me that there seems to be a valid use case for a high-capacity, unalterable, append-only database, free to be written by anyone who might care to pay whatever the market deems proper to get their data included, and free to be read at no cost by anyone anywhere at any time.
If only such a thing existed....
Oh. Wait...
Archived Post 3
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53978397.html
I should have known better to have IRL concerns drawing me away from the forum just after hv_ tested the waters again
Deleted two posts filled with lies, half-truths, and assorted disinformation by jbreher:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
The posts are preserved for anyone to examine—
::sigh:: yes, it is your right to delete any and all content that you wish. For any reason whatsoever. Well, at least you have the vaguest shreds of decency left to leave a link that others may follow.
However, you do not have the right to characterize my posts as "filled with lies". Well, unless you care to identify the (so-stated) "lies" therein, and rebut them.
Well, you can -- as in, you have the ability to -- in your own self-moderated thread, but that is a chickenshit action, not a rightful one.
The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?
This post may be edited to add additional archival quotes.
Archived Post 0
(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS. No other edits.)
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
The danger is that ... he can destabilize the market by making his claims to people who never used Bitcoin at all
You seem driven by illogical emotion. How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever.
where we can all be informed and vent our hate at his antics.
Another illogical emotional outburst?
As I’ve stated before.. it became very obvious to me when he told me he built smart contracts in to the chain from day 1, a direct contradiction to satoshi himself in this thread ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8140)... Though Satoshi does not mention smart contacts by name., Nick Szabo stated to me that’s exactly what he believes Satoshi ( or maybe himself) was referring to.
Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts?
And WTF does hearsay about what you claim Szabo said have to do with anything germane?
Satoshi would never create a rival technology to Bitcoin and have the
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
OTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false,
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.
Meanwhile, they are abysmally failing to even keep their fraudulently misnamed altcoin running on a technical level.
Other than, you know, the fact that it is humming right along, totally unaffected by your FUDspread.
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
Code:
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
Yes, such a claim, should your characterization be accurate, is absurd on its face. I'm a bit weirded out by how Wayback is treating it, however.
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.
You wield your supposed razor as would a religious zealot.
Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289
I fail to see how Gilder's being convinced that Gavin is convinced says anything about the morality of Gavin's claim.
I think the big danger there is when people get obsessed with knowing “THE TRUTH” about some real or imagined secret, and then they wind up chasing phantoms made of their own confirmation biases.
Haha. No truer words have been spoken. Yet I wonder how aware of self is the speaker?
the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo..
Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect “mirror”, that!
Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect.
edit: found it:
Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here.
Archived Post 1
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
OTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
"Bequeathed unto us?" Do you believe Satoshi's last build to be some kind of religious instruction?
No.
Satoshi would never create a rival technology to Bitcoin and have the
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
Would Satoshi ever had the nerve to create a rival technology to Bitcoin, and call it SegWit? The point remains that, in some supposed reckoning regarding whether BTC or BCH is 'rival technology' to Satoshi's ... errmmm ... design, it is BTC which is more divergent thereof, and therefore of the two would be the 'rival technology'.
Archived Post 2
N.b., I have not (yet?) deleted this one. I archive it nevertheless.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53977798.html
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
Code:
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
He will have requested (or demanded) to have his content removed.
"He". Presumably Craig? Seems plausible, even likely. Does Wayback provide any attribution traceability? I.e., is there any way to prove that removal was requested, and if so, by whom?
While I never had any reason to look into it, I had always just sort of assumed that Wayback was an incorruptible, unalterable record of past states of parts of the internet. Imagine my surprise to learn that this is not the case.
Quote
You can still use archive.fo and archive.today.
Thanks. That even worked: http://archive.ph/LMrM4
I may have more to say after I read it.
Though it does occur to me that there seems to be a valid use case for a high-capacity, unalterable, append-only database, free to be written by anyone who might care to pay whatever the market deems proper to get their data included, and free to be read at no cost by anyone anywhere at any time.
If only such a thing existed....
Oh. Wait...
Archived Post 3
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53978397.html
* nullius dons moderation hat.
I should have known better to have IRL concerns drawing me away from the forum just after hv_ tested the waters again
Deleted two posts filled with lies, half-truths, and assorted disinformation by jbreher:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
The posts are preserved for anyone to examine—
::sigh:: yes, it is your right to delete any and all content that you wish. For any reason whatsoever. Well, at least you have the vaguest shreds of decency left to leave a link that others may follow.
However, you do not have the right to characterize my posts as "filled with lies". Well, unless you care to identify the (so-stated) "lies" therein, and rebut them.
Well, you can -- as in, you have the ability to -- in your own self-moderated thread, but that is a chickenshit action, not a rightful one.
The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?
This post may be edited to add additional archival quotes.
reserved
The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?
I will do better than that: I will briefly demonstrate that you are a liar, generally. I mean that as a judgment of personal character, not merely of a few actions.
Post #3 on this thread will contain unedited full quotes and archival links from jbreher’s posts that I have deleted from the Project Anastasia thread. Posts #2, #4, and #5 will be reserved for other metadata.
Local rules: In the interest of fairness, jbreher shall be accorded the reasonable right to answer in his own defence—without regard to whether he wishes to start telling the truth, or just lie some more. Others shall be moderated at my sound discretion. TEChSHARE, “truth or dare”, “savetheFORUM”, et al. shall be deleted on sight (but with archives noted in reserved posts).
The following is overkill, and intentionally so: I am making an example. Having done so, I am uninterested in debating this, unless somebody has something new and unexpected to say.
Short Table of Contents
- A brief review of jbreher’s perpetual lies over the years
Including, inter alia: - A brief review of jbreher’s dishonesty on the Project Anastasia thread
Including, inter alia:
A brief review of jbreher’s perpetual lies over the years
I have no desire exhaustively to document jbreher’s post history. All of the following was found by me in about ten minutes of searching. It will suffice to show that he is a liar.
Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin.
I'm just much bullishier on Bitcoin Cash.
Why ? I ask with no snark or ill-intention.
Simple, characterizing Btrash as “Bitcoin” is purely a lie. And it is the type of lie for which I have been issuing negative trust feedback since I was a Jr. Member. theymos has not only approved, but even positively suggested this use of the trust system:
If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
Elsewhere on the same thread as that theymos statement:
User: jbreher
Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin. Shitcoins be shitcoins. Not too hard, is it?
[...]If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
I fully agree.So Bitcoin Cash is not alt coin.
It is a scam altcoin.One of my Newbie posts—my fourth post; check my post history!—made when I had been actively posting for less than 36 hours:
So-called “Bitcoin Cash” is neither Bitcoin, nor cash, in the sense that it has neither the unlinkability nor the fungibility of cash. It and its ilk are also generically different from honest altcoins, which at least have the decency to make their own names. I don’t even know what to properly call it—other than a scam, of course; and anybody who does not realize it’s a scam must be one or more of ill-informed, malicious, or incurably stupid.
[...]
I hope that helps. As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Ver’s little abortion. Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN. Any better ideas? “We’re-not-engineers-don’t-know-much-about-scaling-and-don’t-care-Coin” is too long.
[...]
I hope that helps. As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Ver’s little abortion. Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN. Any better ideas? “We’re-not-engineers-don’t-know-much-about-scaling-and-don’t-care-Coin” is too long.
~
...I urge you to pray to “Bitcoin Jesus”. Verily, he lied for your sins. His mark rose heavenward on the pump; then a spear pierced His market’s side for the dump. Be ye a sick, BOOST ye He shall. Render unto
(No wonder I love the cat.)
More of same and similar:
Bitcoin Cash _is_ Bitcoin. It's history extends unbroken back the the genesis block.
BCH seems to strive for continuous innovation at the protocol layer.
SV seems to strive for stabilizing the protocol at a state that already handles all meaningful use cases.
SV seems to strive for stabilizing the protocol at a state that already handles all meaningful use cases.
Subject: Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Merited by Bitcoin SV (1)
Please help your fellow BSV-er (wrighter? what do you call yourselves?):
BSV-er is fine for me. Wrighter, OTOH, I'm not answering to.
jbreher is an anti-Segwit disinformationist
We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.
No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.
which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.
i am curious to know about these new "vulnerabilities". would you mind listing them while explaining why has there not been any exploits in past 1 year?
If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening.
For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx. This ability of miners to claim what some think as funds that many erroneously believe to be sent to specific parties as funds that the miners can pocket themselves was newly introduced into Bitcoin by the ill-considered so-called 'soft fork' employed for activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. No matter what some arbitrarily-large cabal of miners were able to do previously, they were utterly unable to claim coins of others to themselves. This power is the direct and sole result of the segwit soft fork.
Boldface and italics are in the original:
BCH's desirability is predicated upon the fact that it does not contain the segwit virus -- especially as enacted through the so-called 'soft fork' trojan horse mechanism, which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.
You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.
Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.
You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.
I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter.
You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.
Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners?
Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.
You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.
So, the nodes run by users and HODLers of Bitcoin all collectively have “fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority”?
I have publicly stated that my life savings are in Bitcoin. To be clear, my life savings are in Segwit UTXOs. Why am I unconcerned about jbreher’s fearmongering, which is essentially a rehash of the lies peddled by jonald_fyookball, et al. around the time of the BCH fork? Because:
Merited by Foxpup (7), gmaxwell (3), achow101 (3), malevolent (2), AGD (2), paxmao (2), HeRetiK (1), CASlO (1), Manfred Macx (1)
Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner (or 51+% of miners) who produced invalid blocks would only be wasting hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of IP addresses. It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.
[...]
Segwit transactions require signatures, just like old-style transactions. Segwit transactions have security greater than or equal to old-style transactions in each and every characteristic. If a miner could somehow steal Segwit funds with a 51% attack, then the same attack could be used against all bitcoins, including Satoshi’s coins. But such an attack is impossible; the whole idea is ridiculous, just nonsense peddled by Btrash supporters...
[...]
Segwit transactions require signatures, just like old-style transactions. Segwit transactions have security greater than or equal to old-style transactions in each and every characteristic. If a miner could somehow steal Segwit funds with a 51% attack, then the same attack could be used against all bitcoins, including Satoshi’s coins. But such an attack is impossible; the whole idea is ridiculous, just nonsense peddled by Btrash supporters...
I encourage Newbies and non-experts to read that post in full. I thereby did my best to distill to more accessible terms the essence of a deeply technical argument. The anti-Segwit disinformationists have done a bang-up job of leveraging technical half-truths to build total lies that cannot be easily understood as such, without technical expertise.
Indeed, the anti-Segwit agitprop is so pernicious that at first, it confused even me. I was worried. That is why I studied the issue: I conceptually discarded all of my pre-existing knowledge of Bitcoin, all of my premises and prejudices, and did, ab initio, a review of Bitcoin’s design (both in theory, and in practice as empirically observed), a careful reading of BIP 141 and other technical documents, a little peek at the Core sources and bitcoin-dev/Github issue discussions, plus open-minded lurking in the debates on this forum, on Reddit, on blogs... Thereupon, I concluded that the anti-Segwit “Segwit is a security vulnerability!!” claims are not only technically incorrect, but so twisted as cannot reasonably occur other than through deliberate malice. I hate it when
The purpose of being open-minded is to discover the truth, not to entertain falsehoods.
A brief review of jbreher’s dishonesty on the Project Anastasia thread
Project Anastasia is important to the community—as the community itself has shown by volunteering volunteering translations to seven other languages (and counting), plus awarding its OP 6.6% of merits that I have yet earned (91/1380, as of this writing). I feel a duty to the community, to Satoshi Nakamoto, and to the memory of Grand Duchess Anastasia to maintain the standards of discussion, and to prevent the diversion thereof into the types of irrelevant flamewars that Craig Wright’s followers use to distract the public from the real issues.
Project Anastasia OP:
Moderation note: Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood. And I am in a bad mood. Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi. Thank you.
Wherefore Anastasia:
I hereby have sincerely expressed my high respect for each of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, whom I am proud to memorialize by her proper title in OP, and Satoshi Nakamoto, the ingenious founder of Bitcoin. I have also imposed on this thread a moderation rule requiring that replies must “be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi”. That is what I call a “win-win”, insofar as it is the intersection of the stories of two famous historical personages whom I remember for different reasons.
[...]
Of course, the respective circumstances of these two persons are very different and not comparable. However, Anastasia was royalty; and I do not think she would have objected to the wisdom of applying her own story to teach lessons for the greater good, as the names of the most famous royalty have always been spun into fables long after their deaths. [...]
[...]
Of course, the respective circumstances of these two persons are very different and not comparable. However, Anastasia was royalty; and I do not think she would have objected to the wisdom of applying her own story to teach lessons for the greater good, as the names of the most famous royalty have always been spun into fables long after their deaths. [...]
Again, I need not exhaustively document each and every instance of jbreher’s falsity: I will pick only a few such instances as exemplary.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
The danger is that ... he can destabilize the market by making his claims to people who never used Bitcoin at all
You seem driven by illogical emotion.
I already addressed that. jbreher quote-mined the first eight-plus pages of the Anastasia thread, and cast me in a false light whilst deliberately omitting the posts where I explained why I use emotional arguments to accompany facts and logic. That is dishonest.
How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever.
Classic misdirection. jbreher doesn’t seem that stupid, so he must be playing stupid.
Lies in the mainstream media obviously have both primary (direct) and secondary (indirct) effects on the Bitcoin market. In the small, that can decrease Bitcoin adoption by those “nocoiners” he so dismisses; in the large, it is a direct attack on the Bitcoin Social Phenomenon, i.e. the source of Bitcoin’s real value. Because savvy traders know this, the effect on “nocoiners” also affects the decision of those who are already market participants.
As I’ve stated before.. it became very obvious to me when he [Faketoshi] told me he built smart contracts in to the chain from day 1, a direct contradiction to satoshi himself in this thread ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8140)... Though Satoshi does not mention smart contacts by name., Nick Szabo stated to me that’s exactly what he believes Satoshi ( or maybe himself) was referring to.
Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts?
Absurd twisting of what ChiBitCTy said: jbreher turned it to the exact opposite of what he obviously meant. This is the referenced Satoshi post, in pertinent part:
Here's an outline of the kind of escrow transaction that's possible in software. This is not implemented and I probably won't have time to implement it soon, but just to let you know what's possible.
Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false,
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.
Dishonest misdirection.
It is technically difficult to produce positive evidence of a negative. jbreher is misapplying that technical difficulty to confuse people into believing that a negative cannot be proved at all. And he backs that with a catchphrase that most people do not properly understand. “Circumstantial evidence” is not necessarily weak evidence: It is perfectly possible (and does occasionally happen) that somebody can be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence, if the circumstantial evidence is exceptionally strong. I note this for the sake of argument, without accepting the mischaracterization of the evidence against Wright as “circumstantial”.
Craig Wright is a scammer with a long history of scamming, which all goes to character and the credibility of his claims. As to Bitcoin specifically, he has been caught in numerous lies that are easily proved false. His personality, his behaviour, and his openly stated agenda all flatly contradict everything that is known about Satoshi Nakamoto. And most importantly, at the threshold, he does not provide the first key piece of evidence that any cryptography expert would use to verify his identity: A digital signature that is verifiable with a public key long known to be associated with that identity!
Overall, the evidence is sufficiently strong for me to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. (Unreasonable doubts are just that.) By minimizing that evidence, you dishonestly advance an agenda that I explained at length:
Merited by mindrust (5), Lauda (3), vapourminer (1), Last of the V8s (1), GazetaBitcoin (1)
Craig Wright does not need for a majority of people to believe him: He needs only for a hard core of shills and fanatics to believe him, whilst the majority wavers.
[...]
In the current context: If Craig Wright can play the mass-media to introduce doubt into the minds of most people who have heard of Bitcoin, and if he is shilled to the hilt by a cadre of hv_ types, and if the only significant opposition is a bunch of forum theorists who won’t push the issue as hard as hv_ does, then Faketoshi will win.
A compounding factor is the distaste that many Bitcoiners have for drama, hostility, and especially, emotionalist arguments and ad hominem attacks. It is good to have a culture that values logical arguments—but do not confuse critical thinking skills for efficacy at persuasive argument. If Craig Wright wields false persuasive arguments against your facts and logic, then he will win the heartsand minds of the majority, whose critical thinking skills are negligible. As I have said before: Don’t bring a sword to a gunfight.
[...]
In the current context: If Craig Wright can play the mass-media to introduce doubt into the minds of most people who have heard of Bitcoin, and if he is shilled to the hilt by a cadre of hv_ types, and if the only significant opposition is a bunch of forum theorists who won’t push the issue as hard as hv_ does, then Faketoshi will win.
A compounding factor is the distaste that many Bitcoiners have for drama, hostility, and especially, emotionalist arguments and ad hominem attacks. It is good to have a culture that values logical arguments—but do not confuse critical thinking skills for efficacy at persuasive argument. If Craig Wright wields false persuasive arguments against your facts and logic, then he will win the hearts
On this forum and in other venues, others have spent years debunking Faketoshi’s lies point-by-point. That is not hereby my objective; and indeed, it is more or less off-topic in the Anastasia thread (other than providing links to such thorough debunkings, which are welcome).
Merited by gmaxwell (1), o_e_l_e_o (1)
Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood.
It’s important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point. But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else. Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooled—and, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists!
I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wright’s hands—see above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.
aoluain is correct: In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:
That last bit is, “Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.”
It’s important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point. But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else. Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooled—and, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists!
I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wright’s hands—see above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.
aoluain is correct: In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:
[...]
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....
and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....
and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"
That last bit is, “Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.”
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.
More dishonest disinformation and misdirection. Craig Wright did not actually verify anything to Gavin Andresen: What he did was a stage-magician’s act in lieu of providing a verifiable signature. That, indeed, is why Gavin cannot provide any evidence thereof to others.
And that is my whole point. If I were to endorse a similar sleight of hand, then either I must be technically inept (and thus, everybody who ever endorsed my competence must be stupid), or I must be a liar. The context of this discussion:
Merited by Last of the V8s (1), xtraelv (1)
The Same Standard Applies to Me
Let’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture. And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
Let’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture. And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
Quote
| achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
jbreher supports franky1’s defamation of Dr. Adam Back
(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS)
the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo..
Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect “mirror”, that!
Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect.
edit: found it:
Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here.
Assuming that the screenshot is authentic, so what? Dr. Back does not thereby claim to have invented Bitcoin—let alone to be Satoshi Nakamoto! The quoted characterization that “bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control” may be a bit arrogant; but it is clearly intended to be hyperbolic, it is not dishonest, and most importantly, it is not a claim to have invented Bitcoin. Moreover, Dr. Back is at the forefront of his field; he has a right to be a bit arrogant, especially in a context where he was so close yet so far: He was the one who almost had the world-shaking, history-changing idea. Well, that is what makes the difference between creating an intellectual curiosity with interesting potential applications, and creating Bitcoin. With all due respect to Dr. Back, whom I have admired for over twenty years, that “almost” must hurt more than a bit. ;-)
To draw a false equivalence between Dr. Back and Faketoshi is reprehensible:
ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror
| Craig Wright | Dr. Adam Back |
| Claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. | Claims to be Dr. Adam Back. |
| Is a grand-scale identity thief. | Is, in fact, Dr. Adam Back. |
| Claims to have invented Bitcoin. | Claims to have invented Hashcash. |
| Did not invent Bitcoin. | Did actually invent Hashcash. |
| Lies. | Makes factually correct statements, indulges in some hyperbole, and brags a bit. |
“Mirror”? jbreher, you are a liar for supporting franky1’s false and defamatory smear of the inventor of Hashcash.
Credit where due: Hashcash was an important invention. It is the keystone in the Byzantine fault-tolerant mining archway that supports Satoshi’s much greater Bitcoin edifice. Most great works are built as such: Satoshi took material provided by those who came before him, Dr. Back inter alia, and assembled it according to his own design, together with his own original innovations. It is for this reason that Satoshi properly cited Dr. Back in the original Bitcoin paper.
Jump to: