Topic: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision - page 13. (Read 226361 times)
Quote
Kleiman vs Wright Trial in Florida: Did Ira Kleiman just get caught in a lie? - CoinGeek
https://coingeek.com/kleiman-vs-wright-trial-in-florida-did-ira-kleiman-just-get-caught-in-a-lie/
https://coingeek.com/kleiman-vs-wright-trial-in-florida-did-ira-kleiman-just-get-caught-in-a-lie/
Quote
How I know Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto: Connor Murray
In the past few weeks, several high-profile names within the BSV ecosystem have released YouTube videos explaining how they know or why they believe Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
This trend was kicked off by Ryan X. Charles, who interviewed Dr. Wright for over 50 hours on every technical element of Bitcoin. And this week, Connor Murray, founder and CEO of Britevue, gave his views on how he came to believe Dr. Wright’s claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto.
How identity is established
"Identity is something that is earned over time – Dr. Craig Wright"
Before diving into the finer points of Murray’s informative video, it’s essential to understand its central thesis and a more philosophical point in general.
Murray points out that identity is not established by a single event such as signing with Satoshi Nakamoto’s keys but is built over time with evidence, slowly establishing the person’s credibility and making it more likely to be who they say they are.
Murray uses the example of a driving license. He says that the driving license does not necessarily prove the person in possession of it is the person printed on it. For example, the person could have a fake ID card. Rather, the driving license is an attestation, and the person can use it to claim they are someone. However, establishing identity requires much more than a simple attestation. It requires verifiable evidence over time to prove that the attestation is true.
What evidence does Dr. Wright have that Conor Murray finds convincing?
Murray starts with a story about the animated TV series Southpark. He recalls how Southpark’s creators initially recorded a short animated film called “The Spirit of Christmas” and sent it out to various people like George Clooney. However, they didn’t put their name on it, and soon enough, others tried to claim credit for their work.
To prevent others from stealing their work, they presented evidence that they were, in fact, the creators of The Spirit of Christmas. They had cutouts, machines that could produce the shots, etc. In short, they had more information about the creation of The Spirit of Christmas than anyone else.
This example serves to illustrate Murray’s larger point; identity is not simply bestowed by a government, an authority, or by possession of any one item. It is earned over time with verifiable evidence.
Let’s now look closer at what evidence Murray has seen to convince him that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Explaining Bitcoin
Giving the example of an academic with a new theory explaining their work, Murray delves into how Dr. Wright has explained several “mysterious” things about Bitcoin.
For example, Dr. Wright has been able to give explanations for:
■ Bitcoin script and what it can be used for.
■ Why there was a poker game in the initial Bitcoin code.
■ Why there was a marketplace in the first version of the software.
■ The mystery of the double hash.
■ How Bitcoin could scale as Satoshi Nakamoto claimed.
■ Taking these one by one, Murray lists the explanations Dr. Wright has given.
1. Bitcoin Script – Dr. Wright explained to the world how Bitcoin script is Turing Complete. While the world initially dismissed this claim, Murray himself has since verified it by running a Turing complete application on Bitcoin.
2. The Poker Client – Dr. Wright has consistently mentioned that there was a poker client in the initial Bitcoin code. While anyone could have looked back and discovered this, it so happens that Dr. Wright worked in the iGaming industry. This is corroborated by Steffan Matthews, who adamantly claims that he spoke with Dr. Wright about Bitcoin before it was released.
3. The Marketplace – Once again, critics could point out that anyone could look to the initial Bitcoin code and discover that there was a marketplace. However, Dr. Wright consistently brings it up and points it out. While this does not directly establish his claim to be Satoshi, we can deduce from it that Bitcoin was intended to be peer-to-peer electronic cash for use in commerce.
4. The Double Hash – Dr. Wright is the only person who has ever explained the double hash. He wrote a Medium article on it. This is highly technical information that only someone with a deep understanding of Bitcoin could comprehend. Dr. Wright even points out his consideration of the security risks of using the double hash versus the benefits of using it. We would expect the mind that created Bitcoin to have considered this.
5. Bitcoin Scaling – Dr. Wright has always maintained that Bitcoin scales well beyond Visa and to a global scale. This lines up with what Satoshi Nakamoto said. Dr. Wright has since proven his critics wrong by proving Bitcoin does scale. The BSV blockchain scales to 50,000 transactions per second today.
An obscure book that leads to Bitcoin
We would expect the creator of Bitcoin to have done extensive research while working on it. In all likelihood, they would be able to cite some of the books and papers they read while figuring various things out. Murray explains that Dr. Wright has referenced two obscure books that hint at the research Dr. Wright was doing when developing Bitcoin.
One of these is “Policing Online Games,” a 2006 book by Peter Wayner that barely sold any copies. It describes how to create digital cash for use in gaming using digital signatures. Dr. Wright was the first to draw attention to this book, giving it credit for the ideas he pulled from it to create Bitcoin.
How did he know about such a niche book that nobody had ever heard of? The most likely explanation is that he has done extensive research on creating digital cash himself.
Describing Bitcoin’s network topology
Dr. Wright is the first person to describe Bitcoin as a small-world network. To help people understand this, he has recommended that people read a 2007 book called “Complex Social Networks.”
This is, yet again, another obscure book that hints at a crucial piece of how Bitcoin functions. It’s not a well-known, mainstream book, yet Dr. Wright references it to explain Bitcoin.
Using the example of a calculus teacher, Murray explains how Dr. Wright is explaining high-level concepts in Bitcoin that few comprehend at all. Just as we’d be more likely to believe someone’s claims of being a calculus teacher if they could explain high-level calculus, so we should be more likely to believe Dr. Wright’s claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto if he can explain high-level concepts related to Bitcoin.
Dr. Wright’s astonishing number of patents
As the next piece of evidence, which should go some way to earning Dr. Wright’s identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, Murray references the sheer number of patents he has. Recently, in court, Dr. Wright claimed to have 3208 patents.
“We would expect the creator of Bitcoin to be one of the most innovative in the space…” Murray says in the video.
Aside from Murray’s point, one might wonder why a mind capable of creating thousands of patents would resort to false claims, and why he would spend hundreds of millions of dollars filing for patents unless he expected to be around for a very long time and have an influential place in the future of blockchain.
Identity and attestation
Getting further into how identity is established, Murray points out that when a government issues an ID card, they are not directly bestowing identity but rather are issuing an attestation of identity based on evidence they have received from the person claiming it. Attestations from credible authorities are important in the process of identifying someone.
Does Craig Wright have attestations from credible sources claiming that he is Satoshi Nakamoto? As it so happens, he does, and nobody else does.
Here’s a quick list of the people who have attested to the fact that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto:
■ Gavin Andresen – Andresen was Satoshi Nakamoto’s right-hand man. Satoshi handed Bitcoin over to him, and he had the most interaction with Satoshi. Andresen has said publicly on the BBC that Dr. Wright signed early blocks of his choosing with Satoshi’s private keys and that his personality lines up with the person he communicated with.
■ Ian Grigg – A highly credible financial cryptographer, and the inventor of the Ricardian contract, Ian Grigg has also attested that Dr. Wright is the creator of Bitcoin. He bases this on his own research and explains the full story of how he knows Dr. Wright is Satoshi in an interview with CoinGeek.
Jon Matonis – Matonis has held senior positions at Visa, Versign, and other large firms and is the founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation. He has also attested that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto as he saw a private key signing.
■ Joseph Vaughn Perling – Better known to some as New Liberty on Bitcoin forums, Vaughn Perling had direct communication with Satoshi Nakamoto. He has not only provided his own attestation but claims that he met Dr. Wright in 2005 and that he told him about Bitcoin.
■ Clemens Ley – A PhD-level mathematician who independently discovered that Bitcoin is Turing complete, Ley found out that Dr. Wright was the only other person claiming this. He subsequently met Dr. Wright and attested that he was the creator.
■ Wright Family – Dr. Wright’s wife Ramona Watts, as well as his ex-wife Lynn Wright, have attested that he is Bitcoin’s inventor. His uncle, Donald Lynam, had also claimed that he saw an early copy of the Bitcoin white paper before it was released and discussed the system with his nephew.
■ David Kleiman – There are also emails between Dr. Wright and the late Dave Kleiman in which he asks for Kleiman’s assistance in editing the Bitcoin white paper.
Key point: Remember that the key signings themselves are not conclusive proof in and of themselves. As the Bitcoin white paper makes clear, identity is firewalled from transactions and keys. Taken in conjunction with everything else, they are simply more evidence to add to the growing pile that Dr. Wright is the man behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym.
No exposure by Satoshi himself
Finishing up with his last point, Murray points out that we would expect the real Satoshi Nakamoto to step forward and expose Dr. Wright if he was falsely claiming to be Bitcoin’s inventor.
This is a point that will cause most of Dr. Wright’s critics to diverge into unproven conspiracy theories; that Satoshi is dead or that he has better things to do, yet history has shown us that he will step up when someone is wrongly identified as Nakamoto; he did so when Newsweek wrongly identified Dorian Nakamoto as the inventor.
Yet, when it comes to Dr. Wright, Satoshi is silent.
The evidence is piling up
Sticking with Murray’s central thesis that identity is granted based on evidence over time, it’s clear to any reasonable person that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
The evidence outlined by Murray in this excellent video goes a long way to establishing Dr. Wright’s claim. However, the best is arguably yet to come as the defense takes the stand and presents further evidence in the Kleiman v Wright trial in Florida. Stay tuned for the latest information.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
Source https://coingeek.com/how-i-know-craig-wright-is-satoshi-nakamoto-connor-murray/ thanks to Gavin Lucas
In the past few weeks, several high-profile names within the BSV ecosystem have released YouTube videos explaining how they know or why they believe Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
This trend was kicked off by Ryan X. Charles, who interviewed Dr. Wright for over 50 hours on every technical element of Bitcoin. And this week, Connor Murray, founder and CEO of Britevue, gave his views on how he came to believe Dr. Wright’s claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto.
How identity is established
"Identity is something that is earned over time – Dr. Craig Wright"
Before diving into the finer points of Murray’s informative video, it’s essential to understand its central thesis and a more philosophical point in general.
Murray points out that identity is not established by a single event such as signing with Satoshi Nakamoto’s keys but is built over time with evidence, slowly establishing the person’s credibility and making it more likely to be who they say they are.
Murray uses the example of a driving license. He says that the driving license does not necessarily prove the person in possession of it is the person printed on it. For example, the person could have a fake ID card. Rather, the driving license is an attestation, and the person can use it to claim they are someone. However, establishing identity requires much more than a simple attestation. It requires verifiable evidence over time to prove that the attestation is true.
What evidence does Dr. Wright have that Conor Murray finds convincing?
Murray starts with a story about the animated TV series Southpark. He recalls how Southpark’s creators initially recorded a short animated film called “The Spirit of Christmas” and sent it out to various people like George Clooney. However, they didn’t put their name on it, and soon enough, others tried to claim credit for their work.
To prevent others from stealing their work, they presented evidence that they were, in fact, the creators of The Spirit of Christmas. They had cutouts, machines that could produce the shots, etc. In short, they had more information about the creation of The Spirit of Christmas than anyone else.
This example serves to illustrate Murray’s larger point; identity is not simply bestowed by a government, an authority, or by possession of any one item. It is earned over time with verifiable evidence.
Let’s now look closer at what evidence Murray has seen to convince him that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Explaining Bitcoin
Giving the example of an academic with a new theory explaining their work, Murray delves into how Dr. Wright has explained several “mysterious” things about Bitcoin.
For example, Dr. Wright has been able to give explanations for:
■ Bitcoin script and what it can be used for.
■ Why there was a poker game in the initial Bitcoin code.
■ Why there was a marketplace in the first version of the software.
■ The mystery of the double hash.
■ How Bitcoin could scale as Satoshi Nakamoto claimed.
■ Taking these one by one, Murray lists the explanations Dr. Wright has given.
1. Bitcoin Script – Dr. Wright explained to the world how Bitcoin script is Turing Complete. While the world initially dismissed this claim, Murray himself has since verified it by running a Turing complete application on Bitcoin.
2. The Poker Client – Dr. Wright has consistently mentioned that there was a poker client in the initial Bitcoin code. While anyone could have looked back and discovered this, it so happens that Dr. Wright worked in the iGaming industry. This is corroborated by Steffan Matthews, who adamantly claims that he spoke with Dr. Wright about Bitcoin before it was released.
3. The Marketplace – Once again, critics could point out that anyone could look to the initial Bitcoin code and discover that there was a marketplace. However, Dr. Wright consistently brings it up and points it out. While this does not directly establish his claim to be Satoshi, we can deduce from it that Bitcoin was intended to be peer-to-peer electronic cash for use in commerce.
4. The Double Hash – Dr. Wright is the only person who has ever explained the double hash. He wrote a Medium article on it. This is highly technical information that only someone with a deep understanding of Bitcoin could comprehend. Dr. Wright even points out his consideration of the security risks of using the double hash versus the benefits of using it. We would expect the mind that created Bitcoin to have considered this.
5. Bitcoin Scaling – Dr. Wright has always maintained that Bitcoin scales well beyond Visa and to a global scale. This lines up with what Satoshi Nakamoto said. Dr. Wright has since proven his critics wrong by proving Bitcoin does scale. The BSV blockchain scales to 50,000 transactions per second today.
An obscure book that leads to Bitcoin
We would expect the creator of Bitcoin to have done extensive research while working on it. In all likelihood, they would be able to cite some of the books and papers they read while figuring various things out. Murray explains that Dr. Wright has referenced two obscure books that hint at the research Dr. Wright was doing when developing Bitcoin.
One of these is “Policing Online Games,” a 2006 book by Peter Wayner that barely sold any copies. It describes how to create digital cash for use in gaming using digital signatures. Dr. Wright was the first to draw attention to this book, giving it credit for the ideas he pulled from it to create Bitcoin.
How did he know about such a niche book that nobody had ever heard of? The most likely explanation is that he has done extensive research on creating digital cash himself.
Describing Bitcoin’s network topology
Dr. Wright is the first person to describe Bitcoin as a small-world network. To help people understand this, he has recommended that people read a 2007 book called “Complex Social Networks.”
This is, yet again, another obscure book that hints at a crucial piece of how Bitcoin functions. It’s not a well-known, mainstream book, yet Dr. Wright references it to explain Bitcoin.
Using the example of a calculus teacher, Murray explains how Dr. Wright is explaining high-level concepts in Bitcoin that few comprehend at all. Just as we’d be more likely to believe someone’s claims of being a calculus teacher if they could explain high-level calculus, so we should be more likely to believe Dr. Wright’s claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto if he can explain high-level concepts related to Bitcoin.
Dr. Wright’s astonishing number of patents
As the next piece of evidence, which should go some way to earning Dr. Wright’s identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, Murray references the sheer number of patents he has. Recently, in court, Dr. Wright claimed to have 3208 patents.
“We would expect the creator of Bitcoin to be one of the most innovative in the space…” Murray says in the video.
Aside from Murray’s point, one might wonder why a mind capable of creating thousands of patents would resort to false claims, and why he would spend hundreds of millions of dollars filing for patents unless he expected to be around for a very long time and have an influential place in the future of blockchain.
Identity and attestation
Getting further into how identity is established, Murray points out that when a government issues an ID card, they are not directly bestowing identity but rather are issuing an attestation of identity based on evidence they have received from the person claiming it. Attestations from credible authorities are important in the process of identifying someone.
Does Craig Wright have attestations from credible sources claiming that he is Satoshi Nakamoto? As it so happens, he does, and nobody else does.
Here’s a quick list of the people who have attested to the fact that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto:
■ Gavin Andresen – Andresen was Satoshi Nakamoto’s right-hand man. Satoshi handed Bitcoin over to him, and he had the most interaction with Satoshi. Andresen has said publicly on the BBC that Dr. Wright signed early blocks of his choosing with Satoshi’s private keys and that his personality lines up with the person he communicated with.
■ Ian Grigg – A highly credible financial cryptographer, and the inventor of the Ricardian contract, Ian Grigg has also attested that Dr. Wright is the creator of Bitcoin. He bases this on his own research and explains the full story of how he knows Dr. Wright is Satoshi in an interview with CoinGeek.
Jon Matonis – Matonis has held senior positions at Visa, Versign, and other large firms and is the founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation. He has also attested that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto as he saw a private key signing.
■ Joseph Vaughn Perling – Better known to some as New Liberty on Bitcoin forums, Vaughn Perling had direct communication with Satoshi Nakamoto. He has not only provided his own attestation but claims that he met Dr. Wright in 2005 and that he told him about Bitcoin.
■ Clemens Ley – A PhD-level mathematician who independently discovered that Bitcoin is Turing complete, Ley found out that Dr. Wright was the only other person claiming this. He subsequently met Dr. Wright and attested that he was the creator.
■ Wright Family – Dr. Wright’s wife Ramona Watts, as well as his ex-wife Lynn Wright, have attested that he is Bitcoin’s inventor. His uncle, Donald Lynam, had also claimed that he saw an early copy of the Bitcoin white paper before it was released and discussed the system with his nephew.
■ David Kleiman – There are also emails between Dr. Wright and the late Dave Kleiman in which he asks for Kleiman’s assistance in editing the Bitcoin white paper.
Key point: Remember that the key signings themselves are not conclusive proof in and of themselves. As the Bitcoin white paper makes clear, identity is firewalled from transactions and keys. Taken in conjunction with everything else, they are simply more evidence to add to the growing pile that Dr. Wright is the man behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym.
No exposure by Satoshi himself
Finishing up with his last point, Murray points out that we would expect the real Satoshi Nakamoto to step forward and expose Dr. Wright if he was falsely claiming to be Bitcoin’s inventor.
This is a point that will cause most of Dr. Wright’s critics to diverge into unproven conspiracy theories; that Satoshi is dead or that he has better things to do, yet history has shown us that he will step up when someone is wrongly identified as Nakamoto; he did so when Newsweek wrongly identified Dorian Nakamoto as the inventor.
Yet, when it comes to Dr. Wright, Satoshi is silent.
The evidence is piling up
Sticking with Murray’s central thesis that identity is granted based on evidence over time, it’s clear to any reasonable person that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
The evidence outlined by Murray in this excellent video goes a long way to establishing Dr. Wright’s claim. However, the best is arguably yet to come as the defense takes the stand and presents further evidence in the Kleiman v Wright trial in Florida. Stay tuned for the latest information.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
Source https://coingeek.com/how-i-know-craig-wright-is-satoshi-nakamoto-connor-murray/ thanks to Gavin Lucas
Craig Wright is ~ ~ ~ blablablaaa~ ~ ~
Nice! I suggest that you make your accusations in a court of law instead of hiding in the shadows of your internet connection like no balls.
But why waste time? BSv is like #60 shitcoin by market cap, meaning objectively time is better spent warning noobs about gambling on 55 more relevant shitcoins. On top of that, we all know that those coins are never moving, and i expect Faketoshi has already transferred all of his assets to Ayre. This way he's uncollectable and will just declare bankruptcy so Ira won't be able to get a penny.
Quote
Understand that bitcoin is not a ticker, it is a computer protocol.
You & your troll friends know that but you participate in fooling consumers into believing that BTC is legitimate, but BTC is not BSV, BSV is bitcoin, compare source codes, functions, attributes, white paper.
The white paper governs the bitcoin computer protocol .
No SegWit functions in the white paper, no LN; no replaceByFee, ChildPays4Parent, let alone Taproot, mixer functions, not present in the white paper.
Be brave & honest, be ethical, be humble, if you are really a bitcoin enthusiast, build, share your passion with beginners they deserve to have a compliant, solid, secure, stable & scalable tool such as BSV and its original Bitcoin protocol to work well and have access to infinite possibilities. Respecting satoshi, the creator of the software, respecting his work, is the least you can do as a former user I don't understand why you don't see all this (knowingly?)
Put down your lasers that blind you. It's about time!
Check, verify & wake up! https://coingeek.com/crypto-crime-cartel-behind-adam-back-and-blockstreams-attempts-to-constrain-bitcoin/
Craig Wright is ~ ~ ~ blablablaaa~ ~ ~
Nice! I suggest that you make your accusations in a court of law instead of hiding in the shadows of your internet connection like no balls.
Quote
Notorious defamation troll Arthur Van Pelt who constantly harasses BSV and Craig Wright with misinformation and lies, admits that he "lives off of donations to do this" in reference to defaming Craig Wright and trolling BSV on Social Media at 1:18 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvzIbnQ_mQ&t=4685s
Source: https://twitter.com/cryptorebel_SV/status/1448872867098025985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvzIbnQ_mQ&t=4685s
Source: https://twitter.com/cryptorebel_SV/status/1448872867098025985
Getting paid to harass people? Seriously! The 🤡 is fucking wasting his life, time is running out but he only has one life and he's wasting his time.
sad.Quote
Satoshi Nakamoto Trial: Did Jamie Wilson go Cryptoloco and alter documents?
The name of Jamie Wilson, the former employee of Dr. Craig Wright in Australia who appeared via a video deposition early in the Kleiman v Wright trial, resurfaced during the defense team’s cross-examination of Dr. Matthew Edman.
Edman testified that some of the allegedly altered metadata in the communications between Wright and Dave Kleiman indicated that the documents were created in the UTC plus-11 time zone, aka eastern Australia. Wright was born in and lived in Australia until December 2015, when he was outed as Satoshi Nakamoto by tech publications Wired and Gizmodo.
Wright’s team got Edman to acknowledge that GeoIP2 Precision Lookup forms for one of these emails indicated an IP address located in Wooloowin, a suburb of Brisbane. At the time this email was sent, Dr. Wright lived and worked in Sydney, which is over 900km south of Brisbane—or an 9.5-hour drive from Wooloowin.
Source: Google Maps
But Jamie Wilson’s company Cryptoloc Technology Group is located in Brisbane, an 11-minute stone’s throw from Wooloowin. Wright’s team asked Edman if he knew that Wilson lived in the suburb, or whether Edman had ever tried to determine if any other trial witnesses lived there. Edman replied in the negative to both questions.
Source: Google Maps
The apparent implication by Wright’s team that Wilson could have been the source of the altered documents begs the obvious question of Wilson’s motivation. But his deposition made it clear that, while Wilson considers Wright “a very bright, very smart man” and “one of the greater futurists I have actually come across,” Wilson definitely has a bone to pick with Wright.
This friction is based in part on Wilson’s perception that Wright underwent a “change of attitude” in 2013, the year Dave Kleiman died. Wilson claimed Wright went from a very low-key” guy in hoodies to someone who felt “I’ve got to be the man, I’ve got to be the CEO, new flash suits, ties, and it was just a massive change.” Wilson also somehow bore ill will toward Wright for his spending AU$15,000 on a party for his staff one Christmas.
It’s worth remembering that 2013 was the year BTC experienced its first major spike in value. Each token was only worth about US$100 around the time Dave died, but by December BTC hit a then all-time high of just under US$1,000. The idea that Wright might choose to enjoy his newfound Bitcoin wealth—and share some of that good fortune with people close to him at Christmas—doesn’t really sound like something to get one’s knickers in a twist about.
There’s also the pride that Wright must have felt in seeing something he built from the ground up and shared with the world nearly five years prior finally achieving a modicum of mainstream success. In that light, Wilson’s recriminations come off more like sour grapes than legitimate criticism.
Regardless, Wilson’s deposition left no doubts as to the depth of his antipathy towards Wright, as he stated that he’d initiated contact with Ira’s legal team in July or August 2019. Wilson said he emailed Velvel Freedman “to say congratulations or something like that on the case of Craig Wright.” Wilson began regularly communicating with Freedman after that, an exchange that included Wilson sharing documents with Freedman. According to Wilson, he was “more than happy to share what I did share.”
Despite Wilson stating in his deposition that he “travels back and forward out of the U.S. on a regular basis,” he hasn’t made himself available for further testimony during this trial. Too bad, because we’re sure Wright’s lawyers would love to ask Wilson if his anti-Wright vendetta was simply a case of lingering resentment or whether he was motivated by something more tangible.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
Source: thanks to Steven Stradbrooke https://coingeek.com/satoshi-nakamoto-trial-did-jamie-wilson-go-cryptoloco-and-alter-documents/
The name of Jamie Wilson, the former employee of Dr. Craig Wright in Australia who appeared via a video deposition early in the Kleiman v Wright trial, resurfaced during the defense team’s cross-examination of Dr. Matthew Edman.
Edman testified that some of the allegedly altered metadata in the communications between Wright and Dave Kleiman indicated that the documents were created in the UTC plus-11 time zone, aka eastern Australia. Wright was born in and lived in Australia until December 2015, when he was outed as Satoshi Nakamoto by tech publications Wired and Gizmodo.
Wright’s team got Edman to acknowledge that GeoIP2 Precision Lookup forms for one of these emails indicated an IP address located in Wooloowin, a suburb of Brisbane. At the time this email was sent, Dr. Wright lived and worked in Sydney, which is over 900km south of Brisbane—or an 9.5-hour drive from Wooloowin.
Source: Google Maps
But Jamie Wilson’s company Cryptoloc Technology Group is located in Brisbane, an 11-minute stone’s throw from Wooloowin. Wright’s team asked Edman if he knew that Wilson lived in the suburb, or whether Edman had ever tried to determine if any other trial witnesses lived there. Edman replied in the negative to both questions.
Source: Google Maps
The apparent implication by Wright’s team that Wilson could have been the source of the altered documents begs the obvious question of Wilson’s motivation. But his deposition made it clear that, while Wilson considers Wright “a very bright, very smart man” and “one of the greater futurists I have actually come across,” Wilson definitely has a bone to pick with Wright.
This friction is based in part on Wilson’s perception that Wright underwent a “change of attitude” in 2013, the year Dave Kleiman died. Wilson claimed Wright went from a very low-key” guy in hoodies to someone who felt “I’ve got to be the man, I’ve got to be the CEO, new flash suits, ties, and it was just a massive change.” Wilson also somehow bore ill will toward Wright for his spending AU$15,000 on a party for his staff one Christmas.
It’s worth remembering that 2013 was the year BTC experienced its first major spike in value. Each token was only worth about US$100 around the time Dave died, but by December BTC hit a then all-time high of just under US$1,000. The idea that Wright might choose to enjoy his newfound Bitcoin wealth—and share some of that good fortune with people close to him at Christmas—doesn’t really sound like something to get one’s knickers in a twist about.
There’s also the pride that Wright must have felt in seeing something he built from the ground up and shared with the world nearly five years prior finally achieving a modicum of mainstream success. In that light, Wilson’s recriminations come off more like sour grapes than legitimate criticism.
Regardless, Wilson’s deposition left no doubts as to the depth of his antipathy towards Wright, as he stated that he’d initiated contact with Ira’s legal team in July or August 2019. Wilson said he emailed Velvel Freedman “to say congratulations or something like that on the case of Craig Wright.” Wilson began regularly communicating with Freedman after that, an exchange that included Wilson sharing documents with Freedman. According to Wilson, he was “more than happy to share what I did share.”
Despite Wilson stating in his deposition that he “travels back and forward out of the U.S. on a regular basis,” he hasn’t made himself available for further testimony during this trial. Too bad, because we’re sure Wright’s lawyers would love to ask Wilson if his anti-Wright vendetta was simply a case of lingering resentment or whether he was motivated by something more tangible.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
Source: thanks to Steven Stradbrooke https://coingeek.com/satoshi-nakamoto-trial-did-jamie-wilson-go-cryptoloco-and-alter-documents/
Quote
Satoshi trial in Florida is no longer about Dave Kleiman’s legacy
Bitcoin’s “trial of the century” has stopped pretending it’s about enriching Ira Kleiman and it now appears to be a full-throated effort to diminish Bitcoin creator Dr. Craig Wright before his technological invention can achieve mainstream acceptance.
Attorneys representing plaintiff Ira Kleiman spent the final days of their presentation quizzing their cyber security expert Dr. Matthew Edman about multiple documents, many of which purport to be communications between Wright and Ira Kleiman’s late brother Dave, Wright’s former colleague and close friend who died in April 2013 after years of poor health.
read more: https://coingeek.com/satoshi-trial-in-florida-is-no-longer-about-dave-kleiman-legacy/
Bitcoin’s “trial of the century” has stopped pretending it’s about enriching Ira Kleiman and it now appears to be a full-throated effort to diminish Bitcoin creator Dr. Craig Wright before his technological invention can achieve mainstream acceptance.
Attorneys representing plaintiff Ira Kleiman spent the final days of their presentation quizzing their cyber security expert Dr. Matthew Edman about multiple documents, many of which purport to be communications between Wright and Ira Kleiman’s late brother Dave, Wright’s former colleague and close friend who died in April 2013 after years of poor health.
read more: https://coingeek.com/satoshi-trial-in-florida-is-no-longer-about-dave-kleiman-legacy/
Yes, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is much more than a blockchain, it is the original Bitcoin. See https://bsvblockchain.org/
Quote from: DenisCryptoInv
What is bitcoin the good ticker symbole for Bitcoin representation? btc, bsv ?
Quote
Bitcoin is a protocol, not a stock symbol. This is where users don't pay attention.
Consumers believe that BTC is Bitcoin but it is not the original protocol because BTC has been stripped of the Bitcoin complement.
https://coingeek.com/crypto-crime-cartel-behind-adam-back-and-blockstreams-attempts-to-constrain-bitcoin/
nChain for BSV has restored the original protocol by undoing the crap that BTC core has incremented over the years including Segwit updates and much more. BSV is bitcoin, full turing, scaling function, intantaneous payment spv, smart contract without the need for oracles. Big data and extremely low fees, allows micro transaction and nano payment of $0.00001 without any friction!
Consumers believe that BTC is Bitcoin but it is not the original protocol because BTC has been stripped of the Bitcoin complement.
https://coingeek.com/crypto-crime-cartel-behind-adam-back-and-blockstreams-attempts-to-constrain-bitcoin/
nChain for BSV has restored the original protocol by undoing the crap that BTC core has incremented over the years including Segwit updates and much more. BSV is bitcoin, full turing, scaling function, intantaneous payment spv, smart contract without the need for oracles. Big data and extremely low fees, allows micro transaction and nano payment of $0.00001 without any friction!
Quote
🔴LIVE: Thu 7:45pm EST (http://Time.is/EST)
Join the 'Lawyer You Know' @TragosLaw
& CoinGeek's Bitcoin Historian @kurtwuckertjr
discussing the Ira Kleiman vs. Craig S. Wright trial in Miami #BitcoinSV #BSV #KleimanvWright
Watch live on YT Channel:
https://youtube.com/c/LawyerYouKnow
Join the 'Lawyer You Know' @TragosLaw
& CoinGeek's Bitcoin Historian @kurtwuckertjr
discussing the Ira Kleiman vs. Craig S. Wright trial in Miami #BitcoinSV #BSV #KleimanvWright
Watch live on YT Channel:
https://youtube.com/c/LawyerYouKnow
Quote
Imagine being invested in #ETH and believing it’s the future without ever using #BSV
It’s instant
It’s more secure
It’s scaled
It’s more efficient
It works now.
Try it,
@handcashapp @hastearcade @twetchapp @Relicaworld @britevue @OmniscapeXr
Both Canadian auditors MNP & https://coincarboncap.com confirm #BSV is the the greenest blockchain: https://www.mnp.ca/en/insights/directory/the-search-for-a-more-efficient-bitcoin Quote
Four days with Satoshi Nakamoto on the stand: What did we learn from the Bitcoin creator?
In the years following Satoshi Nakamoto’s exit from public life in 2010, the growing number of investors and enthusiasts in the digital asset space could only guess at the inventor of Bitcoin’s real identity.
In the writings Nakamoto left behind, there were tea leaves to be read that might offer some insight into the person and process behind one of the most significant projects in modern history, but ultimately no way of knowing for sure.
This is exactly why four days with Dr. Wright under oath and on the stand have coincided with a peak number of spectators looking for a space in the public gallery. In the blink of an eye, the world has gone from an agonizing wait for Satoshi Nakamoto’s unmasking to having him spend four days giving sworn testimony in the most high-profile civil trial in living memory.
Now, after four days, Satoshi has left the stand. What did we find out?
The toll on Satoshi’s personal life
In the plaintiff’s attempts to corner Dr. Wright on the question of whether or not he invented and mined Bitcoin along with the late Dave Kleiman, it was inevitable that interesting and relevant details concerning the invention of Bitcoin would come out, too.
One of the most noteworthy of these came on Dr. Wright’s second day on the stand, where Vel Freedman confronted Wright with various instances where his description of the relationship between him and Dave suggested a more formal commercial relationship between the two than mere friends and sporadic collaborators.
Q. Dr. Wright, isn’t it true that it’s just not that Dave Kleiman co-created Bitcoin with you, but he also was the other half of Satoshi Nakamoto?
A. No. What is true is I exaggerated because Dave had no one remember him, and he was the most important person in my life for many years. I ended up –
At this point, Wright gets emotional. It’s clear as day that Dave Kleiman is a difficult subject for him, whatever the truth about his role in Bitcoin.
A: Sorry. I’m just trying to say this. It’s hard. I failed my first marriage because I didn’t talk to my wife. I was a director in an accounting firm. I was on partner track, and she didn’t want me to do this. And I talked to Dave and he talked me into it. I took a redundancy in December of 2008, and Dave talked me into doing that. He said follow my dreams. And despite my wife’s reservations, I didn’t even talk to her. I took the thing and just came home one day and said: Honey, I’m doing Bitcoin and I’m spending our money and I’m not going to work for two years.
I failed my marriage because I wanted to invent this thing, and Dave understood. So yes, he was critical to me. I don’t know how else to put it.
And yes, I was a terrible freaking husband. I put my invention over my marriage. And I’m sorry for that. And my first wife has forgiven me now. But I should never have done that. I should have talked to her. And I talked to Dave. And I put him before my wife, and I let him talk me into it. So yes, he was important. And for that, I told his father how important he was to me.
And he was. Always. I loved him.
This is the color and detail that could never be discovered by piecing together the unintentional clues left behind in Satoshi Nakamoto’s writings, but in hindsight it explains a lot. There has always been a strange hint of reluctance or even resentment from Satoshi Nakamoto. That much could be implied from his sudden exit from the project.
But to learn exactly how reluctant, where the reluctance came from and how it was overcome is entirely new.
On top of that, this portion of Dr. Wright’s testimony contained a sad implication regarding Dave Kleiman.
A: Now, I was led by Dave to believe that between when I told him to start mining and when I stopped mining, he was. I don’t know whether he did or not. If he did, it would be large.
No evidence has been produced which indicate that Dave was ever in possession of any amount of Bitcoin. What Wright seems to be saying here—perhaps somewhat reluctantly—is that he told his best friend to start mining Bitcoin at a time when doing so would have led to vast wealth as the coins appreciated over the following years.
Rather than take Wright’s advice, Dave Kleiman died destitute.
What Bitcoins are we even talking about?
Because the plaintiffs in this case are alleging that Dr. Wright and Dave Kleiman had a partnership to both invent Bitcoin and mine Bitcoin after its invention, Vel Freedman spent a lot of his time with Wright on the stand showing him every email involving Dave Kleiman which referenced Bitcoin, intellectual property or just the transfer of value generally.
But with Wright being involved with so many companies and with those companies holding often massive amounts of value, this led to the plaintiffs often overzealously claiming that all of these references must somehow be related to the creation of Bitcoin.
This led to a few embarrassing misstatements by the plaintiffs.
For example, take this exchange which occurred when Freedman was questioning Wright about agreements for the transfer of various amounts of Bitcoin.
Q. As part of this contract Dr. Wright, Dave was going to transfer you 250,000 Bitcoin, all his shares in W&K, and he was going to transfer 323,000 Bitcoin, right?
A. That’s what the document says.
Q. Dr. Wright, 250,500 plus 323,000. That’s about 570,000 Bitcoin that’s half of 1.1 million Bitcoin the Plaintiffs are claiming?
Q. Dr. Wright, 250,500, plus 323,000. That’s about 570,000, correct?
A. Approximately.
Q. Half of the 1.1 million the Plaintiffs are claiming in this case?
A. I’m not actually sure what the number the Plaintiffs are claiming in this case is. It’s never been mentioned.
At one point, Freedman seemed to feel he’d cornered Dr. Wright on an email he had supposedly sent where he described Dave as having mined Bitcoin through one of Dr. Wright’s companies.
However, Wright revealed that Dave had mined Bitcoin but only in one imprecise sense: the two had Bitcoin that existed only on the testnet which were being used to test Wright’s supercomputers.
Q. And the very next sentence Dr. Wright says the company he ran there mined Bitcoin?
A. Yes. It was running a test net version of that. I have a published paper on it. We tested Bitcoin running in my company up to 340 gigabytes, which was around 1 million transactions a second.
And the rate would enable that to be run at over a ten thousandth of a cent per transaction enabling global commerce for people in the third world for a lot cheaper than it is now. Yes.
As for the specific references to a stash of 1.1 million Bitcoin which appear throughout Dr. Wright’s communications (though, some of these details appear to have been sourced from the questionable Australian Taxation Office’s investigations into Dr. Wright), these have turned out to be a red herring. There’s no evidence that these were ever mined and on the contrary, it was revealed by Wright on the stand that these were purchased from a Russian exchange in 2011.
Dr. Wright has consistently maintained that he has been a purchaser of Bitcoin and specifically a purchaser of Bitcoin in 2011. A witness statement submitted to the Surrey Police in May of this year explained that some of the Bitcoins he had purchased from WMIRK, a Russian digital asset exchange, had been stolen by hackers in 2020.
Australia knew Dr. Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto
One thing that the plaintiffs absolutely must establish if they are to have any hope of winning this case is that Dr. Wright purposefully hid the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto from the world. They need to show this because it’s the only way they can explain the lack of any communication between Dr. Wright and Dave Kleiman regarding the alleged Satoshi Nakamoto partnership—a lack made stark by the constant back-and-forth between the two in other instances where they had partnered.
It was an assumption that Vel Freedman, the attorney for Ira Kleiman who was questioning Dr. Wright, wore on his sleeve, but one that for reasons elucidated in Wright’s response doesn’t make much sense:
Q. Dr. Wright isn’t it true that the an section of Bitcoin related emails between you and Dave Kleiman was by design?
A. No.
Q. And when I say that Dr. Wright, I mean that you made sure there were no such documents left; isn’t that correct?
A. No. I can’t delete any of Dave Kleiman’s emails. They were all available and all could have been accessed by Ira.
The implication that Dr. Wright managed to erase any trace of Dave’s involvement in Bitcoin from the history books is convenient for the plaintiffs, but highly improbable if not impossible, as pointed out by Wright.
We know that Dr. Wright didn’t go to Florida in the aftermath of Dave’s passing, and none of Dave Kleiman’s devices have ever been touched by Wright—all of these devices were taken by Ira Kleiman and either formatted and overwritten or handed off to strangers never to be seen again.
This fact was even part of the impetus for Dr. Wright reaching out to the Kleimans: Wright warned Ira Kleiman that there could be important data on Dave’s devices and that Ira should leave them alone. He didn’t listen.
So quite how Dr. Wright could have hoped to successfully delete all trace of Dave’s involvement with Bitcoin from both sides of the conversation is the plaintiff’s guess alone.
In any case, one of the more surprising parts of Dr. Wright’s testimony was that his identity wasn’t a total secret, even when the world was scrambling to unmask Bitcoin’s creator. At least, not in Australia. Which makes Dave’s own silence suspect:
Q. And, Dr. Wright, you heard your lawyers suggest to this jury that the fact that Dave Kleiman didn’t tell people about his creation and mining of Bitcoin with you somehow suggests he didn’t do it, right?
A. Yes. I told everyone. I told my mother, my family, the tax office, several other departments. Lots of people.
Q. But, Dr. Wright, you know that the truth is you and Dave Kleiman agreed to keep your partnership a secret; isn’t that correct?
A. No. I actually registered a company called Information Defense in Australia. I listed the shareholders. I recorded it with the Government and I sought a banking charter. So at least three, four hundred people knew that I was Satoshi in Australia. So no.
It’s startling to any of the thousands of people that have spent (and continue to spend) countless hours on getting to the bottom of the Satoshi Nakamoto mystery, and it’s important to see it confirmed under oath. But it’s not actually the first time such a thing has been suggested.
Australian financial cryptographer Ian Grigg has said the same thing in the past. According to Grigg, the secret that Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto was already well on its way into the public sphere at the time Wired and Gizmodo were preparing their grand reveal in 2015.
Harassment from the Australian Tax Office
As it turns out, Satoshi Nakamoto’s true identity being an open secret in Australia had severe consequences for Dr. Wright.
Dr. Wright has been open about years of what he terms harassment by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO): ceaseless letters, phone calls, audits and investigations which became so unbearable that Dr. Wright had to leave Australia.
A: I was getting 17 audits a quarter. They shut down my companies and didn’t stop until I had to leave Australia.
Dr. Wright and his attorneys have objected to the introduction of materials which purport to be from the ATO on the basis that they haven’t been authenticated and indeed have already been dismissed as inadequate by the Australian tax authorities.
Despite the objections, they were allowed at trial. Whether they did the plaintiffs any favor is another question.
A big part of the reason for the ATO’s interest in him and his companies was that he was upfront with the Australian government about his Bitcoin project from an early stage—long before the general public had an inkling that the inventor of Bitcoin was a computer scientist living in Australia.
Unfortunately, the early positions taken by the ATO would have almost certainly killed Bitcoin before anyone had a chance to realize its potential as digital cash. As Dr. Wright explained:
A: GST is like a sales tax, VAT. The Australian Tax Office wanted to put 10 percent tax on every Bitcoin transaction. There’s a public ruling, which I guess is equivalent to a Supreme Court ruling in America, that I brought between 2013 and 2014. That ruled that Bitcoin is basically not taxable under GST. So the tax office were fighting that and my company funded the whole anti-GST thing. And we had it overturned. So the tax office were pushing very, very hard to ensure that GST was applied to every Bitcoin transaction.
His feud with the ATO reached such levels of animosity that according to Wright, the ATO’s records are riddled with inaccuracies, omissions, and forgeries. Indeed, many of the documents introduced by Freedman when examining Dr. Wright were presented without official seals or even signatures. Dr. Wright was questioned over multiple poorly formatted transcripts purported to be records of interviews between the ATO and Dr. Wright and his representatives.
As a result, Dr. Wright could only express his problems with the records being presented. Freedman, reading a supposed transcript back to Wright, says:
Q. And then, Dr. Wright, you respond: We weren’t negotiating. We were partners for years. Do didn’t really negotiate.
A. This document is not an accurate transcript. It was rejected. The tax office that sent it through as draft. It was rejected by our lawyers. The – the tax office never came back with another one. So no, I did not say that.
Quite what the jury learned from any of this is hard to say, other than to be careful sharing your groundbreaking invention with the tax authorities.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTpDsXEwfAQqeKnLhhKMq4blGCqX_ecoY.
https://coingeek.com/four-days-with-satoshi-nakamoto-on-the-stand-what-did-we-learn-from-the-bitcoin-creator/ source Jordan Atkins .
In the years following Satoshi Nakamoto’s exit from public life in 2010, the growing number of investors and enthusiasts in the digital asset space could only guess at the inventor of Bitcoin’s real identity.
In the writings Nakamoto left behind, there were tea leaves to be read that might offer some insight into the person and process behind one of the most significant projects in modern history, but ultimately no way of knowing for sure.
This is exactly why four days with Dr. Wright under oath and on the stand have coincided with a peak number of spectators looking for a space in the public gallery. In the blink of an eye, the world has gone from an agonizing wait for Satoshi Nakamoto’s unmasking to having him spend four days giving sworn testimony in the most high-profile civil trial in living memory.
Now, after four days, Satoshi has left the stand. What did we find out?
The toll on Satoshi’s personal life
In the plaintiff’s attempts to corner Dr. Wright on the question of whether or not he invented and mined Bitcoin along with the late Dave Kleiman, it was inevitable that interesting and relevant details concerning the invention of Bitcoin would come out, too.
One of the most noteworthy of these came on Dr. Wright’s second day on the stand, where Vel Freedman confronted Wright with various instances where his description of the relationship between him and Dave suggested a more formal commercial relationship between the two than mere friends and sporadic collaborators.
Q. Dr. Wright, isn’t it true that it’s just not that Dave Kleiman co-created Bitcoin with you, but he also was the other half of Satoshi Nakamoto?
A. No. What is true is I exaggerated because Dave had no one remember him, and he was the most important person in my life for many years. I ended up –
At this point, Wright gets emotional. It’s clear as day that Dave Kleiman is a difficult subject for him, whatever the truth about his role in Bitcoin.
A: Sorry. I’m just trying to say this. It’s hard. I failed my first marriage because I didn’t talk to my wife. I was a director in an accounting firm. I was on partner track, and she didn’t want me to do this. And I talked to Dave and he talked me into it. I took a redundancy in December of 2008, and Dave talked me into doing that. He said follow my dreams. And despite my wife’s reservations, I didn’t even talk to her. I took the thing and just came home one day and said: Honey, I’m doing Bitcoin and I’m spending our money and I’m not going to work for two years.
I failed my marriage because I wanted to invent this thing, and Dave understood. So yes, he was critical to me. I don’t know how else to put it.
And yes, I was a terrible freaking husband. I put my invention over my marriage. And I’m sorry for that. And my first wife has forgiven me now. But I should never have done that. I should have talked to her. And I talked to Dave. And I put him before my wife, and I let him talk me into it. So yes, he was important. And for that, I told his father how important he was to me.
And he was. Always. I loved him.
This is the color and detail that could never be discovered by piecing together the unintentional clues left behind in Satoshi Nakamoto’s writings, but in hindsight it explains a lot. There has always been a strange hint of reluctance or even resentment from Satoshi Nakamoto. That much could be implied from his sudden exit from the project.
But to learn exactly how reluctant, where the reluctance came from and how it was overcome is entirely new.
On top of that, this portion of Dr. Wright’s testimony contained a sad implication regarding Dave Kleiman.
A: Now, I was led by Dave to believe that between when I told him to start mining and when I stopped mining, he was. I don’t know whether he did or not. If he did, it would be large.
No evidence has been produced which indicate that Dave was ever in possession of any amount of Bitcoin. What Wright seems to be saying here—perhaps somewhat reluctantly—is that he told his best friend to start mining Bitcoin at a time when doing so would have led to vast wealth as the coins appreciated over the following years.
Rather than take Wright’s advice, Dave Kleiman died destitute.
What Bitcoins are we even talking about?
Because the plaintiffs in this case are alleging that Dr. Wright and Dave Kleiman had a partnership to both invent Bitcoin and mine Bitcoin after its invention, Vel Freedman spent a lot of his time with Wright on the stand showing him every email involving Dave Kleiman which referenced Bitcoin, intellectual property or just the transfer of value generally.
But with Wright being involved with so many companies and with those companies holding often massive amounts of value, this led to the plaintiffs often overzealously claiming that all of these references must somehow be related to the creation of Bitcoin.
This led to a few embarrassing misstatements by the plaintiffs.
For example, take this exchange which occurred when Freedman was questioning Wright about agreements for the transfer of various amounts of Bitcoin.
Q. As part of this contract Dr. Wright, Dave was going to transfer you 250,000 Bitcoin, all his shares in W&K, and he was going to transfer 323,000 Bitcoin, right?
A. That’s what the document says.
Q. Dr. Wright, 250,500 plus 323,000. That’s about 570,000 Bitcoin that’s half of 1.1 million Bitcoin the Plaintiffs are claiming?
Q. Dr. Wright, 250,500, plus 323,000. That’s about 570,000, correct?
A. Approximately.
Q. Half of the 1.1 million the Plaintiffs are claiming in this case?
A. I’m not actually sure what the number the Plaintiffs are claiming in this case is. It’s never been mentioned.
At one point, Freedman seemed to feel he’d cornered Dr. Wright on an email he had supposedly sent where he described Dave as having mined Bitcoin through one of Dr. Wright’s companies.
However, Wright revealed that Dave had mined Bitcoin but only in one imprecise sense: the two had Bitcoin that existed only on the testnet which were being used to test Wright’s supercomputers.
Q. And the very next sentence Dr. Wright says the company he ran there mined Bitcoin?
A. Yes. It was running a test net version of that. I have a published paper on it. We tested Bitcoin running in my company up to 340 gigabytes, which was around 1 million transactions a second.
And the rate would enable that to be run at over a ten thousandth of a cent per transaction enabling global commerce for people in the third world for a lot cheaper than it is now. Yes.
As for the specific references to a stash of 1.1 million Bitcoin which appear throughout Dr. Wright’s communications (though, some of these details appear to have been sourced from the questionable Australian Taxation Office’s investigations into Dr. Wright), these have turned out to be a red herring. There’s no evidence that these were ever mined and on the contrary, it was revealed by Wright on the stand that these were purchased from a Russian exchange in 2011.
Dr. Wright has consistently maintained that he has been a purchaser of Bitcoin and specifically a purchaser of Bitcoin in 2011. A witness statement submitted to the Surrey Police in May of this year explained that some of the Bitcoins he had purchased from WMIRK, a Russian digital asset exchange, had been stolen by hackers in 2020.
Australia knew Dr. Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto
One thing that the plaintiffs absolutely must establish if they are to have any hope of winning this case is that Dr. Wright purposefully hid the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto from the world. They need to show this because it’s the only way they can explain the lack of any communication between Dr. Wright and Dave Kleiman regarding the alleged Satoshi Nakamoto partnership—a lack made stark by the constant back-and-forth between the two in other instances where they had partnered.
It was an assumption that Vel Freedman, the attorney for Ira Kleiman who was questioning Dr. Wright, wore on his sleeve, but one that for reasons elucidated in Wright’s response doesn’t make much sense:
Q. Dr. Wright isn’t it true that the an section of Bitcoin related emails between you and Dave Kleiman was by design?
A. No.
Q. And when I say that Dr. Wright, I mean that you made sure there were no such documents left; isn’t that correct?
A. No. I can’t delete any of Dave Kleiman’s emails. They were all available and all could have been accessed by Ira.
The implication that Dr. Wright managed to erase any trace of Dave’s involvement in Bitcoin from the history books is convenient for the plaintiffs, but highly improbable if not impossible, as pointed out by Wright.
We know that Dr. Wright didn’t go to Florida in the aftermath of Dave’s passing, and none of Dave Kleiman’s devices have ever been touched by Wright—all of these devices were taken by Ira Kleiman and either formatted and overwritten or handed off to strangers never to be seen again.
This fact was even part of the impetus for Dr. Wright reaching out to the Kleimans: Wright warned Ira Kleiman that there could be important data on Dave’s devices and that Ira should leave them alone. He didn’t listen.
So quite how Dr. Wright could have hoped to successfully delete all trace of Dave’s involvement with Bitcoin from both sides of the conversation is the plaintiff’s guess alone.
In any case, one of the more surprising parts of Dr. Wright’s testimony was that his identity wasn’t a total secret, even when the world was scrambling to unmask Bitcoin’s creator. At least, not in Australia. Which makes Dave’s own silence suspect:
Q. And, Dr. Wright, you heard your lawyers suggest to this jury that the fact that Dave Kleiman didn’t tell people about his creation and mining of Bitcoin with you somehow suggests he didn’t do it, right?
A. Yes. I told everyone. I told my mother, my family, the tax office, several other departments. Lots of people.
Q. But, Dr. Wright, you know that the truth is you and Dave Kleiman agreed to keep your partnership a secret; isn’t that correct?
A. No. I actually registered a company called Information Defense in Australia. I listed the shareholders. I recorded it with the Government and I sought a banking charter. So at least three, four hundred people knew that I was Satoshi in Australia. So no.
It’s startling to any of the thousands of people that have spent (and continue to spend) countless hours on getting to the bottom of the Satoshi Nakamoto mystery, and it’s important to see it confirmed under oath. But it’s not actually the first time such a thing has been suggested.
Australian financial cryptographer Ian Grigg has said the same thing in the past. According to Grigg, the secret that Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto was already well on its way into the public sphere at the time Wired and Gizmodo were preparing their grand reveal in 2015.
Harassment from the Australian Tax Office
As it turns out, Satoshi Nakamoto’s true identity being an open secret in Australia had severe consequences for Dr. Wright.
Dr. Wright has been open about years of what he terms harassment by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO): ceaseless letters, phone calls, audits and investigations which became so unbearable that Dr. Wright had to leave Australia.
A: I was getting 17 audits a quarter. They shut down my companies and didn’t stop until I had to leave Australia.
Dr. Wright and his attorneys have objected to the introduction of materials which purport to be from the ATO on the basis that they haven’t been authenticated and indeed have already been dismissed as inadequate by the Australian tax authorities.
Despite the objections, they were allowed at trial. Whether they did the plaintiffs any favor is another question.
A big part of the reason for the ATO’s interest in him and his companies was that he was upfront with the Australian government about his Bitcoin project from an early stage—long before the general public had an inkling that the inventor of Bitcoin was a computer scientist living in Australia.
Unfortunately, the early positions taken by the ATO would have almost certainly killed Bitcoin before anyone had a chance to realize its potential as digital cash. As Dr. Wright explained:
A: GST is like a sales tax, VAT. The Australian Tax Office wanted to put 10 percent tax on every Bitcoin transaction. There’s a public ruling, which I guess is equivalent to a Supreme Court ruling in America, that I brought between 2013 and 2014. That ruled that Bitcoin is basically not taxable under GST. So the tax office were fighting that and my company funded the whole anti-GST thing. And we had it overturned. So the tax office were pushing very, very hard to ensure that GST was applied to every Bitcoin transaction.
His feud with the ATO reached such levels of animosity that according to Wright, the ATO’s records are riddled with inaccuracies, omissions, and forgeries. Indeed, many of the documents introduced by Freedman when examining Dr. Wright were presented without official seals or even signatures. Dr. Wright was questioned over multiple poorly formatted transcripts purported to be records of interviews between the ATO and Dr. Wright and his representatives.
As a result, Dr. Wright could only express his problems with the records being presented. Freedman, reading a supposed transcript back to Wright, says:
Q. And then, Dr. Wright, you respond: We weren’t negotiating. We were partners for years. Do didn’t really negotiate.
A. This document is not an accurate transcript. It was rejected. The tax office that sent it through as draft. It was rejected by our lawyers. The – the tax office never came back with another one. So no, I did not say that.
Quite what the jury learned from any of this is hard to say, other than to be careful sharing your groundbreaking invention with the tax authorities.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTpDsXEwfAQqeKnLhhKMq4blGCqX_ecoY.
https://coingeek.com/four-days-with-satoshi-nakamoto-on-the-stand-what-did-we-learn-from-the-bitcoin-creator/ source Jordan Atkins .
🔥 "Taproot does nothing to protect privacy. On the contrary, simply using Taproot invalidates many transactions." This is another fabulous article that proves that BTC is definitely moving away from the original Bitcoin protocol model!
Read the full article on https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/taproot-building-a-mixer/
Source from Satoshi Nakamoto https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/taproot-building-a-mixer/
Quote
Access blockchain data from Bitcoin smart contracts without oracles
This post was first published on Medium.
Smart contracts have no knowledge of the outside world and have to rely on oracles to import external data in general. We have shown two ways to import data from oracles before, based on Rabin signature and ECDSA. In this article, we show it is possible to access a specific type of external data, i.e., data on the blockchain (such as block headers and transactions), in the absence of oracles, while still maintaining data integrity. By allowing smart contracts to access on-chain data with minimal trust, it opens endless opportunities for all new kinds of smart contracts on Bitcoin.
Access block headers
The Bitcoin blockchain consists of a chain of blocks, as the name suggest. A block has two parts: a block header and transactions.
A Block and Its Header
A block header contains the metadata of the block, with six fields as shown below.
The Bitcoin Block Header
It is worth noting that bitcoin headers are part of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus algorithm. More specifically, the hash of a serialized block header should not exceed the difficulty target (i.e., the number of leading zeros). Thanks to trustless nature of proof of work, it is extremely costly to produce a valid block header, especially when the difficulty is high. But it is very easy to check if a given block header is valid. This is exactly how we import a block header into a smart contract shown below, without relying on any oracles.
Blockchain Contract
isBlockHeaderValid() at Line 22 checks if a block header is valid. bits2Target() at Line 31 calculates the difficulty target from a compact form (a 4-byte field typically referred to as nBits). We simply hash the block header at Line 23 and make sure it meets the difficulty target at Line 27.
Fake block headers
We also check the difficulty target is no larger than the blockchainTarget parameter at Line 27, to control the difficulty of producing a fake block header. Otherwise, an attacker can easily create a block header, whose hash meets the target of difficulty within (e.g., only has 2 leading zeros). As with many other aspects of Bitcoin such as 0-conf, the security of importing block headers this way is economic, not merely technical. This means in practice, it is imperative that a smart contract relying on a real block header should not lock more coins than it costs to produce a fake header.
Access transactions
Once a block header is available, we can easily access any transaction in the block. This is because the block header contains the root of the Merkle tree of all the transactions. Similar to SPV, we pass the transaction and its Merkle path into a smart contract and verify it matches the root hash in the block header. txInBlock() at Line 17 demonstrates this.
[ur=https://blockonomi.com/merkle-tree/l]A Merkle Tree and Merkle Proof[/url]
A case study: Using blockchain to generate random numbers
In general, it is considered a hard problem to generate pseudo-random numbers in a blockchain securely and fairly, since the blockchain is both deterministic and transparent. We leverage blockchain data, specifically the nonce field of a block header, as the source of entropy.
Alice and Bob both lock same amount of bitcoins into the following contract. Once the transaction containing the contract is broadcasted, it will be mined into a future block. Depending on the nonce of the block, which is hard to predict and can be regarded as random, a winner is determined and takes all locked bitcoins.
BlockchainPRNG Contract
Line 17 and 20 use the OP_PUSH_TX technique to get the txid of the transaction containing the contract. Line 23 verifies the block header is legitimate and Line 26 verifies the previous transaction is in it. If the nonce field is odd, Alice wins; otherwise, Bob wins.
Summary
We have shown how to access blockchain data in Bitcoin smart contracts with minimal trust. Since a serialized bitcoin header is only 80-bytes long and Merkle proof scales logarithmically, this technique is extremely efficient (same as SPV).
We have also shown an example to use the blockchain data to generate pseudo-random numbers. This is only the beginning of what is possible, which we will explore in future posts. Stay tuned.
Acknowledgements
This work is inspired by the work of Ying Chen now at Cambridge Cryptographic.
Watch: CoinGeek New York presentation, Smart Contracts & Computation on Bitcoin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EnKiEnztto&t=20697s
Source: thanks to Xiaohui Liu, https://coingeek.com/access-blockchain-data-from-bitcoin-smart-contracts-without-oracles .
This post was first published on Medium.
Smart contracts have no knowledge of the outside world and have to rely on oracles to import external data in general. We have shown two ways to import data from oracles before, based on Rabin signature and ECDSA. In this article, we show it is possible to access a specific type of external data, i.e., data on the blockchain (such as block headers and transactions), in the absence of oracles, while still maintaining data integrity. By allowing smart contracts to access on-chain data with minimal trust, it opens endless opportunities for all new kinds of smart contracts on Bitcoin.
Access block headers
The Bitcoin blockchain consists of a chain of blocks, as the name suggest. A block has two parts: a block header and transactions.
A Block and Its Header
A block header contains the metadata of the block, with six fields as shown below.
The Bitcoin Block Header
It is worth noting that bitcoin headers are part of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus algorithm. More specifically, the hash of a serialized block header should not exceed the difficulty target (i.e., the number of leading zeros). Thanks to trustless nature of proof of work, it is extremely costly to produce a valid block header, especially when the difficulty is high. But it is very easy to check if a given block header is valid. This is exactly how we import a block header into a smart contract shown below, without relying on any oracles.
Quote
Code:
import "Util.scrypt";
import "mast.scrypt";
struct BlockHeader {
bytes version;
Sha256 prevBlockHash;
Sha256 merkleRoot;
int time;
// difficulty target
bytes bits;
bytes nonce;
}
// a library to trustlessly access the blockchain: including blockheaders and transactions
library Blockchain {
// SPV: is a txid in a block
static function txInBlock(Sha256 txid, BlockHeader bh, MerklePath merklePath) : bool {
return MAST.calMerkleRoot(txid, merklePath) == bh.merkleRoot;
}
// is block header valid with difficulty meeting target
static function isBlockHeaderValid(BlockHeader bh, int blockchainTarget) : bool {
int bhHash = blockHeaderHash(bh);
int target = bits2Target(bh.bits);
// block hash below target and target below blockchain difficulty target
return bhHash <= target && target <= blockchainTarget;
}
// convert difficulty from bits to target
static function bits2Target(bytes bits) : int {
int exponent = unpack(bits[3 :]);
bytes coefficient = bits[: 3];
int leadingZeroBytes = exponent - 3;
bytes targetBytes = num2bin(0, leadingZeroBytes) + coefficient;
return Util.fromLEUnsigned(targetBytes);
}
// serialize a block header
static function serialize(BlockHeader bh) : bytes {
return bh.version + bh.prevBlockHash + bh.merkleRoot + num2bin(bh.time, 4) + bh.bits + bh.nonce;
}
// block header hash
static function blockHeaderHash(BlockHeader bh) : int {
bytes bhSerialized = serialize(bh);
// hash is reversed
return unpack(reverseBytes(hash256(bhSerialized), 32));
}
}
import "mast.scrypt";
struct BlockHeader {
bytes version;
Sha256 prevBlockHash;
Sha256 merkleRoot;
int time;
// difficulty target
bytes bits;
bytes nonce;
}
// a library to trustlessly access the blockchain: including blockheaders and transactions
library Blockchain {
// SPV: is a txid in a block
static function txInBlock(Sha256 txid, BlockHeader bh, MerklePath merklePath) : bool {
return MAST.calMerkleRoot(txid, merklePath) == bh.merkleRoot;
}
// is block header valid with difficulty meeting target
static function isBlockHeaderValid(BlockHeader bh, int blockchainTarget) : bool {
int bhHash = blockHeaderHash(bh);
int target = bits2Target(bh.bits);
// block hash below target and target below blockchain difficulty target
return bhHash <= target && target <= blockchainTarget;
}
// convert difficulty from bits to target
static function bits2Target(bytes bits) : int {
int exponent = unpack(bits[3 :]);
bytes coefficient = bits[: 3];
int leadingZeroBytes = exponent - 3;
bytes targetBytes = num2bin(0, leadingZeroBytes) + coefficient;
return Util.fromLEUnsigned(targetBytes);
}
// serialize a block header
static function serialize(BlockHeader bh) : bytes {
return bh.version + bh.prevBlockHash + bh.merkleRoot + num2bin(bh.time, 4) + bh.bits + bh.nonce;
}
// block header hash
static function blockHeaderHash(BlockHeader bh) : int {
bytes bhSerialized = serialize(bh);
// hash is reversed
return unpack(reverseBytes(hash256(bhSerialized), 32));
}
}
isBlockHeaderValid() at Line 22 checks if a block header is valid. bits2Target() at Line 31 calculates the difficulty target from a compact form (a 4-byte field typically referred to as nBits). We simply hash the block header at Line 23 and make sure it meets the difficulty target at Line 27.
Fake block headers
We also check the difficulty target is no larger than the blockchainTarget parameter at Line 27, to control the difficulty of producing a fake block header. Otherwise, an attacker can easily create a block header, whose hash meets the target of difficulty within (e.g., only has 2 leading zeros). As with many other aspects of Bitcoin such as 0-conf, the security of importing block headers this way is economic, not merely technical. This means in practice, it is imperative that a smart contract relying on a real block header should not lock more coins than it costs to produce a fake header.
Access transactions
Once a block header is available, we can easily access any transaction in the block. This is because the block header contains the root of the Merkle tree of all the transactions. Similar to SPV, we pass the transaction and its Merkle path into a smart contract and verify it matches the root hash in the block header. txInBlock() at Line 17 demonstrates this.
[ur=https://blockonomi.com/merkle-tree/l]A Merkle Tree and Merkle Proof[/url]
A case study: Using blockchain to generate random numbers
In general, it is considered a hard problem to generate pseudo-random numbers in a blockchain securely and fairly, since the blockchain is both deterministic and transparent. We leverage blockchain data, specifically the nonce field of a block header, as the source of entropy.
Alice and Bob both lock same amount of bitcoins into the following contract. Once the transaction containing the contract is broadcasted, it will be mined into a future block. Depending on the nonce of the block, which is hard to predict and can be regarded as random, a winner is determined and takes all locked bitcoins.
Quote
Code:
import "blockchain.scrypt";
/*
A trustless psuedo-random number generator using the block containing the deployed contract tx as an entropy source
*/
contract BlockchainPRNG {
PubKey alice;
PubKey bob;
/*
@bh: header of the block containing the contract tx/UTXO
@merklePath: Merkle proof for the tx
@sig: winner signature
@blockchainTarget: difficulty target on mainnet
*/
public function bet(BlockHeader bh, MerklePath merklePath, Sig sig, int blockchainTarget, SigHashPreimage txPreimage) {
require(Tx.checkPreimage(txPreimage));
// get id of previous tx
Sha256 prevTxid = Sha256(Util.outpoint(txPreimage)[:32]);
// validate block header
require(Blockchain.isBlockHeaderValid(bh, blockchainTarget));
// verify previous tx is in the block
require(Blockchain.txInBlock(prevTxid, bh, merklePath));
// use block header's nonce's last bit as a psuedo-random number
PubKey winner = unpack(bh.nonce) % 2 ? this.alice : this.bob;
require(checkSig(sig, winner));
}
}
/*
A trustless psuedo-random number generator using the block containing the deployed contract tx as an entropy source
*/
contract BlockchainPRNG {
PubKey alice;
PubKey bob;
/*
@bh: header of the block containing the contract tx/UTXO
@merklePath: Merkle proof for the tx
@sig: winner signature
@blockchainTarget: difficulty target on mainnet
*/
public function bet(BlockHeader bh, MerklePath merklePath, Sig sig, int blockchainTarget, SigHashPreimage txPreimage) {
require(Tx.checkPreimage(txPreimage));
// get id of previous tx
Sha256 prevTxid = Sha256(Util.outpoint(txPreimage)[:32]);
// validate block header
require(Blockchain.isBlockHeaderValid(bh, blockchainTarget));
// verify previous tx is in the block
require(Blockchain.txInBlock(prevTxid, bh, merklePath));
// use block header's nonce's last bit as a psuedo-random number
PubKey winner = unpack(bh.nonce) % 2 ? this.alice : this.bob;
require(checkSig(sig, winner));
}
}
Line 17 and 20 use the OP_PUSH_TX technique to get the txid of the transaction containing the contract. Line 23 verifies the block header is legitimate and Line 26 verifies the previous transaction is in it. If the nonce field is odd, Alice wins; otherwise, Bob wins.
Summary
We have shown how to access blockchain data in Bitcoin smart contracts with minimal trust. Since a serialized bitcoin header is only 80-bytes long and Merkle proof scales logarithmically, this technique is extremely efficient (same as SPV).
We have also shown an example to use the blockchain data to generate pseudo-random numbers. This is only the beginning of what is possible, which we will explore in future posts. Stay tuned.
Acknowledgements
This work is inspired by the work of Ying Chen now at Cambridge Cryptographic.
Watch: CoinGeek New York presentation, Smart Contracts & Computation on Bitcoin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EnKiEnztto&t=20697s
Source: thanks to Xiaohui Liu, https://coingeek.com/access-blockchain-data-from-bitcoin-smart-contracts-without-oracles .
You have been warned
Dixit the guy who calls for the manipulation of markets in public ...
Quote
So you support a fake Bitcoin called BTC, which has nothing to do with Bitcoin, limited on purpose, the evidence here https://coingeek.com/crypto-crime-cartel-behind-adam-back-and-blockstreams-attempts-to-constrain-bitcoin/
which is also supported by AXA, MasterCard, the very company that rules the payments world, and funds Core!!! Doesn't that make you wonder?
https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://steemitimages.com/DQmahQS6DkLfqRTQVwruGSnpcpBHDS9b6Y8bZZqpmX5o9cD/image.png
So ... Bilderberg was misled by Core developers of BTC? ...
You let the wolf into the henhouse, jack, gregs, COPA, you are all responsible for destroying the very essence of Bitcoin.
To date all these companies, finances, to make it exist legally, then to destroy.
Until you trolls and princess gang understand this.... I will be there to open your eyes.
If you want to build use Bitcoin and its original protocol aka Bitcoin Satoshi Vision BSV.
Yep'''' is EVERYWERE! Wake up!!!!!
Quote
Banking old wine in new bottles, as explained by Craig Wright
Dr. Craig Wright has previously referred to most digital currencies as “old wine in new bottles.” What he means is that it has been done before. Many of these are the same old scams that have always existed dressed up as something new.
In October, Dr. Wright released a blog post on “Banking Old Wine in New Bottles.” It explores how companies like Coinbase and Square attempt to hijack Bitcoin and create a new banking system (that looks a lot like an old one) for personal profit. Let’s explore the post in more detail.
No need for trusted intermediaries
The opening paragraphs of the blog cover the fact that Bitcoin was designed specifically to eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries. However, “bucket shops” like Coinbase and other digital currency exchanges have begun acting like old-fashioned banks that hold people’s money and act as the very thing Bitcoin was supposed to eliminate.
The blog highlights how rather than settling in Bitcoin on every transaction, exchanges instead settle daily, operating in a manner similar to the SWIFT banking system. It highlights how this suits many of the beneficiaries of the old system, such as PayPal’s Peter Thiel, who don’t want Bitcoin because it would make their businesses obsolete.
What these incumbents really want is a system they can control and make money from, such as the digital gold system promoted as BTC. This would lead us back to a system similar to the one we had a century ago, where Bitcoin replaces gold as the interbank settlement system rather than something used for daily transactions by everyday people.
Dr. Wright points out that back then, most people never saw gold in their lives, and if BTC proponents have their way, most people will never see Bitcoin either. This would ultimately lead to a system where Bitcoin is subverted.
Gold and banking
In the next section of the blog, we get a brief history of how the gold-backed banking system worked. The reality is, Dr. Wright tells us, that gold rarely moved.
Doesn’t this sound familiar? It’s exactly what those behind Blockstream and other BTC-affiliated businesses promote. Just as gold was held in vaults and notes were swapped to keep track of ownership, Bitcoin would work in the same way if Square’s Jack Dorsey and friends had their way.
Dr. Wright goes on to emphasize that Bitcoin makes such efforts futile. It removed the need for these intermediaries. They no longer need to exchange cash-based assets, and better yet, other assets that can be traded directly can also be created. He explains that in his white paper, he defined a purely peer-to-peer electronic cash system. He emphasized that systems like the Lightning Network are not Bitcoin at all; they are the very same financial systems that Bitcoin was supposed to make unnecessary.
The desire to capture and control the market
Many new entrants to the digital currency industry, and many who have been in it for years but don’t think for themselves, get their ideas about what it is from thought leaders like Square’s Jack Dorsey and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong.
However, Dr. Wright highlights how these people are building companies that intend to capture Bitcoin and profit from it. He notes how they want to make money from exchange fees and by collecting data from users, the exact sort of poisonous business model employed by Silicon Valley tech companies that he has spoken out against many times. When you use these companies, he says, you are not using Bitcoin at all. Instead, you’re using a modern version of an ancient banking system in the form of a “low-grade Silicon Valley application.”
Dr. Wright then goes on to point out that this account-based system is not at all secure and is easy to hack. This is evidenced by the multitudes of exchange hack stories we have seen over the years. Indeed, as reported in CoinGeek’s Crypto Crime Cartel, it seems that another digital currency exchange is hacked every other week, and the users are led to believe that their funds are unrecoverable.
This new system is unregulated and offers none of the protections of the old banking system. It’s designed to be this way, and the actual exchange of Bitcoin isn’t even necessary in this system. Instead, the exchanges can operate based on monthly offsets in a system that allows them (Coinbase, Square, etc.) to keep a record of the digital gold. However, Dr. Wright points out that nobody has any way to verify what they actually hold. This could lead to fractional reserve banking based on digital gold.
Getting to the heart of the matter, the blog informs us that when we transfer coins between exchanges, no coins need to actually move. Instead, all exchanges must do is update the ledgers they maintain, and settlement can occur at some time in the future. This is evidently not the Bitcoin system outlined in Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper. The true Bitcoin has been subverted.
BTC is a regression
In the final part of the blog, Dr. Wright points out that BTC is a regression back to a gold-based banking system. It’s one more akin to a free banking system with no government regulations. Such a system could never allow you to make the sort of small, casual transactions Satoshi Nakamoto talked about (Dr. Wright gives the example of buying a coffee) because the BTC system could never scale to deal with the necessary transaction volume. This is where Square or Coinbase come in to make their money; offering apps that allow you to “spend” your Bitcoin when in reality, nothing has happened other than a change in digits on a screen. This is effectively a BTC-denominated bank account.
Finishing up, Dr. Wright reminds us that the gold-backed banking system led to far more notes existing than actual gold. This is the same type of system vested interests are attempting to build to subvert Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin threatens many industries, these industries are responding by turning Bitcoin into digital gold. But Bitcoin is not digital gold; it’s peer-to-peer electronic cash.
Watch CoinGeek’s special coverage of the Kleiman v Wright trial here.
See also Dr. Craig Wright’s keynote speech at the CoinGeek Conference New York:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGw6rBv7nlc&t=27992s
Source: https://coingeek.com/banking-old-wine-in-new-bottles-as-explained-by-craig-wright/ - Thanks to Gavin Lucas & Coingeek
Dr. Craig Wright has previously referred to most digital currencies as “old wine in new bottles.” What he means is that it has been done before. Many of these are the same old scams that have always existed dressed up as something new.
In October, Dr. Wright released a blog post on “Banking Old Wine in New Bottles.” It explores how companies like Coinbase and Square attempt to hijack Bitcoin and create a new banking system (that looks a lot like an old one) for personal profit. Let’s explore the post in more detail.
No need for trusted intermediaries
The opening paragraphs of the blog cover the fact that Bitcoin was designed specifically to eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries. However, “bucket shops” like Coinbase and other digital currency exchanges have begun acting like old-fashioned banks that hold people’s money and act as the very thing Bitcoin was supposed to eliminate.
The blog highlights how rather than settling in Bitcoin on every transaction, exchanges instead settle daily, operating in a manner similar to the SWIFT banking system. It highlights how this suits many of the beneficiaries of the old system, such as PayPal’s Peter Thiel, who don’t want Bitcoin because it would make their businesses obsolete.
What these incumbents really want is a system they can control and make money from, such as the digital gold system promoted as BTC. This would lead us back to a system similar to the one we had a century ago, where Bitcoin replaces gold as the interbank settlement system rather than something used for daily transactions by everyday people.
Dr. Wright points out that back then, most people never saw gold in their lives, and if BTC proponents have their way, most people will never see Bitcoin either. This would ultimately lead to a system where Bitcoin is subverted.
Gold and banking
In the next section of the blog, we get a brief history of how the gold-backed banking system worked. The reality is, Dr. Wright tells us, that gold rarely moved.
Doesn’t this sound familiar? It’s exactly what those behind Blockstream and other BTC-affiliated businesses promote. Just as gold was held in vaults and notes were swapped to keep track of ownership, Bitcoin would work in the same way if Square’s Jack Dorsey and friends had their way.
Dr. Wright goes on to emphasize that Bitcoin makes such efforts futile. It removed the need for these intermediaries. They no longer need to exchange cash-based assets, and better yet, other assets that can be traded directly can also be created. He explains that in his white paper, he defined a purely peer-to-peer electronic cash system. He emphasized that systems like the Lightning Network are not Bitcoin at all; they are the very same financial systems that Bitcoin was supposed to make unnecessary.
The desire to capture and control the market
Many new entrants to the digital currency industry, and many who have been in it for years but don’t think for themselves, get their ideas about what it is from thought leaders like Square’s Jack Dorsey and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong.
However, Dr. Wright highlights how these people are building companies that intend to capture Bitcoin and profit from it. He notes how they want to make money from exchange fees and by collecting data from users, the exact sort of poisonous business model employed by Silicon Valley tech companies that he has spoken out against many times. When you use these companies, he says, you are not using Bitcoin at all. Instead, you’re using a modern version of an ancient banking system in the form of a “low-grade Silicon Valley application.”
Dr. Wright then goes on to point out that this account-based system is not at all secure and is easy to hack. This is evidenced by the multitudes of exchange hack stories we have seen over the years. Indeed, as reported in CoinGeek’s Crypto Crime Cartel, it seems that another digital currency exchange is hacked every other week, and the users are led to believe that their funds are unrecoverable.
This new system is unregulated and offers none of the protections of the old banking system. It’s designed to be this way, and the actual exchange of Bitcoin isn’t even necessary in this system. Instead, the exchanges can operate based on monthly offsets in a system that allows them (Coinbase, Square, etc.) to keep a record of the digital gold. However, Dr. Wright points out that nobody has any way to verify what they actually hold. This could lead to fractional reserve banking based on digital gold.
Getting to the heart of the matter, the blog informs us that when we transfer coins between exchanges, no coins need to actually move. Instead, all exchanges must do is update the ledgers they maintain, and settlement can occur at some time in the future. This is evidently not the Bitcoin system outlined in Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper. The true Bitcoin has been subverted.
BTC is a regression
In the final part of the blog, Dr. Wright points out that BTC is a regression back to a gold-based banking system. It’s one more akin to a free banking system with no government regulations. Such a system could never allow you to make the sort of small, casual transactions Satoshi Nakamoto talked about (Dr. Wright gives the example of buying a coffee) because the BTC system could never scale to deal with the necessary transaction volume. This is where Square or Coinbase come in to make their money; offering apps that allow you to “spend” your Bitcoin when in reality, nothing has happened other than a change in digits on a screen. This is effectively a BTC-denominated bank account.
Finishing up, Dr. Wright reminds us that the gold-backed banking system led to far more notes existing than actual gold. This is the same type of system vested interests are attempting to build to subvert Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin threatens many industries, these industries are responding by turning Bitcoin into digital gold. But Bitcoin is not digital gold; it’s peer-to-peer electronic cash.
Watch CoinGeek’s special coverage of the Kleiman v Wright trial here.
See also Dr. Craig Wright’s keynote speech at the CoinGeek Conference New York:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGw6rBv7nlc&t=27992s
Source: https://coingeek.com/banking-old-wine-in-new-bottles-as-explained-by-craig-wright/ - Thanks to Gavin Lucas & Coingeek
Interested in the Kleiman v Wright 2021 trial? CoinGeek features Kurt Wuckert Jr. in daily recap coverage that airs live every day at 6:30pm EST on the YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/coingeek
Quote
Bitcoin Association
CG New York 2021 | Conference Highlights
REALISING THE PROMISE OF BLOCKCHAIN
From October 5-7, we gathered in New York City to hear why now is the time for businesses and wider society to discover BSV and realise the long-awaited value and digital revolution promised by blockchain technology.
Watch our conference highlights to relive some of the most memorable moments of CoinGeek New York, including:
Insights from talks and panel discussions
Highlights from the final round of the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon
Celebrities who participated in the conference such as MMA star Rory MacDonald and actor Adrian Grenier.
WATCH THE VIDEO NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWj7RnT0MAg
Check the key moments of each day below:
DAY
1
‘Time gives meaning to life. It also gives meaning to Bitcoin, and it reinforces why we believe in the Satoshi Vision because of the time it has taken for all of us to get here,' says Bitcoin Association Founding President Jimmy Nguyen in his opening speech.
The final round of the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon saw presentations from the three finalists: Bitcoin Phone, CATN8, and TKS Pnt.
A panel discussion on the future of technology featured the two men who laid the groundwork for blockchain: Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-1/
DAY
2
Canadian auditing firm MNP compared the energy consumption of three blockchain networks and found BSV to be significantly more power-efficient than the others, especially at larger scales.
The central theme of the panel 'How news influences digital asset markets' addressed the need to educate journalists, given the media's focus on speculative token pricing.
‘Satoshi’s blockchain is one of those technologies… that can solve not one problem but a whole range of problems,’ declared writer and technology visionary George Gilder, during his Day 2 keynote speech.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-2/
DAY
3
Bitcoin Phone won first place and $50,000 in BSV in the 4th BSV Hackathon.
A discussion on how the BSV blockchain can increase the efficiency of government services.
Technology visionary George Gilder joined an esteemed panel of experts to talk about the mechanics by which Bitcoin as a ledger creates utility that imbues it with value.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-3
Source from Bitcoin association. Big thanks to Jamie McKane
and all the protagonists who made it possible for us to enjoy a great conference Coingeek has once again put technology on a level playing field, useful to all, for all! Except for BSV which is superior in every way 🚀CG New York 2021 | Conference Highlights
REALISING THE PROMISE OF BLOCKCHAIN
From October 5-7, we gathered in New York City to hear why now is the time for businesses and wider society to discover BSV and realise the long-awaited value and digital revolution promised by blockchain technology.
Watch our conference highlights to relive some of the most memorable moments of CoinGeek New York, including:
Insights from talks and panel discussions
Highlights from the final round of the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon
Celebrities who participated in the conference such as MMA star Rory MacDonald and actor Adrian Grenier.
WATCH THE VIDEO NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWj7RnT0MAg
Check the key moments of each day below:
DAY
1
‘Time gives meaning to life. It also gives meaning to Bitcoin, and it reinforces why we believe in the Satoshi Vision because of the time it has taken for all of us to get here,' says Bitcoin Association Founding President Jimmy Nguyen in his opening speech.
The final round of the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon saw presentations from the three finalists: Bitcoin Phone, CATN8, and TKS Pnt.
A panel discussion on the future of technology featured the two men who laid the groundwork for blockchain: Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-1/
DAY
2
Canadian auditing firm MNP compared the energy consumption of three blockchain networks and found BSV to be significantly more power-efficient than the others, especially at larger scales.
The central theme of the panel 'How news influences digital asset markets' addressed the need to educate journalists, given the media's focus on speculative token pricing.
‘Satoshi’s blockchain is one of those technologies… that can solve not one problem but a whole range of problems,’ declared writer and technology visionary George Gilder, during his Day 2 keynote speech.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-2/
DAY
3
Bitcoin Phone won first place and $50,000 in BSV in the 4th BSV Hackathon.
A discussion on how the BSV blockchain can increase the efficiency of government services.
Technology visionary George Gilder joined an esteemed panel of experts to talk about the mechanics by which Bitcoin as a ledger creates utility that imbues it with value.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-3
Source from Bitcoin association. Big thanks to Jamie McKane
Jump to: