😲 Holy shit you are dropping a bomb here!
It's shocking how this whole industry is corrupted by the same companies that make banks and payment companies! Instead of adopting the technology they have infiltrated it to destroy it from the inside? And no one sees this at BTC supporters!!!
Topic: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision - page 11. (Read 226395 times)
Quote
Remember: SegWit and the bitcoin transaction fee conspiracy theory
Bitcoin was supposed to make finance cheap and accessible.
But then in 2015 the network got jammed (mostly with spam, not real-world transactions) and transaction fees began to spike.
The mystery of who was spamming the network was never really solved. But the whole thing seemed calculated. Some believed it was initiated by powers who wanted to push bitcoin's scaling limitations to the forefront of developer agendas. But nobody could be sure.
Either way, fees kept soaring, peaking in 2017 at impractically high levels (who can justify paying for a coffee with bitcoin if the transaction fee is more than $10?). It was about this time the technology's champions began to change the rhetoric surrounding bitcoin's key selling point from that of a cheaper and more efficient payments system to dependable (albeit ironically erratic) store of value and unbeatable record-keeping system.
But then something changed. Fees began to fall:
https://archive.md/PS0cU/2f49d3c5f1674d0faca1f9137364234f81f561f4.png
Chart courtesy of bitinfocharts.com
Some attributed the 2018's dramatic decline in transaction fees to the growing adoption of the segregated witness (SegWit) fix, which was rolled out in mid-2017. As the Wiki notes, as of February 2018, over 30 per cent of bitcoin transactions were using the SegWit fix.
But the rollout didn't come without drama. The proposed fix ignited deep divisions in the developer and mining community between those who believed bitcoin's scaling issue should be resolved by increasing the permissible amount of transactions in bitcoin blocks, and those who believed alternative fixes like SegWit and the secondary layer solution it enables, the Lightning network (LN), were more efficient.
The spat eventually spawned an offshoot of bitcoin called bitcoin Cash. This differentiated itself from the core coin by remaining committed to bitcoin's role as a cheap and accessible medium of exchange.
But fees are creeping higher again . . .
https://archive.md/PS0cU/2f49d3c5f1674d0faca1f9137364234f81f561f4.png
Chart courtesy of bitinfocharts.com
Looking at historical data, it's hard not to conclude bitcoin transaction fees are just as much influenced by bitcoin prices as network traffic. Which makes sense. The two influence each other. But many wallet services also offer default fee settings in terms of satoshis (ie the micro units of bitcoin). As the price of bitcoin rises so too does the fee, unless it's adapted to a percentage rate of the transaction price by the user, creating a self-enforcing feedback loop.
https://archive.md/PS0cU/217562c90062d92bd72537b30493ef7735c27396.png
Chart courtesy of coinmarketcap.com
In that context, it's fair for us lay people to ask, what did SegWit really achieve aside from buying time before transaction fees began to explode further?
What is SegWit really?
One prominent critic of the SegWit and the associated Lightning network fix is Satoshi Nakamoto identity-claimant Craig Wright. He is currently chief scientist at nChain, a group which supports yet another version of a medium of exchange focused bitcoin, called bitcoin SV (for Satoshi Vision), which launched in November 2018.
He made some worthwhile points to Alphaville.
First, the real purpose of SegWit wasn't really to free-up block space to lower transaction fees but to enable the rollout of the Lightning Network. The impact SegWit had on freeing up capacity was simply a convenient byproduct.
What's Ligntning?
It's the system that attempts to solve the scaling limitation by diverting as many transactions off-chain as possible. It does this by establishing trusted bilateral channels of repeat custom, which are policed privately through bonded arrangements in code. In conventional finance terms, it's akin to a private bilateral netting system that only squares when it has to (notably, when imbalances or risks get too extended). It does this with underlying bitcoin collateral transfers. Traditional financial practitioners would probably describe it as another form of shadow money banking and shadow money creation: precisely the sort of thing bitcoin was supposed to put to an end.
If you think that sounds awfully like the conventional financial system before many of its worst practices were regulated out of existence post 2008, you'd be right.
As it stands, acting outside of new AML, KYC, risk and capital rules is becoming increasingly hard in the bitcoin ecosystem because key service providers — in a bid to popularise bitcoin for the masses in properly regulated jurisdictions — have had to align themselves with legacy regulations to avoid being shut down or penalised.
Lightning in effect introduces a regulatory workaround by reducing the amount of bitcoin entities need to process within these monitored systems. Under Lightning, the vast majority of transactions occur in private bilateral channels and are likely to be scrutinised by no one other than the parties concerned.
A key issue preventing Lightning's mass roll out, however, was the costly way it would have to deal with a well known bitcoin bug called malleability. SegWit was predominantly introduced to resolve this. As stated before, the fact it became associated with a block-size constraint solution was incidental.
But there's another dimension to the tale.
According to Wright, the Lightning system appeals to those who want to keep extracting value out of bitcoin without creating onchain logs, a practice which helps to obscure transactions and keep the system out of the regulatory net.
In so doing one of bitcoin's key attributes — its ability to deliver a permanent record of signatures which can't be tampered with — is compromised.
“Bitcoin is not anonymous and cannot be anonymous. There are people in Core who want to create a system that does not maintain logs. Hence SegWit,” Wright told Alphaville.
He added:
All that we can see happening is an alteration of the system to remove logs long-term. This increases the need for separate systems to record AML and KYC information which is contrary to the purpose of bitcoin. Isn't segregated witness simply a means of handing bitcoin off to the lightning network where logging is no longer required and users can engage in a system that only settles on bitcoin? Wouldn't such a system be exactly what criminal groups wanted?
Put this way, he has a point. Any dependence on a separate external system is tantamount to a trusted relationship, which defies the whole logic of arguing the world needs to turn to bitcoin because third parties are untrustworthy.
It's no coincidence Wright adds that Lightning started to be developed just after the Silk Road dark market arrests happened. It was then, possibly, that nefarious entities realised bitcoin — being an immutable evidence trail — could actually be used not just to facilitate criminality but to prevent it, upping the urgency for a workaround to be developed.
The mysterious network spamming that allowed such ethos-compromising proposals to be linked to scaling solutions, meanwhile, started about six months before the official Lightning white paper was released.
Bitcoin and Lightning technical communities would argue Lightning is just a more scalable protocol for instant retail payment, which would support more bitcoin use cases and adoption.
Nonetheless, isn't that a fun conspiracy theory?
Related links:
Why there is no such thing as a trustless financial system — FT Alphaville
BIS trolls bitcoin — FT Alphaville
The Fat Controller of the Lightning Network — Coppolacomment
source Izabella Kaminska https://archive.md/PS0cU#selection-533.0-851.17
It seems strange that Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell #BlockStream are the initiators of the code modification of Bitcoin, SeGwit, Taproot were in fact designed and supervised by Gregory Maxwell and Bitcoin Core developers. Bitcoin was supposed to make finance cheap and accessible.
But then in 2015 the network got jammed (mostly with spam, not real-world transactions) and transaction fees began to spike.
The mystery of who was spamming the network was never really solved. But the whole thing seemed calculated. Some believed it was initiated by powers who wanted to push bitcoin's scaling limitations to the forefront of developer agendas. But nobody could be sure.
Either way, fees kept soaring, peaking in 2017 at impractically high levels (who can justify paying for a coffee with bitcoin if the transaction fee is more than $10?). It was about this time the technology's champions began to change the rhetoric surrounding bitcoin's key selling point from that of a cheaper and more efficient payments system to dependable (albeit ironically erratic) store of value and unbeatable record-keeping system.
But then something changed. Fees began to fall:
https://archive.md/PS0cU/2f49d3c5f1674d0faca1f9137364234f81f561f4.png
Chart courtesy of bitinfocharts.com
Some attributed the 2018's dramatic decline in transaction fees to the growing adoption of the segregated witness (SegWit) fix, which was rolled out in mid-2017. As the Wiki notes, as of February 2018, over 30 per cent of bitcoin transactions were using the SegWit fix.
But the rollout didn't come without drama. The proposed fix ignited deep divisions in the developer and mining community between those who believed bitcoin's scaling issue should be resolved by increasing the permissible amount of transactions in bitcoin blocks, and those who believed alternative fixes like SegWit and the secondary layer solution it enables, the Lightning network (LN), were more efficient.
The spat eventually spawned an offshoot of bitcoin called bitcoin Cash. This differentiated itself from the core coin by remaining committed to bitcoin's role as a cheap and accessible medium of exchange.
But fees are creeping higher again . . .
https://archive.md/PS0cU/2f49d3c5f1674d0faca1f9137364234f81f561f4.png
Chart courtesy of bitinfocharts.com
Looking at historical data, it's hard not to conclude bitcoin transaction fees are just as much influenced by bitcoin prices as network traffic. Which makes sense. The two influence each other. But many wallet services also offer default fee settings in terms of satoshis (ie the micro units of bitcoin). As the price of bitcoin rises so too does the fee, unless it's adapted to a percentage rate of the transaction price by the user, creating a self-enforcing feedback loop.
https://archive.md/PS0cU/217562c90062d92bd72537b30493ef7735c27396.png
Chart courtesy of coinmarketcap.com
In that context, it's fair for us lay people to ask, what did SegWit really achieve aside from buying time before transaction fees began to explode further?
What is SegWit really?
One prominent critic of the SegWit and the associated Lightning network fix is Satoshi Nakamoto identity-claimant Craig Wright. He is currently chief scientist at nChain, a group which supports yet another version of a medium of exchange focused bitcoin, called bitcoin SV (for Satoshi Vision), which launched in November 2018.
He made some worthwhile points to Alphaville.
First, the real purpose of SegWit wasn't really to free-up block space to lower transaction fees but to enable the rollout of the Lightning Network. The impact SegWit had on freeing up capacity was simply a convenient byproduct.
What's Ligntning?
It's the system that attempts to solve the scaling limitation by diverting as many transactions off-chain as possible. It does this by establishing trusted bilateral channels of repeat custom, which are policed privately through bonded arrangements in code. In conventional finance terms, it's akin to a private bilateral netting system that only squares when it has to (notably, when imbalances or risks get too extended). It does this with underlying bitcoin collateral transfers. Traditional financial practitioners would probably describe it as another form of shadow money banking and shadow money creation: precisely the sort of thing bitcoin was supposed to put to an end.
If you think that sounds awfully like the conventional financial system before many of its worst practices were regulated out of existence post 2008, you'd be right.
As it stands, acting outside of new AML, KYC, risk and capital rules is becoming increasingly hard in the bitcoin ecosystem because key service providers — in a bid to popularise bitcoin for the masses in properly regulated jurisdictions — have had to align themselves with legacy regulations to avoid being shut down or penalised.
Lightning in effect introduces a regulatory workaround by reducing the amount of bitcoin entities need to process within these monitored systems. Under Lightning, the vast majority of transactions occur in private bilateral channels and are likely to be scrutinised by no one other than the parties concerned.
A key issue preventing Lightning's mass roll out, however, was the costly way it would have to deal with a well known bitcoin bug called malleability. SegWit was predominantly introduced to resolve this. As stated before, the fact it became associated with a block-size constraint solution was incidental.
But there's another dimension to the tale.
According to Wright, the Lightning system appeals to those who want to keep extracting value out of bitcoin without creating onchain logs, a practice which helps to obscure transactions and keep the system out of the regulatory net.
In so doing one of bitcoin's key attributes — its ability to deliver a permanent record of signatures which can't be tampered with — is compromised.
“Bitcoin is not anonymous and cannot be anonymous. There are people in Core who want to create a system that does not maintain logs. Hence SegWit,” Wright told Alphaville.
He added:
All that we can see happening is an alteration of the system to remove logs long-term. This increases the need for separate systems to record AML and KYC information which is contrary to the purpose of bitcoin. Isn't segregated witness simply a means of handing bitcoin off to the lightning network where logging is no longer required and users can engage in a system that only settles on bitcoin? Wouldn't such a system be exactly what criminal groups wanted?
Put this way, he has a point. Any dependence on a separate external system is tantamount to a trusted relationship, which defies the whole logic of arguing the world needs to turn to bitcoin because third parties are untrustworthy.
It's no coincidence Wright adds that Lightning started to be developed just after the Silk Road dark market arrests happened. It was then, possibly, that nefarious entities realised bitcoin — being an immutable evidence trail — could actually be used not just to facilitate criminality but to prevent it, upping the urgency for a workaround to be developed.
The mysterious network spamming that allowed such ethos-compromising proposals to be linked to scaling solutions, meanwhile, started about six months before the official Lightning white paper was released.
Bitcoin and Lightning technical communities would argue Lightning is just a more scalable protocol for instant retail payment, which would support more bitcoin use cases and adoption.
Nonetheless, isn't that a fun conspiracy theory?
Related links:
Why there is no such thing as a trustless financial system — FT Alphaville
BIS trolls bitcoin — FT Alphaville
The Fat Controller of the Lightning Network — Coppolacomment
source Izabella Kaminska https://archive.md/PS0cU#selection-533.0-851.17
Quote
Comments on Kleiman v. Wright verdict
After almost 7 days of deliberation, the jury verdict of Kleiman v. Wright case came down on November 6, 2021, with a resounding victory for the Defendant, Dr. Craig S. Wright, the inventor of Bitcoin.
The jury was asked to decide about seven accusations against Wright after several weeks of trial hearing numerous testimonies under oath and legal arguments:
1. Breach of partnership with David Kleiman
2. Breach of fiduciary duty to David Kleiman
3. Conversion (unauthorized exercising of control) of W&K property
4. Civil Theft of property
5. Unjust Enrichment from services provided by David Kleiman
6. Fraud committed against David Kleiman, Ira Kleiman, or W&K
7. Constructive Fraud against David Kleiman, Ira Kleiman, or W&K (fraud in effect without proving intent)
Altogether, the Plaintiff asked for over $100 billion in damages.
On all accounts except for Conversion, the jury found “No”, in favor of the Defendant.
On the Conversion, the jury found for the Plaintiff and decided the Defendant owes W&K (but not estate of David Kleiman) $100 million.
This is a resounding victory for the Defendant Dr. Craig Wright. A verdict awarding less than 0.1% of what the plaintiff asked is a way for the jury to express sympathy to David Kleiman, not really a verdict against Craig Wright. Besides, most of the $100 million will end up being given to Lynn Wright, Craig Wright’s ex-wife, and Craig has openly said that he would be glad to give that much money to Lynn because he felt Lynn and their marriage were victims of his years of excessive devotion to a highly risky and hard-to-understand project, namely inventing Bitcoin.
(Note: The membership in W&K is the subject of a different case. On paper, David Kleiman was a 25% shareholder of W&K, the other 75% belonging to Lynn Wright. The 75% is the sum of the shares originally belonged to Lynn Wright and the shares originally belonged to a company controlled by Craig Wright but was endowed to Lynn Wright as a result of a divorce settlement. Therefore, if the share percentages on paper can stand, the estate of David Kleiman would receive $25 million, and Lynn Wright $75 million. However, Lynn Wright in a different case filed in a state of Florida is alleging that Ira Kleiman acting on behalf of the estate of David Kleiman breached his duty to W&K. This places a question mark on the ultimate split of the $100 million.)
This jury wins my respect. They are a generation of Americans who have proved to be more fact-based and less easily carried away by inflammatory imaginations.
Reactions to the verdict
Despite a marked increase of the mainstream attention (including the Wall Street Journal) to the case, the world largely misses the significant implications of this case:
Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of Bitcoin.
Due to the overwhelming rejection of Dr. Wright being Satoshi by the “crypto lords” and the controlled or influenced media, people do not easily put these puzzles together on their own.
People continue to see headlines such as:
“Self-claimed inventor of bitcoin was ordered to pay $100 million in damages.”
“The estate of David Kleiman wins large reward against self-proclaimed inventor of Bitcoin Craig Wright.”
“Jury found Craig Wright did not invent Bitcoin by forming a partnership with David Kleiman.”
Beyond the misleading headlines, you also see the anti-Wright propaganda working hard distorting the history and some of the court arguments that Craig Wright’s defense team did not win.
Even a 2019 judge’s opinion on Craig Wright’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit was dug out and spun in a perverted way in order to confuse. The basic facts are ignored, including that it was a pretrial ruling, the judge ruled against a motion for summary judgment, meaning that she thought it was not a clean case for the defendant, and the controversy warranted a trial.
And a trial we just had.
In a trial, a lot of arguments fail, for both sides, the winning or losing. What is important is the jury verdict.
As to the facts, the jury has the final say.
No fraud
The only part the jury found against Craig Wright was conversion of W&K property.
Conversion in general is an act of changing one form of property to another. It is true that in a lawsuit, conversion always means unauthorized conversion, but it doesn’t have “fraud” as an element. If it does, it would be specified as “fraudulent conversion”, or theft, embezzlement if it is such.
As a matter of fact, in this case, fraud and theft were specifically charged on different accounts separate from conversion. Mixing them together in a post-trial analysis is wrong and dishonest.
It’s important to remember that Dr. Craig Wright wasn’t just sued for money. He was sued for fraud. And the jury found no fraud.
Now, a simple verdict of no fraud might end right there, and may speak nothing of what exactly Wright and Kleiman did in relation to the invention of Bitcoin. And that’s exactly how certain people are spinning the verdict.
But anyone who has such a conclusion or an impression of the verdict is either missing or intentionally twisting the key point of the case.
A key in this case is that the Plaintiff opted to allege fraud against Dr. Wright because they had no other way to prove that David Kleiman had a partner interest in the invention of Bitcoin.
Ordinarily, a partnership dispute does not rely on proving fraud. In most cases, it is just a matter of deciding the nature of the relationship itself based on what agreements they entered into and what actual work relationship they maintained.
But in the case of Kleiman v. Wright, the Plaintiff had a big problem: there is absolutely zero direct evidence for partnership.
Therefore, the Plaintiff came up with this theory: the reason why there was no evidence for partnership is because the two men agreed to work on it secretly.
But problem is that, if the very fact of no evidence could be spun as evidence for a secret partnership, a partnership could be found between any two good friends on any business one of them did, especially when there is no showing of partnership agreement.
That would be absurd.
The Plaintiff clearly understood the absurdity of both their argument and the situation, and knew they needed to come up with a strategy to escape the “evidence void” and lead the jury into an imaginary and emotional space in which they could find the needed partnership.
That strategy rests on alleging Dr. Wright being a fraudulent man. The Plaintiff charges the jury that, seeing Wright committing such fraud, it would be wrong to allow him to keep all Bit[Suspicious link removed]dies.
To prove the fraud, the plaintiff banked heavily on the fact that Dr. Wright was a complex figure, and that people who come across him as a stranger tend to find him not likable nor believable — Not likable because he talks in a manner that often strikes as arrogant and offensive; not believable because he often talks things that others don’t understand.
After all, the above strategy has worked highly effectively in the “court” of the public opinion guided by social engineering since 2015, it might also work in the real courtroom with the jury led by a skillful trial lawyer.
One of the most notorious examples is Wright’s disastrous interview with BBC in 2016. In the BBC interview, the Asperger’s patient Dr. Wright behaved in such a way that he, unbeknownst to himself, effectively self-portraited himself as a scammer in the eyes of regular viewers who didn’t have a real grasp of the facts and nor any understanding of the context.
The sad truth is, people tend to fall for smooth and believable scammers, but perceive awkward truth-tellers as scammers.
The Defendant’s team on the other hand was very much aware of the Plaintiff’s strategy.
Concerning Dr. Wright’s “unlikableness”, it has to do with him being an Asperger’s patient, and the Defense made a huge effort in presenting this fact to the jury through the testimony by Dr. Ami Klin, the world’s foremost expert on Asperger’s.
Concerning Dr. Wright’s “unbelievableness”, it is due to him being an ultra-high-IQ genius in real sense, and the Defense also made a good effort in presenting this part to the jury.
The jury found Dr. Wright not fraudulent.
No partnership
However, due to the particular way the Plaintiff’s arguments were structured, merely proving there was no fraud was not enough to prove there was no partnership.
Remember, the Plaintiff argued that the partnership was secret.
To that, in the trial, the Defendant provided a lot of evidence to show what Craig Wright did to invent Bitcoin.
The logic is quite simple: whether or not the partnership was secret at the time, now that it’s contested in a public trial, let each party demonstrate the actual work they had done in relation to inventing Bitcoin — Proof-of-Work (PoW), so to speak.
In showing PoW, Wright had a lot, while Kleiman had zero.
It was on those bases that the jury found no partnership between Craig Wright and David Kleiman.
It is incredible that some people are spinning this finding to mean that jury found neither Craig Wright nor David Kleiman worked on Bitcoin!
They are blind to the simple facts:
(1) the Plaintiff (not the Defendant) alleged partnership, and the jury found No;
(2) the Plaintiff alleged fraud, and the jury found no;
(3) and more importantly, in this particular case, the only way to prove David had no partnership interest was by proving Craig had made 100% contributions, which could not have been accomplished without presenting credible evidence to the jury, especially when the jurors probably did not emotionally side with Craig Wright in the first place.
The jury verdict of no partnership therefore could only be a result of the jury accepting the case made by Craig Wright to prove that he devoted his life to inventing Bitcoin. The Defendant didn’t merely focus on the fact that David didn’t do much and wasn’t even capable of doing much, but focused more on what Craig was able to do and what he actually did to invent Bitcoin.
Craig Wright is Satoshi
With a verdict that Craig Wright did not commit a fraud, and he alone is the person who invented Bitcoin, the jury’s decision on the Satoshi identity is completely clear, even though the case barely even mentions the name Satoshi due to its lack of relevance to the pleadings.
Put yourself in the shoes of the jury. After seeing and hearing weeks of evidence from Craig Wright himself and other witnesses saying that the Craig Wright has devoted his life to inventing Bitcoin since 1990s, years before Bitcoin was released, you were asked to make a decision based on the evidence. Now, if you the jury did not believe the case made by the Defendant on how Dr. Wright alone invented Bitcoin, how could you have explicitly voted “No” on the question of fraud?
The claim that Craig Wright devoted his life to inventing Bitcoin wasn’t a side story. It was the whole case of Craig Wright.
Furthermore, any jury, if finding Craig Wright lying about inventing Bitcoin, or just not believing what he said, would not only vote “Yes” on the question of fraud, but would have in fact also gladly awarded half of the Defendant’s Bitcoin value to the Plaintiff. This is because such a verdict is absolutely the most effective way, if not the only way, to factually prove that Craig Wright is a fraud.
Put another way, if the jury had found Craig Wright was not the Bitcoin inventor and had been lying to the court and the jury, they would recognize the following very simple fact:
Awarding a hundred billion dollars to the Plaintiff would be the ultimate judgment against the fraudulent Defendant, because not only would voting “yes” to the Wright’s fraud verdict be justified, but more importantly, they’d have also made Wright eat his own words. This is because, if he is only pretending to be the inventor of Bitcoin, a $100 billion verdict would certainly put him beyond bankruptcy. After having played a fake Satoshi, he would certainly end up having to admit that he is not Satoshi and does not actually own the Satoshi coins in order to null the court order and escape the absolutely unaffordable judgment.
Yet the jury unanimously did the opposite.
If you conclude that the jury’s verdict means that they didn’t find Craig Wright was indeed the inventor of Bitcoin, it would not only be violating the basic logic, but in fact insulting the court and the jury.
The relevant evidence
Some people have been pushing the following narrative: the trial has nothing to do with the identity of Satoshi, because what is “undisputed” is not “proven”.
Yes, there’s a distinction between “undisputed” and “proven”. But the key is RELEVANCE.
If it’s irrelevant, it isn’t considered proven even if undisputed. But if it’s relevant, consider it proven (or admitted), unless rebutted. And if it’s not only relevant but also foundational (forming a basis of a legal conclusion), it then must be taken as proven facts.
To understand exactly what evidence has been presented in the trial, one has to study the entire case and court records carefully. But for a discussion of the available evidence and their implications, you may at least read: A mathematical proof that Craig S. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
A gist of the proven facts in this case includes two major aspects: (1) Wright worked for years on inventing Bitcoin prior to it became public; and (2) he has all the necessary background, the skill set, the time and the opportunity to invent Bitcoin.
One part of the evidence highly contested in the trial is the fact that Wright reported his Bitcoin assets in his year 2009 tax return with Australian Taxation Office (ATO), and subsequently got into a very messy legal fight with ATO. What people unfamiliar with the case do not understand is that the dispute during the trial about ATO events was not about those very facts, but about a certain statement allegedly made by the ATO attacking the integrity of Wright in the tax dispute. The Plaintiff wanted to use it to impeach Wright, while the Defendant provided evidence to prove that the statement was not a verified official statement from ATO, and more important, Wright subsequently challenged ATO’s tax findings against him and won the case in an Australian court (a fact).
Now if you move your eyes away from the disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this case, you should see the inescapable implication: ATO knew Craig Wright was the inventor of Bitcoin. They have known it since as early as 2009. Anyone at ATO who knows about the Wright’s tax case is probably laughing at any allegations denying this Wright’s Satoshi identity.
There is a saying that the whole Australia knows that Craig Wright is Satoshi. The saying may be an exaggeration but is not without its basis in reality.
The above facts were not only relevant to the case pleadings, but in fact foundational, without which any legal conclusion of the case would have had no basis, and would have been a total waste of the court’s time and resources. No serious judge and jury would have allowed that.
The point is NOT that the court has officially decided on Satoshi identity, but that it has established the relevant facts to prove Satoshi identity. As an observer, it’s up to you to infer from the evidence, established facts and the jury verdict whether Craig Wright is Satoshi. No one forces a conclusion on you one way or another.
If you wish to learn something from an expensive legal proceeding, please bring some humility and honesty. You should still be critical, but don’t assume a mocking tune with a predetermined conclusion.
It’s kind of a test. It’s up to you. And if you have any real interest in the blockchain and the broader next-generation Internet space, your decision will not be just an intellectual exercise, but will be consequential.
On the other hand, if you are like me, you’ll be less concerned of whether Wright is Satoshi (because he clearly is, and no one else comes even remotely close), but more of whether and how the coins are going to move.
Does the Trust exist?
In 2019, the judge in Kleiman v. Wright case wrote in her opinion denying Craig Wright’s motion for summary judgment that “the evidence does not sustain the existence of a trust.”
This has provided much ammunition for Craig-haters to attack, alleging that the Trust itself is a fiction, Craig Wright has been lying about everything, and he didn’t in fact own the Satoshi coins.
But the allegations are based on misconstruing what the judge wrote. The judge’s opinion in denying summary judgment was not to say that the judge decided that there was no Trust. If that were the case, the entire case would have been dismissed, because proceeding with nonexistent property would be a total waste of the court’s time. A motion for summary judgment is to ask for a direct verdict without a trial on the basis that there is no controversy in the alleged facts. And accordingly, the judge’s denying a summary judgment is to say that there is a controversy in the alleged facts, and it needs to be decided by the jury, not by the judge.
What is factually even more important is that the 2019 opinion is outdated because Craig Wright has subsequently complied with the court orders in providing evidence for assets contained in the Tulip Trusts.
During the trial, no new evidence for the existence of these coins and the Trust was presented, because the fact was not contested during the trial.
As a result, everyone waits for the next question: Will the Satoshi coins move?
Will the coins move?
Craig Wright himself has said that they will. But it is unclear how it is going to happen.
He’s now being ordered by the court to pay $100 million to W&K. But theoretically, the payment can be made in US dollars without moving any coins.
Therefore, it is really up to Craig Wright to decide. Before the trial, he was constrained by a pending case from moving his bitcoin assets. But now he’s free. He’s free to move at least some of coins to pay for the verdict. And to the world, it really does not matter how many coins he moves, as long as any coin in a Satoshi address moves.
Does he have the keys though? Wright was a victim of the actions by Ira Kleiman because Ira reformatted David Kleiman’s hard drives and USB drives; he was also a victim of thievery when his office was hacked in 2020. Some people thus assume that Craig Wright has lost all the keys to the coins. However, whatever lost in those incidents were only part of the Wright’s bitcoin. The subject of the 2020 hacking, for example, related to 111K coins that were purchased by Wright from someone else and had nothing to do with the Satoshi coins that were mined by Wright from the earliest Bitcoin blocks. As to the lost drives of David, although there has not been a clear accounting, it is certain that Wright did not transfer the keys of all his coins to David. Rather, the most if not all Satoshi coins were placed in the elaborately designed Tulip Trusts. Therefore, it is certain that at least some of the Satoshi coins are in full control by the Trusts, which should now have the freedom to facilitate Wright’s need for moving the coins.
However, it should be pointed out that there exists a conflict between Craig Wright’s own interest and that of BSV community. Although their interests are fairly well aligned, they are not perfectly aligned. Regardless of what Wright claims, the fact is that moving the Satoshi coins is against his financial interests, because such a move is going to negatively impact the price of BTC. Over 90% of Wright’s wealth is in BTC.
One suggestion is that Craig Wright may convert much of his BTC coins into BSV coins and then strategically spend the BSV coins to promote the BSV blockchain by onboarding billions of people. That sounds great, but it would be hard to execute such a plan without crashing the BTC price. Sure, the conversion will cause the BSV price to rise to offset some of the losses on BTC, but given the vast difference (400:1) between the current market caps of the two coins, it is mathematically impossible to have a value-preserving conversion if done all at once. If it were done that way, the BSV price would suddenly go up dramatically (when Craig buys) but would subsequently lose much of the gain quickly (after Craig has done buying), and Craig would end up losing most value of his assets. It seems that the only way to mitigate the loss is to execute a conversion plan in very small steps over a long period of time, and also do it as stealthily as possible.
A very complex and tricky situation to watch.
But I do believe Dr. Craig Wright has a fairly sound long-term plan to advance the real Bitcoin (BSV).
Source Zem G. https://medium.com/bitcoin-blockchain/comments-on-kleiman-v-wright-verdict-9bf1a7c7829d
Parallel Transaction Validation (PTV) scheduler improvements Modification to processing of User Agent strings Update default maxscriptsizepolicy, maxscriptnumlengthpolicy P2P Header Update- Versioning
- Change Description
sendrawtransactions – option to skip some policy checks New ZMQ Topics- Original rawtx, hashtx, rawblock, hashblock topicstx notifications:
- New rawtx2, hashtx2, rawblock2, hashblock2 topicstx notifications:
Configurable Timeoutshttps://bitcoinsv.io/2021/11/25/upgrades-bsv-v1-0-10-mapi-v1-4-0
Bitcoin SV Node Software - v1.0.10 mAPI v1.4.0 released Maximum size limited to 4 GB To support block sizes larger than 4 GB, changes have been made to the P2P message structure to overcome this limitation.https://bitcoinsv.io/2021/11/25/upgrades-bsv-v1-0-10-mapi-v1-4-0/
https://bitcoinsv.io/node-software/
Quote
Bitcoin SV was upgraded to 1.0.10: What does this mean?
The Bitcoin SV network recently had a release patch that brought about some changes that have significant repercussions for businesses.
The laundry list of the upgrades are as follows: (Excerpted from BitcoinSV.io)
Parallel Transaction Validation (PTV) scheduler improvements
Modification to processing of User Agent strings
Update default maxscriptsizepolicy, maxscriptnumlengthpolicy
P2P Header Update – 4GB
Versioning
Change Description
sendrawtransactions – option to skip some policy checks – long ancestor chains
New ZMQ Topics, paying attention to transaction lifecycles
Original rawtx, hashtx, rawblock, hashblock topicstx notifications:
New rawtx2, hashtx2, rawblock2, hashblock2 topicstx notifications:
Configurable Timeouts
This update has some significant impact on the applications built on BSV and was likely in response to some complaints heard from the community.
We will be going over each, in turn, to further explain their significance to the businesses operating on BSV.
1. P2P Header Update
This bullet point, while making some sense to technical people, will hold little meaning to anyone else, but this change will allow for the inclusion of blocks larger than 4GB in size. As blocks as large as 2GB1 have already been seen on the BSV blockchain, this change is essential in keeping with the model that the protocol should not be the limiting factor on Bitcoin’s utility, but instead, the free market will determine what the practical limits are. This removes the final block size limitation and BSV can theoretically accept blocks as large as bandwidth and economics will allow, making it the only truly globally scalable protocol, bound only by the practical limits of internet infrastructure and bandwidth.
2. Update default maxscriptsizepolicy, maxscriptnumlengthpolicy
This change directly responds to the community requests to have this default transaction acceptance policy changed.
Even though every miner can change this on their own, the practical issue has always been that miners are generally wary of changing settings that may have an adverse effect on their blocks being accepted by others. These two particular settings govern characteristics of a transaction that make them eligible to be accepted into the mempool or not, and do not affect the acceptability of a block. Still, it is nevertheless something that miners are wary of changing without proper testing. This default change allowing for larger script sizes will hopefully encourage the development of more complex smart contract applications such as those seen on the Metanet protocol on Bitcoin.
3. sendrawtransactions – option to skip some policy checks
This change is likely the most exciting for gaming applications like FYX and others that require long unconfirmed transaction chains.
The benign title belies the powerful features that it enables. Among the policies it allows to be overridden are the ones that govern ‘ancestor limits’ and ‘dust limits.’ Let’s address the ‘ancestor’ one first. I suppose it is better to explain the term first. When a single coin (UTXO), called c1 is spent, a new coin is created, containing up to but not more than the original c1 coin in Bitcoins. This new coin, call it c2, is called the ‘child’, and the original coin is the ancestor. This new child coin can then be subsequently spent before the previous c1->c2 transaction has been confirmed in a block, creating a new child coin, c3. In this fashion, multiple dependent transactions can be created, each turning the latest child coin into an ancestor of the new latest child coin. This is called an ‘ancestor’ chain. This is important because it is the use of creating thousands of transactions that are chained together. There is normally a default limit to the chain’s length before a node stops accepting a new child-coin-creating transaction.
The reason why there is a limit is to protect the node. As you can imagine, if any of the previous transactions in the chain are invalid, then the whole chain of txns after the invalid one will also be invalid and must be evicted from the mempool2. By default, this is set to 24 ancestors deep and has been a great limiting factor to many applications in gaming that require bets or actions in a game to be recorded in a transaction at a high rate, funded by a single original funding coin. (The initially confirmed root ancestor of the whole chain). Some applications require up to 1,000 transactions to be created within the span of 10 minutes (before even one block confirmation). So imagine how this limit has a detrimental effect on their ability to write transactions to the blockchain. With this limit removed, applications can be free (with the help of a miner who is willing to bypass this limit with this new feature) to send transactions as fast as their applications can create them.
The second now over-ridable limit, which is significant, is the dust limit, which has historically made it impossible to create transactions created coins of only one satoshi or less. This is important as some token applications (like STAS) which use one satoshi (the smallest denomination of Bitcoin) would be most efficient if they didn’t need to include the previous default limit of the smallest amount of Bitcoin that can be sent into a coin, which lies somewhere between 137 – 500 sats depending how you count3. Overriding this policy limit has been a hairy task in the past because it wasn’t explicitly easy to do without hacking your BSV mining node to some extent. A task that most miners are not willing to do given the risks involved.
This new policy will allow applications which have use to create coins with 1sat or even 0sats to do so, the benefits or drawbacks of which have been debated4 among those that have time to debate.
Regardless of whether or not you think it is a good idea or not, Bitcoin doesn’t care. Bitcoin, as I always say, is neutral. It is not political, and it doesn’t impose any limits on its use. It is up to you, your use case, and your conscience to do what you think is valuable and profitable.
The rest of the update contains some improvements to help customized non-mining node services to get up-to-date updates on transactions that they care about via ZMQ, which will be great news to many.
All in all, it is a well worthwhile update and one that is jam-packed with much-requested features—ahem… unlocking of limitations—which will be of great interest to businesses and applications building on the blockchain. This won’t be the final update, though. The last and final big restoration of the protocol will be the much-awaited reversion to the original Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA) used by Bitcoin from the ’emergency temporary’ one that was put in place to protect BSV/BCH after its split away from the hostile miners of BTC.
Admittedly this is not an update that will interest business applications much and affect mining and transaction processors5. Still, it will signal the finalization of the restoration process of BSV back to the original Bitcoin that Satoshi intended it to be. So, stay tuned.
/ Jerry Chan
***
NOTES:
[1] Which works out to be about 15,000 tx/s
[2] The pool of txns queued up to be mined in the next block
[3] Seriously, so confusing that even having read the code myself, I can never remember how this is calculated.
[4] A great summary of this debate can be found here by Angus Adams
Source:https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-sv-was-upgraded-to-1-0-10-what-does-this-mean/
The Bitcoin SV network recently had a release patch that brought about some changes that have significant repercussions for businesses.
The laundry list of the upgrades are as follows: (Excerpted from BitcoinSV.io)
Parallel Transaction Validation (PTV) scheduler improvements
Modification to processing of User Agent strings
Update default maxscriptsizepolicy, maxscriptnumlengthpolicy
P2P Header Update – 4GB
Versioning
Change Description
sendrawtransactions – option to skip some policy checks – long ancestor chains
New ZMQ Topics, paying attention to transaction lifecycles
Original rawtx, hashtx, rawblock, hashblock topicstx notifications:
New rawtx2, hashtx2, rawblock2, hashblock2 topicstx notifications:
Configurable Timeouts
This update has some significant impact on the applications built on BSV and was likely in response to some complaints heard from the community.
We will be going over each, in turn, to further explain their significance to the businesses operating on BSV.
1. P2P Header Update
This bullet point, while making some sense to technical people, will hold little meaning to anyone else, but this change will allow for the inclusion of blocks larger than 4GB in size. As blocks as large as 2GB1 have already been seen on the BSV blockchain, this change is essential in keeping with the model that the protocol should not be the limiting factor on Bitcoin’s utility, but instead, the free market will determine what the practical limits are. This removes the final block size limitation and BSV can theoretically accept blocks as large as bandwidth and economics will allow, making it the only truly globally scalable protocol, bound only by the practical limits of internet infrastructure and bandwidth.
2. Update default maxscriptsizepolicy, maxscriptnumlengthpolicy
This change directly responds to the community requests to have this default transaction acceptance policy changed.
Even though every miner can change this on their own, the practical issue has always been that miners are generally wary of changing settings that may have an adverse effect on their blocks being accepted by others. These two particular settings govern characteristics of a transaction that make them eligible to be accepted into the mempool or not, and do not affect the acceptability of a block. Still, it is nevertheless something that miners are wary of changing without proper testing. This default change allowing for larger script sizes will hopefully encourage the development of more complex smart contract applications such as those seen on the Metanet protocol on Bitcoin.
3. sendrawtransactions – option to skip some policy checks
This change is likely the most exciting for gaming applications like FYX and others that require long unconfirmed transaction chains.
The benign title belies the powerful features that it enables. Among the policies it allows to be overridden are the ones that govern ‘ancestor limits’ and ‘dust limits.’ Let’s address the ‘ancestor’ one first. I suppose it is better to explain the term first. When a single coin (UTXO), called c1 is spent, a new coin is created, containing up to but not more than the original c1 coin in Bitcoins. This new coin, call it c2, is called the ‘child’, and the original coin is the ancestor. This new child coin can then be subsequently spent before the previous c1->c2 transaction has been confirmed in a block, creating a new child coin, c3. In this fashion, multiple dependent transactions can be created, each turning the latest child coin into an ancestor of the new latest child coin. This is called an ‘ancestor’ chain. This is important because it is the use of creating thousands of transactions that are chained together. There is normally a default limit to the chain’s length before a node stops accepting a new child-coin-creating transaction.
The reason why there is a limit is to protect the node. As you can imagine, if any of the previous transactions in the chain are invalid, then the whole chain of txns after the invalid one will also be invalid and must be evicted from the mempool2. By default, this is set to 24 ancestors deep and has been a great limiting factor to many applications in gaming that require bets or actions in a game to be recorded in a transaction at a high rate, funded by a single original funding coin. (The initially confirmed root ancestor of the whole chain). Some applications require up to 1,000 transactions to be created within the span of 10 minutes (before even one block confirmation). So imagine how this limit has a detrimental effect on their ability to write transactions to the blockchain. With this limit removed, applications can be free (with the help of a miner who is willing to bypass this limit with this new feature) to send transactions as fast as their applications can create them.
The second now over-ridable limit, which is significant, is the dust limit, which has historically made it impossible to create transactions created coins of only one satoshi or less. This is important as some token applications (like STAS) which use one satoshi (the smallest denomination of Bitcoin) would be most efficient if they didn’t need to include the previous default limit of the smallest amount of Bitcoin that can be sent into a coin, which lies somewhere between 137 – 500 sats depending how you count3. Overriding this policy limit has been a hairy task in the past because it wasn’t explicitly easy to do without hacking your BSV mining node to some extent. A task that most miners are not willing to do given the risks involved.
This new policy will allow applications which have use to create coins with 1sat or even 0sats to do so, the benefits or drawbacks of which have been debated4 among those that have time to debate.
Regardless of whether or not you think it is a good idea or not, Bitcoin doesn’t care. Bitcoin, as I always say, is neutral. It is not political, and it doesn’t impose any limits on its use. It is up to you, your use case, and your conscience to do what you think is valuable and profitable.
The rest of the update contains some improvements to help customized non-mining node services to get up-to-date updates on transactions that they care about via ZMQ, which will be great news to many.
All in all, it is a well worthwhile update and one that is jam-packed with much-requested features—ahem… unlocking of limitations—which will be of great interest to businesses and applications building on the blockchain. This won’t be the final update, though. The last and final big restoration of the protocol will be the much-awaited reversion to the original Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA) used by Bitcoin from the ’emergency temporary’ one that was put in place to protect BSV/BCH after its split away from the hostile miners of BTC.
Admittedly this is not an update that will interest business applications much and affect mining and transaction processors5. Still, it will signal the finalization of the restoration process of BSV back to the original Bitcoin that Satoshi intended it to be. So, stay tuned.
/ Jerry Chan
***
NOTES:
[1] Which works out to be about 15,000 tx/s
[2] The pool of txns queued up to be mined in the next block
[3] Seriously, so confusing that even having read the code myself, I can never remember how this is calculated.
[4] A great summary of this debate can be found here by Angus Adams
Source:https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-sv-was-upgraded-to-1-0-10-what-does-this-mean/
A short explanation about BitCoin:
Quote
Craig Wright signed messages from block 1 proving he was Satoshi to numerous people who vouched for him including Gavin Andresen, Ian Grigg, Jon Matonis and others.
submitted 10 months ago * by [email protected]
I am getting sick of answering a lot of questions over and over from newbs in this sub who don't understand these things and are having trouble shaking their CDS. Here you can see Ian Grigg, Gavin Andresen, and Jon Matonis, among others all received signed messages from block 1. On top of that they have vouched for Craig not only for cryptographic evidence but also social evidence which is arguably a much harder standard to prove.
I have also noticed that so many are clueless about facts and fail to research and just parrot talking point propaganda that they believe the signed message released by Craig in 2018 here is the same one given to Gavin and others. It is not. That signature and the signatures given to Gavin and others are completely different events. The second signature event is put up by trolls often to say the Gavin signature event was debunked, which shows their complete lack of understanding. It is known that the second signature event has doubt as csw says, but a message could be revealed later which proves its authenticity.
Edit (4-22-21): I would like to clarify an error in this post, Ian Grigg never received a signed message from block 1, as he has clarified here, instead he was vouching for Craig Wright as being Satoshi based on "direct knowledge", which is probably even more powerful evidence.
Although Craig did sign with Block 1 for Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis as described in the links above. Craig has also signed privately for Calvin Ayre, Stefan Matthews and others according to what Calvin says here.
Edit: (5-29-21): Here Stefan Matthews, CEO of Taal mining company says that Craig showed him material included in the whitepaper prior to its public release.
~
FucktheCaball 1 point 18 days ago
If BSV is the so called “real Bitcoin” why is it so low? I’m just finding out there was a split. What made it different and why don’t exchanges like Binance, and Crypto.com not hold it?
[email protected]
Yes its low because of censorship and delisting campaigns against BSV. Basically when BSV first split we went by the BCH ticker, and we were still on a lot of exchanges for a while, but then when Amaury Sechet and Roger Ver usurped BCH and stole the ticker, BSV split off and many exchanges used it as an excuse to delist BSV. Many of them had only supported BCH reluctantly, and BCH had a lot of community support in early days which forced their hand. But over time they were able to loosen the grip and get rid of BSV for good. Ledger and Trezor also refused to support it. Binance supported BSV for a while, but then when Craig Wright sued Peter McCormack for defamation, Binance CEO CZ went on twitter and threw a fit and said any more of this and we delist, then he delisted BSV to try to hurt BSV because he does not like Craig Wright. Since then Craig has won his lawsuit with Peter McCormack. Some other exchanges also trolled BSV and did twitter polls asking twitter if they should delist BSV and basically everyone was mocking and trashing on BSV and every BSVer. But despite all those attacks we still are thriving, and eventually we will triumph. Dr. Wright is now sending letters to Coinbase, Kraken, BlockStream and others warning them not to pass off BTC as a fake Bitcoin anymore. So there is likely going to be legal action to get the Bitcoin brand back for BSV. What they have done to BSV is not acceptable and is shameful, but we are not backing down.
FucktheCaball
Wow. This is crazy I didn’t know all this I just thought it forked because of changes and the real BTC was that . the real BTC. It sounds like a inside coupe . Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist Im going to buy some. I have Poloniex so I’ll get it there.
[email protected]
Yes the censorship is real, you are in the right place to find the truth. We got banned from /r/bitcoin and /r/btc, trolls stole the /r/bsv sub so we made this sub. Some pretty dark interests are funding BlockStream, even Jeffrey Epstein is funding Core through the MIT media lab. Powerful interests are trying to stop the real Bitcoin. BSV mines world record 2GB blocks and is the only system that can scale for world adoption with small fees. BSV has also re-enabled all of satoshi's opcodes, which allows it to do smart contracts like ETH, something the Core people said was impossible. But the difference is BSV can actually scale, unlike ETH.
FucktheCaball
This is crazy. The cabal has their hands in everything and they ruin everything good for the small guy. I bought some BSV I notice the link had dollar vigilantes Jeff B in there I’m going to go watch that video. It’s like a big conspiracy but I’m the type that do t believe in that many Coincidences. Thank you for informing me Is there somewhere I can get more info on all this? Or maybe I’ll just follow you, you seem well informed
[email protected]
Yes Jeff has been somewhat open minded, but a lot of the anarchists in the space have decided that Craig Wright is the enemy, so he has tended to side with BCH more as well which I think is a mistake. I think Vigilante Crypto also works with Jeff and he supports BSV despite a lot of disagreement from some of his colleagues in terms of BSV. A lot of people have been swayed by the narratives in the space, and the intimidation mobs. Its like if you support BSV you will be a victim of cancel culture and attacked and deplatformed and shunned. But when you look deeper you will find the truth, there is a reason people don't want you to look at it.
FucktheCaball
So what is Bitcoin cash from? Please excuse my ignorance on the subject. I’m just kinda confused and you seem to know ALOT.
[email protected]
Basically Bitcoin Core developers were funded by blockstream and took over the development, sometimes in a very hostile way. Satoshi's quotes on bitcointalk and early emails were clear, Bitcoin would scale on chain and use SPV (simplified payment verification) as described in whitepaper. Users don't need to run nodes as the system scales according to Satoshi's quotes. But Core says we need to keep 1MB blocks forever so everyone can run a node forever. This was the disagreement and usurpation. Eventually Core added segwit instead of a blocksize increase, so we had no choice but to preserve the ledger and split off, so we supported Bitcoin Cash, which split from BTC-Core in August 2017. The split occured right after segwit was guaranteed to be activated on BTC. We raised the blocksize to 32MB and started scaling. Baiscally BSV is the real Bitcoin Cash and the real Bitcoin. Over time we tried raising the blocksize again to 128MB but the BCHABC devs blocked it and tried adding changes to the protocol like CTOR instead which violates the whitepaper description of chronological ordering of transactions. They lied and said they would raise the 32MB limit, and to this day they still have small blocks and their blocksize is actually shrinking. BSV had to split off again to avoid their usurpation of the protocol, so the BSV ticker was created in November 2018. But just because the ticker changes from, BTC to BCH to BSV, its all the same original Bitcoin from our perspective. BSV is the only system following Satoshi's vision and the whitepaper. Now BSV mines world record 2GB blocks, 2000x the size of BTC, proving it can scale for world adoption with small fees.
Read more: https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/l5u9sb/craig_wright_signed_messages_from_block_1_proving/
Quote
Builder friends,
When it is possible to demonstrate a cost-effective way to provide streaming movies and other types of on-demand services, depending on the payment channels. Only with the original Bitcoin protocol, aka BitcoinSatoshi Vision BSV.
"We use streaming movies only as an example. It is quite simple to extend this approach to "broadcast" other types of data/services, e.g., WiFi, utilities (water and electricity), rental (car and house). Many pay-per-use services can be offered in this way."
Find out more about how to do this: https://xiaohuiliu.medium.com/netflix-over-bitcoin-payment-channels-ec55b3c242da
When it is possible to demonstrate a cost-effective way to provide streaming movies and other types of on-demand services, depending on the payment channels. Only with the original Bitcoin protocol, aka BitcoinSatoshi Vision BSV.
"We use streaming movies only as an example. It is quite simple to extend this approach to "broadcast" other types of data/services, e.g., WiFi, utilities (water and electricity), rental (car and house). Many pay-per-use services can be offered in this way."
Find out more about how to do this: https://xiaohuiliu.medium.com/netflix-over-bitcoin-payment-channels-ec55b3c242da
Quote
Slick, snappy and fun: Duro Dogs NFT pet game officially drops on BSV network
NFT pet game Duro Dogs has officially launched atop the Bitcoin SV network. Users can get started for free via their HandCash wallet. By connecting the application at durodogs.com, each user will receive one, unique free dog, randomly generated based on an on-chain serial number.
Source: Duro Dogs
Duro Dogs have various traits including fur, eyes, noses, and ears. Note that while ears are also randomly selected, they do not have a rarity chart. Dogs’ fur and eyes can be Common (90%), Rare (9%), or Ultra-rare (1%). Noses are only Common or Rare.
Source: Duro Dogs
After choosing a name, users can start interacting with their digital pet. You can get any number of additional Dogs for a 99 cents fee, payable in BSV. At first you can only pet your dog, but once they reach additional levels through gained experience, more actions are unlocked.
The first action unlocked after reaching Level 2 is Dig, where your dog can expend some energy in hopes of finding treats or an item (sometimes they find nothing!). Once Energy is expended, users must wait for their pet to regenerate at a rate of 2 Energy per minute or feed the dog Treats to regain Energy.
This cooldown mechanic creates an addictive gameplay loop that will keep users coming back to interact with their pet and continuously searching for rare items.
Source: Duro Dogs
Various items can be found such as treats or equip-able gear for your dog. Any items found are also on-chain NFTs owned by the player. Of course, for impatient users, an in-game shop exists where treats, items and more can be purchased with BSV. Once a marketplace is available (soon) items as well as dogs can be listed for trading and be sent to other HandCash users.
I wrote about how this type of application could be huge for BSV back in September and after playing I still believe so. The game is slick, snappy, and fun.
Users being able to start and play for free is key, and the potential to earn via a marketplace should attract outsiders. Given the current NFT craze, NFTs with actual utility should extract some value from the dubious art NFTs that have taken the digital currency space by storm in 2021. As more applications that implement NFTs that can actually do something, (MetaBot, Cryptofights) as well as have art associated, value will necessarily migrate where it has flowed thus far.
That stated, Unbounded Enterprise must manage the game well such that the secondary market maintains value, or the game could collapse. In the age of ‘free tendies’ there must be an arbitrage opportunity for some players to chase to keep the game and market stable.
Lastly, such an application will demonstrate the scalability of the BSV blockchain. A reason exists why games like this struggle to get off the ground on other chains—because minting, interacting, and trading digital assets have such high fees. My Duro Dog was minted for only 530 satoshis, less than 1/10 of a penny at current BSV prices. The flexible UTXO model will allow users to hold as many digital assets as they like, without congesting the network. The question is not can Duro Dogs scale, but can they attract outside users to BSV?
Get your HandCash wallet today and start playing Duro Dogs.
Watch: CoinGeek New York presentation, Online Games: Next Level on the BSV Blockchain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV2m4-i8AkU
Source Joshua Henslee https://coingeek.com/slick-snappy-and-fun-duro-dogs-nft-pet-game-officially-drops-on-bsv-network/
Craig Wright aka Satoshi Nakamoto WIN
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
All that's needed now is proof lol
Never going to happen 😴
The evidence in this case was tried in: The case is Kleiman v. Wright, case number 9:18-cv-80176, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1443808
https://www.law360.com/dockets/619baabc4a31420129e7ea64For the rest of your suggestions it would be best to contact Satoshi Nakamoto (Craig Wright) directlyl or meet him in a court of law
That's just reality and you know it
Oh I didn't realize right away that you are the clown troll on duty 🤡
Stay in your false reality and your BTC PONZI scheme world, the one that is not the same as the decision of the judge and jury in this trial.
BSV is Bitcoin and you know it. End of discussion.
Craig Wright aka Satoshi Nakamoto WIN
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
All that's needed now is proof lol
Never going to happen 😴
The evidence in this case was tried in: The case is Kleiman v. Wright, case number 9:18-cv-80176, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1443808
https://www.law360.com/dockets/619baabc4a31420129e7ea64For the rest of your suggestions it would be best to contact Satoshi Nakamoto (Craig Wright) directlyl or meet him in a court of law
Craig Wright aka Satoshi Nakamoto WIN
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
Quote
mandeep. (@6849) @MandeepTheMC
TRACK 3 from THE BITCOIN EP - AVAILABLE NOW.
Featuring @iamZatoshi on 🎹 🎹 🎹 over UK garage.
TRADER JOE. A TALE OF TWO MEN.
Available here: http://relayx.com/1mandeep. 210 mint.
Own 5 out of 7 tracks to receive the vinyl + revenue share. Do. Not. Sleep.
👇 MUSIC VIDEO 👇
https://twitter.com/i/status/1466103583389237261
Source: https://twitter.com/MandeepTheMC/status/1466103583389237261
TRACK 3 from THE BITCOIN EP - AVAILABLE NOW.
Featuring @iamZatoshi on 🎹 🎹 🎹 over UK garage.
TRADER JOE. A TALE OF TWO MEN.
Available here: http://relayx.com/1mandeep. 210 mint.
Own 5 out of 7 tracks to receive the vinyl + revenue share. Do. Not. Sleep.
👇 MUSIC VIDEO 👇
https://twitter.com/i/status/1466103583389237261
Source: https://twitter.com/MandeepTheMC/status/1466103583389237261
🎶 A very good raw sound in your ears! You like NFT sound on BSV? Read more & follow https://coingeek.com/deep-a-lifetime-revenue-share-and-utility-token-by-mandeep/
And so the fate of all humanity is in the hands of 10 people 🍿
Copy pastetards
Son, if we weren't here you'd be bored BitCoin is better than this BTC ticker dupe.
Quote
Craig tried to explain scalability to #BTC Devs in 2015 before being doxxed. Said take risks bc he already modeled the network.
*Anyone fancy the Poker program from Craig’s Research and Development of #Bitcoin v.0.0.9?
#SatoshiNakamoto #BSV
*Anyone fancy the Poker program from Craig’s Research and Development of #Bitcoin v.0.0.9?
#SatoshiNakamoto #BSV
Yes. Bitcoin R&D v0.0.9Quote
Craig Wright, Satoshi Nakamoto and why people ridicule the greats in their lifetimes
This is a republishing from George Siosi Samuels’ Medium post, “Craig Wright, Satoshi Nakamoto & Why People Ridicule The Greats In Their Lifetimes.” Read the full piece here.
A look into the Kleiman v Wright trial and what this may mean for the legacy of Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.
There’s a major trial happening in courts right now that most people aren’t even aware of—but may have huge ramifications.
It’s between Dr. Craig S. Wright and the estate of David Kleiman (a friend of Craig’s who died tragically many years ago). His estranged brother, Ira Kleiman, is now trying to claim half of what he thinks the Kleiman ‘estate’ deserves.
The interesting thing about this trial is that it involves one of the largest potential settlements in U.S. court history—to the tune of $68 billion+ (maybe more).
Why so much—$68 billion? How?
It is assumed that Craig is one-half of the “team” behind Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the real Bitcoin. And that David was the other. His combined fortune comes from BTC, BCH, and potentially BSV holdings.
The reason this all matters is because by Craig sharing evidence with the courts about his involvement in the creation of Bitcoin—even if that includes some contributions from David Kleiman—it’s enough to set a legal precedent on various other aspects of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem.
Coinbase itself revealed that the biggest threat to its business model is the reveal of who’s behind Satoshi Nakamoto—even if that information was hidden in plain sight the whole time. It’s just whether or not people choose to believe it.
Craig has been mocked and ridiculed ever since coming out onto the public stage around 2015. Some could argue this was his own doing, but once you learn more of the details, you’ll discover why it all ended up the way it did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxMU4C6bGKw
But you know who else has been laughed at or ridiculed by “experts” or “authorities” during their lifetimes? Jesus, Joan of Arc, Galileo, Charles Darwin, Nikola Tesla, Alan Turing, and more.
It wasn’t until much later did these people get the recognition they deserved.
Mastercard & commandeering a brand
Right now, everyone supporting Bitcoin (BTC) has no idea that most of the companies that have commandeered the brand are owned mostly by Mastercard (look up “Digital Currency Group”).
Digital Currency Group
This is why the push for “digital gold”, while users experience high transaction fees and congestion. BTC’s “lack of innovation” is what spurred all other digital currencies and blockchains to emerge. BTC is no longer an everyman’s game. It’s a rich man’s one.
By taking the Bitcoin brand but crippling the actual system, BTC has placed self-imposed limits to implement other systems to take profits without you knowing. Much like putting in a toll or redirecting water through a dam. It’s all out in the open. It’s just that no one understands any of it, which makes it easier to continue on with it.
Bitcoin was meant to be more than just digital gold. Micropayments is the real killer feature, but this can’t run if it costs you $20-$200 to send $5 (a scaling problem even Ethereum is currently experiencing).
Micropayments, Layer 2 solutions & Ayn Rand
Under the current “leaders” of the BTC space, you will never see a system of micropayments manifest on-chain in the way it was designed. There will be a push for “Layer 2” solutions, etc. But this is why Craig is going through the courts to (hopefully) steer his legacy back on the right path. Because if he is the creator, he has every right to.
A rather interesting video to watch is from the film adaptation of the novel Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. It might give you some insight into what Craig is experiencing in real life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX4MKIDvXLM
I strongly believe that Craig is someone to watch, even if his personality ruffles a few feathers. He’s not great with people (thanks to his Aspergers and Metal Dog Chinese zodiac), which is why the Satoshi monicker and mythology became bigger than he ever could alone. Still, his creation is (and will) benefit many for generations to come. His life story is stranger than fiction but, then again, sometimes the truth is like that.
Read the full piece on George Siosi Samuels’ Medium.Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
This article was lightly edited for clarity purposes.
https://georgesiosi.medium.com/craig-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-why-people-ridicule-the-greats-in-their-lifetimes-1f4d377aaee1
Quote
Bitcoin and disruptive innovation
Have a look at any recent list of ideas for exciting technological innovations and blockchain will be at the forefront. There are no shortages of proposed blockchain applications, promising the disruption of everything from simple bookkeeping up to the entire global financial system.
“What an exciting time! IBM, JP Morgan, and Facebook are considering blockchain-based products…”
So now, 13 years since the Satoshi’s white paper, where is the disruptive innovation? What has been displaced? Standing out amidst the myriad failed applications and missed opportunities is the harsh reality that most digital currency fans post more tweets than transactions.
Innovation is not invention. Innovation is a process of turning opportunities into ideas and then turning these ideas into commercial practice. Innovation is driven by the ability to spot opportunities and take advantage of them. One way of innovating is by finding new ways of serving established markets (sustaining innovations). While finding new operational efficiencies and/or improving products is an essential pathway towards profitable innovation, it is not what has been promised by Bitcoin heads: disruptive innovation.
Disruptive innovation is characterized by the transformation of historically expensive and complicated products possessed only by the lucky or wealthy few into products accessible to far wider markets. Consider the transition from the mainframe computer to the PC, film to digital cameras, and video rental shops to online streaming. Each of these disruptive innovations started by offering a product to a small, niche market (ex. Netflix provided services to movie buffs that didn’t necessarily care about getting the new releases immediately) and was able to grow their market share from this less-demanding space on-up, pushing incumbents up and out along the way. Clayton Christensen, the brilliant mind credited with defining the term “disruptive innovation”, had a go-to example utilizing the steel industry, explaining how mini mills disrupted from rebar on up.
There is no shortage of analyses that can be done to describe the specific characteristics of disruptive innovations (Radical/Incremental, Similar/Heterogenous, Relative Advantage, Compatibility, etc.). Still, there are a few that stand out immediately when comparing the possibility of meaningful disruptive innovation using Bitcoin (BSV) versus “crypto.” This time let’s focus on “Bitcoin” Core (BTC).
Consider the trialability of a simple token transfer. Some of the early Bitcoin users reading this will remember the excitement and ease of sending small amounts of Bitcoin to friends and family to demonstrate the power of the technology. The experimentation on a trial basis was near-frictionless, and the degree of possible innovation was immediately observable. This experience has improved continuously on Bitcoin (e.g. sending a penny of value while using Paymail.)
Today, the trial experience of most uses of BTC Core-based innovations involves a referral link to sign up on an exchange, proceeding through the A/O process (including KYC), to fund the account with fiat, and lastly to buy BTC (to only then ‘hodl’ for appreciation). While the exchange is somewhat of an innovation as it is a commercial practice, I think we can agree it is unexciting and far from disruptive. Further, this is not to describe a use of Bitcoin, but instead, a workaround that aims to achieve a hamstrung use case of Bitcoin and, worse, only by use of a third party. Someone looking to try BTC Core may not even be able to. Why is that?
As of November 25, 2021, the day’s average BTC transaction fee was over $2. This reduces much of the trialability of BTC in the wider, less-demanding market. It cuts off the possibility for the small casual transactions referenced in the very introduction of Satoshi’s white paper. Even more outrageous is that BTC has a minimum transaction size of 0.00000546 BTC (which amounts ~$0.22 at time of writing), which voluntarily removes itself from consideration from a few vectors of possible disruptive innovation (anything dealing with microtransactions, for one). The counterarguments can be given that second-layer solutions will soon™ provide an alternative solution, or that the user can use the testnet, but this is not using Bitcoin and only adds complexity while reducing trialability, observability, and the perception of the relative advantage.
The relative advantage is always moving. Although BTC Core has the market interest from fancy lights and the ‘get rich quick’ crowd, it is a platform built to speculate on speculation, which only survives when the token price appreciates. This is not a platform with solid fundamentals to innovate with. Almost a world away in comparison, Bitcoin, just by virtue of the unchanging protocol, massive scale, and the tools available in Script, is a stable, powerful platform for innovation.
I will clarify further that a market disruptor is not necessarily a disruptive innovation. McDonald’s and Days Inn did a tremendous job capturing the lower-cost markets, but their models did not have the upward ladder to continue to push out the competition. They are incredibly successful businesses but not technically disruptive innovations. If you are considering the many ways that BSV can be utilized for disruption, whether in Product, Process, Position, or Paradigm, perhaps keep this vector of scalability in mind; and maybe not worry about ‘number go up’ quite as much.
Learn more about Bitcoin investments with this new ebook, Investing in Blockchain: Better data for a better world
Source, thanks to Timothy Merkle https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-and-disruptive-innovation/
Quote
Bitcoin—the jury is still out
The biggest civil court case in recent history is winding down. Both sides of the Kleiman v Wright trial have made their case, and the jury is now out on deliberation. I figure this may be the last time I can write something without it being a retrospective “in hindsight” viewpoint. So I will take that liberty and give an opinion while I can still say that an official court ruling unsullies my viewpoint.
And what a case this has been. More than that, the drama and differences in the internet and mainstream and digital media responses have been nothing short of remarkable. Remarkable in the sense that it is objectively apparent that the age of disinformation is truly upon us. Journalism is essentially dead, and in the plethora and chaos of information available to us, the power falls into the hands of those who control the platforms and portals through which we get that information (Twitter, Facebook, and the usual villains). Future generations will refer to the saga of Dr. Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto, as the epitome of tragedies of the chaotic information age, hopefully, the last one.
In the future, pulling off such a widespread media disinformation campaign will become difficult, given that data will be more and more traceable thanks to BSV and the Metanet. But today, never before has there been such illogical public outcry against someone who simply refuses to give the public what they want, which is instant answers (that they don’t deserve).
Those who are not convinced that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, given the evidence revealed in this trial, will never be convinced because their salary/livelihood/reputation depends on them not believing. Essentially, because some people were born into an age where the internet allowed you to say whatever you felt like, without any consideration for public norms of decorum, common decency, or any mutual respect for fellow members of the human race. They have taken their high school locker room antics a tad too far and have now firmly put themselves between a rock and a hard place after screaming foolish slander from the tops of the mountains of the digital frontier. They have a tough choice—that is, either throwing away all logic and common sense and continuing to play the ignoramus fool, or doing something unthinkable for the millennium generation: admitting that they were wrong online. Many, it seems, predictably have decided to stick to their guns until the music stops. (Or at least until they can find other gullible people to ‘unload their bags onto’, then fade quietly from the public eye).
I have made a video stating all the technical reasons as to why I believed that Craig is Satoshi in the past, but the court case has revealed more non-technical evidence to support the claim. To me, this stuff wasn’t needed, as I don’t need to see a calculus’s professors credentials to know that they have a mastery of calculus. All you need to do is attend their class (and be well-versed in mathematics to follow the material).
However, to summarize the corroborated evidence supporting Craig as Satoshi claim:
■ His ex-wife was the primary Wright behind the business partnership W&K (with Dave), and that their relationship ultimately fell apart due to his unwavering work on the Bitcoin project.
■ His uncle, a decorated war veteran, spoke often times in the past about cryptography and computer science topics, illustrating his history with cybersecurity and computers, and recalls them talking about an invention that may be the prototype of Bitcoin, the Lasseters coin system.(Lasseters is a large casino and gaming conglomerate) in 2005. (This alone puts him above and beyond Nick Szabo1, Adam Back2 and the other “experts” who have tried to claim the Satoshi moniker. He also went into the background of Craig’s fascination with all things Japanese.
■ His history in the gaming industry, explaining why a version of online poker was included in the original version of the Bitcoin code release, also relating back to the Lasseters coin.
■ The fact that forged documents, allegedly implying partnership between Dave and Craig, were revealed to be more likely forged by someone else, someone close to him, and planted.
■ Likely culprits who would have incentive to help Ira in an elaborate extortion plot, Jamie Wilson, and Patrick Paige, have been revealed. Both had an association with Dave and Craig, and whose stories seem suspicious at best and require scrutiny.
■ Forged emails dating back to 2008 between Craig and Dave were using a domain rcjbr.org that didn’t exist in 2008—and the forgers didn’t know that. Importantly some of the forged documents were sent from an ISP in a suburb of Brisbane (the location of Craig’s company), but at the time Craig was known to be 570km away, at the site of his ranch where Bitcoins were being mined.
■ Phil Wilson, another claimant to the moniker Satoshi Nakamoto, showed “evidence” (not court submitted, just unsubstantiated unverified documents) that the domain was created between him and Craig. Phil claims that he was the mastermind behind Bitcoin, and Craig just helped him. Unfortunately for Phil, it came out in the trial that the name of that domain are the initials of Craig and Ramona and family members. And Craig hadn’t met Ramona until 2010, showing that the forger of the documents in all likelihood wasn’t Craig, but someone or some people who wanted to implicate Craig later on in 2013 during the height of his legal issues with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Perhaps to trump up evidence in order to substantiate a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit?
■ The ATO case, which Craig won in a settlement, showed that ATO had corrupt officers who made false records and leaked information to “shake down” their quarries. Some key evidence of the plaintiff’s case turned out to be unverified documents that the ATO later denied as unofficial.
With all the character witnesses testimonies, and the countless writings of Craig himself which exhibits intimate knowledge of Bitcoin, it is completely ridiculous that there are still online personalities who will continue to contrive and conjure up fantastic reasons why he cannot be Satoshi. The most recent claims now that Phil Wilson must be Satoshi because his story seems to “fit the pieces and fill in the missing holes” is the most moronic of all. (And I don’t usually use that term, but in this case, there is nothing that describes it sufficiently other than moronic). That some people will be more apt to trust a completely unverified story from what likely is a no one other than a rather insignificant ex-employee of Craig illustrates the cancer that the internet is suffering from today. And that some people are more willing to believe a good story than logic if it goes against their existing beliefs.
What happened to critical thinking? Do they not teach that anymore in schools? Has our society degraded so far in just one generation? They would rather trust a message that comes from someone that they don’t know, who uses the excuse of wanting to remain private and low-key as an excuse for not providing any additional information. The irony is that Craig also wanted to stay private but was not given the choice. In the end, it just boils down to people only listening to voices that they like, and not to the voice who is making the most sense, or even the person who has the most believable story, simply because it is a story that they don’t like, or wish to identify with.
It seems that the internet has divided people into cults of belief, not unlike religious cults in the real world. BTC has become the Scientology of the new world, and you have less of a chance of convincing a Scientologist that L.Ron Hubbard was just a sci-fi writer (and a bad one at that!), than convincing them that the most likely guy to be Satoshi, is the guy who has been working on Bitcoin since 2003, and still is to this day. To them, that would be sacrilege, as they have already created the god of their religion, built the altar, erected a statue, and they cannot accept a living person standing to disprove their belief system3.
All hail Satoshi Nakamoto, our lord and savior from evil governments, the oppression of laws, society, and common human decency.
Without a living inventor, they can always just point to the price appreciation to show that they are right and continue to recruit more unsuspecting converts. Why? Leaderless movements have a way of turning into religions. It is the same reason that cults exist… because those who make it their livelihood to perpetuate it, depend on them NOT believing otherwise. And while the jury is still out on the Kleiman v. Wright case, it is also still out on BTC and whether or not it is worth anything more than the Ponzi scheme cult that it has become. In its meteoric rise in a misguided attempt at taking down the banks as they were the ultimate middleman, the shadowy secret leaders of the BTC movement have become precisely those middlemen that they profess to despise.
/Jerry Chan
***
Notes:
[1] While never outright saying that he was Satoshi, Nick Szabo never denied it strongly, rather allowing the public to “come to their own conclusions.” He later capitalized on this reputation as one of the Satoshi potentials when he supported the Ethereum project.
[2] Adam never actually said he was Satoshi, but he all too often points out that Bitcoin was based on his hashcash project, going as far as to say that “Bitcoin is just hashcash with inflation control.”
Clearly he missed the whole part about the transaction structure of Bitcoin, Bitcoin script, contracting, and, well, everything else outside of the SHA256 mining function. He has over the years, enjoyed and stoked his fans’ belief that he is the secret creator of Bitcoin, capitalizing on this reputation to land him his present position as an executive of Blockstream, a company that develops and builds solutions to the self-inflicted scaling problems of the BTC network.
[3] That has made its leaders unbelievably rich. Well, paper gains anyway. They can only cash OUT, when you dear reader, cash IN.
source Jerry Chan https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-the-jury-is-still-out/
The biggest civil court case in recent history is winding down. Both sides of the Kleiman v Wright trial have made their case, and the jury is now out on deliberation. I figure this may be the last time I can write something without it being a retrospective “in hindsight” viewpoint. So I will take that liberty and give an opinion while I can still say that an official court ruling unsullies my viewpoint.
And what a case this has been. More than that, the drama and differences in the internet and mainstream and digital media responses have been nothing short of remarkable. Remarkable in the sense that it is objectively apparent that the age of disinformation is truly upon us. Journalism is essentially dead, and in the plethora and chaos of information available to us, the power falls into the hands of those who control the platforms and portals through which we get that information (Twitter, Facebook, and the usual villains). Future generations will refer to the saga of Dr. Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto, as the epitome of tragedies of the chaotic information age, hopefully, the last one.
In the future, pulling off such a widespread media disinformation campaign will become difficult, given that data will be more and more traceable thanks to BSV and the Metanet. But today, never before has there been such illogical public outcry against someone who simply refuses to give the public what they want, which is instant answers (that they don’t deserve).
Those who are not convinced that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, given the evidence revealed in this trial, will never be convinced because their salary/livelihood/reputation depends on them not believing. Essentially, because some people were born into an age where the internet allowed you to say whatever you felt like, without any consideration for public norms of decorum, common decency, or any mutual respect for fellow members of the human race. They have taken their high school locker room antics a tad too far and have now firmly put themselves between a rock and a hard place after screaming foolish slander from the tops of the mountains of the digital frontier. They have a tough choice—that is, either throwing away all logic and common sense and continuing to play the ignoramus fool, or doing something unthinkable for the millennium generation: admitting that they were wrong online. Many, it seems, predictably have decided to stick to their guns until the music stops. (Or at least until they can find other gullible people to ‘unload their bags onto’, then fade quietly from the public eye).
I have made a video stating all the technical reasons as to why I believed that Craig is Satoshi in the past, but the court case has revealed more non-technical evidence to support the claim. To me, this stuff wasn’t needed, as I don’t need to see a calculus’s professors credentials to know that they have a mastery of calculus. All you need to do is attend their class (and be well-versed in mathematics to follow the material).
However, to summarize the corroborated evidence supporting Craig as Satoshi claim:
■ His ex-wife was the primary Wright behind the business partnership W&K (with Dave), and that their relationship ultimately fell apart due to his unwavering work on the Bitcoin project.
■ His uncle, a decorated war veteran, spoke often times in the past about cryptography and computer science topics, illustrating his history with cybersecurity and computers, and recalls them talking about an invention that may be the prototype of Bitcoin, the Lasseters coin system.(Lasseters is a large casino and gaming conglomerate) in 2005. (This alone puts him above and beyond Nick Szabo1, Adam Back2 and the other “experts” who have tried to claim the Satoshi moniker. He also went into the background of Craig’s fascination with all things Japanese.
■ His history in the gaming industry, explaining why a version of online poker was included in the original version of the Bitcoin code release, also relating back to the Lasseters coin.
■ The fact that forged documents, allegedly implying partnership between Dave and Craig, were revealed to be more likely forged by someone else, someone close to him, and planted.
■ Likely culprits who would have incentive to help Ira in an elaborate extortion plot, Jamie Wilson, and Patrick Paige, have been revealed. Both had an association with Dave and Craig, and whose stories seem suspicious at best and require scrutiny.
■ Forged emails dating back to 2008 between Craig and Dave were using a domain rcjbr.org that didn’t exist in 2008—and the forgers didn’t know that. Importantly some of the forged documents were sent from an ISP in a suburb of Brisbane (the location of Craig’s company), but at the time Craig was known to be 570km away, at the site of his ranch where Bitcoins were being mined.
■ Phil Wilson, another claimant to the moniker Satoshi Nakamoto, showed “evidence” (not court submitted, just unsubstantiated unverified documents) that the domain was created between him and Craig. Phil claims that he was the mastermind behind Bitcoin, and Craig just helped him. Unfortunately for Phil, it came out in the trial that the name of that domain are the initials of Craig and Ramona and family members. And Craig hadn’t met Ramona until 2010, showing that the forger of the documents in all likelihood wasn’t Craig, but someone or some people who wanted to implicate Craig later on in 2013 during the height of his legal issues with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Perhaps to trump up evidence in order to substantiate a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit?
■ The ATO case, which Craig won in a settlement, showed that ATO had corrupt officers who made false records and leaked information to “shake down” their quarries. Some key evidence of the plaintiff’s case turned out to be unverified documents that the ATO later denied as unofficial.
With all the character witnesses testimonies, and the countless writings of Craig himself which exhibits intimate knowledge of Bitcoin, it is completely ridiculous that there are still online personalities who will continue to contrive and conjure up fantastic reasons why he cannot be Satoshi. The most recent claims now that Phil Wilson must be Satoshi because his story seems to “fit the pieces and fill in the missing holes” is the most moronic of all. (And I don’t usually use that term, but in this case, there is nothing that describes it sufficiently other than moronic). That some people will be more apt to trust a completely unverified story from what likely is a no one other than a rather insignificant ex-employee of Craig illustrates the cancer that the internet is suffering from today. And that some people are more willing to believe a good story than logic if it goes against their existing beliefs.
What happened to critical thinking? Do they not teach that anymore in schools? Has our society degraded so far in just one generation? They would rather trust a message that comes from someone that they don’t know, who uses the excuse of wanting to remain private and low-key as an excuse for not providing any additional information. The irony is that Craig also wanted to stay private but was not given the choice. In the end, it just boils down to people only listening to voices that they like, and not to the voice who is making the most sense, or even the person who has the most believable story, simply because it is a story that they don’t like, or wish to identify with.
It seems that the internet has divided people into cults of belief, not unlike religious cults in the real world. BTC has become the Scientology of the new world, and you have less of a chance of convincing a Scientologist that L.Ron Hubbard was just a sci-fi writer (and a bad one at that!), than convincing them that the most likely guy to be Satoshi, is the guy who has been working on Bitcoin since 2003, and still is to this day. To them, that would be sacrilege, as they have already created the god of their religion, built the altar, erected a statue, and they cannot accept a living person standing to disprove their belief system3.
All hail Satoshi Nakamoto, our lord and savior from evil governments, the oppression of laws, society, and common human decency.
Without a living inventor, they can always just point to the price appreciation to show that they are right and continue to recruit more unsuspecting converts. Why? Leaderless movements have a way of turning into religions. It is the same reason that cults exist… because those who make it their livelihood to perpetuate it, depend on them NOT believing otherwise. And while the jury is still out on the Kleiman v. Wright case, it is also still out on BTC and whether or not it is worth anything more than the Ponzi scheme cult that it has become. In its meteoric rise in a misguided attempt at taking down the banks as they were the ultimate middleman, the shadowy secret leaders of the BTC movement have become precisely those middlemen that they profess to despise.
/Jerry Chan
***
Notes:
[1] While never outright saying that he was Satoshi, Nick Szabo never denied it strongly, rather allowing the public to “come to their own conclusions.” He later capitalized on this reputation as one of the Satoshi potentials when he supported the Ethereum project.
[2] Adam never actually said he was Satoshi, but he all too often points out that Bitcoin was based on his hashcash project, going as far as to say that “Bitcoin is just hashcash with inflation control.”
Clearly he missed the whole part about the transaction structure of Bitcoin, Bitcoin script, contracting, and, well, everything else outside of the SHA256 mining function. He has over the years, enjoyed and stoked his fans’ belief that he is the secret creator of Bitcoin, capitalizing on this reputation to land him his present position as an executive of Blockstream, a company that develops and builds solutions to the self-inflicted scaling problems of the BTC network.
[3] That has made its leaders unbelievably rich. Well, paper gains anyway. They can only cash OUT, when you dear reader, cash IN.
source Jerry Chan https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-the-jury-is-still-out/
Um at it's inception ZEUBI ZEUBII ZEUUBIII
Quote
There is a fundamental problem with your BTC Ponzi shema, it is Tether USDT and other backed coins on thin air that allows even more BTC ETH to be bought from deluded people and institutions and as a result artificially drives up the prices of the entire crypro sphere, so money is created out of thin air and then slips out the door or into the stock market
You know this, it is no secret, unfortunately you seem to continue to be dishonest, even to yourself and the readers, participants.
You know this, it is no secret, unfortunately you seem to continue to be dishonest, even to yourself and the readers, participants.
Check. Bitcoin is a protocol, not a tickers. BTC is not BSV. BTC is not Bitcoin protocol. BSV is Bitcoin protocol.
It seems that the facts are bothering you.
This is what BTC trolls do... Childish behaviour.
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
Jump to: