Topic: BSV subforum (Read 935 times)

Not saying this is 100% what happened, but it seems odd that the signing session took 'many hours'.
Even setting up a new laptop and installing everything from scratch is relatively quick.


Besides the fact that they could just have let him use his own hardware if they were being honest.

Are you kidding me?  
First he made public blog in 2016 claiming Craig is Satoshi, than he made multiple video interviews confirming this.
Someone can do many good things in life but they can be ruined with one stupid mistake like this, and he waited until 2020 to say that he could be wrong.
You have to be really stupid, naive or malicious actor to wait for years before you can say you got fooled and you made wrong decision to go out in public with this crap.
http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

Oh and let's not forget his own ''vision'' of Bitcoin future and other chains:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future

I don't think "Bitcoin is Bitcoin" sells. Drama sells, and controversy sells. But logic doesn't sell.
If someone would say Craig is their father, they'd reach the media.

Anything that is stickied or prominently accessible from the front page will have the opposite intended effect: it will glorify instead of disgracing CSW and his henchmen.

I still think guerrilla warfare is the best option, considering that CSW has control of the streets (the media), and we do not have as much control because our story is not being told.

We have to push our narrative in the news.

But how can we do that if the news doesn't even want to hear us (I have lost all hope for a reply from CoinTelegraph)?

I know where you're coming from; in light of recent actions by Reddit admins (or staff? not sure) against you.
However, I don't believe a dedicated subforum will be created for this one (despite large) topic. Keep in mind we still don't even have a Lightning or a Layer2-scaling subforum.

How about moving the 'BSV scam exposing' community to 'Bitcoin Discussion' and creating a (stickied?) thread with a collection of all the relevant topics on this matter?

Less ambiguity. 

Not "I could have been fooled" and "my doubts arise".

Something just a teensy bit more assertive, at the very least.  But also preferably an apology for helping to legitimise a monster.  That's not slander.  And it's not an unreasonable request.

I support this, just because when I started reading the forum, I also got fooled by Gavin's statement and thought that CSW was the best candidate to be Satoshi at that time.
The time has passed and I kept digging, and reading and of course my opinion changed like 180deg. but if you only scratch the surface and you don't really realize what is happening, you will fall the same way I did back in 2018, then the media will starts shitposting and if it happens that he win a court case OMG the there's gonna be a blast for him and coingeek.

We have an old saying ... If one lie is repleaded 100 times it becomes the truth... 🤮

Yes, Gavin has said it to multiple outlets over the years.  It's strange that the Blockstream guys are still holding a grudge against him and use seemingly every opportunity to try and slander Gavin, who is a real Bitcoin legend and not some late to the party start a company and try to trademark sort of person.


Seems pretty clear that he's open to the idea that he was duped and that he was shown evidence that Craig Wright hasn't shown to the rest of the world, likely because it was not legitimate.  Gavin even goes over what could have happened to fool him.  This was years ago...  What more do you want from the guy?

There was a video on YouTube, where Gavin said in an interview that he doubt that CSW is Satoshi, that was quite after he got fooled by Faketoshi. I cant find that video anymore, but I watched it like 3-4 years ago.

I doubt Gavin Andresen will ever do the right thing because he is probably still controlled by some government agency, and in best case he is scared by them.
It's not impossible that CSW Faketoshi was part of this story the whole time, that is why we can somehow explain the fact some courts are still trusting all his bs lying propaganda.
I could say the same thing for Roger Ver, who previously worked with CSW on Bcash, he could also do the right thing but I guess it's not in his own interest. 
 

I guess I still don’t understand why anyone cares about one person’s opinion. For it to matter to a court they would need to see the evidence that Gavin saw to evaluate. The idea That CSW can say I already showed it to someone years ago and it’s too much work to show the evidence again is not going to earn him any points with the judge. I imagine the judge isn’t an idiot and I also imagine Gavin won’t be testifying in court that CSW is satoshi, so I think we’re seeing overreaction here and an opportunity to slander a legendary Bitcoiner.

Gavin Andresen was referred to heavily in the recent Hodlonaut court case by CSW's lawyers, with explicit mention to the fact that Andresen has never withdrawn his statement that he believes CSW to be Satoshi. Andresen has also been referred to similarly in previous court cases, and no doubt will be referred to in future ones too. All this ends if Andresen releases a statement saying "I was wrong".

Yes, we all know that signatures should be publicly shared and publicly verified, but since CSW knows he can never do that, he is pushing the view that the opinion of enough noteworthy individuals is enough to declare himself Satoshi, and the media (and to some extent the courts) seem to be going along with his nonsense. Andresen is front and center of that collection of noteworthy individuals. The sooner he does the right thing then the better for all of us, especially all the victims of CSW's sham lawsuits.

Thing is, we know to verify and not trust.  But con-men are talented at getting joe-public to trust.  The average person out there will not know how to verify a signed message.  They may not even understand what that means.  What they do understand is "[X] number of people said some skeezy shit-sack is satoshi".  The more people who hear that, the more who will believe it because they're willing to form opinions based on trust.  Therefore, it's better if we reduce X.



Again, look beyond your own level of understanding and recognise that, while it's meaningless for us, it's likely not meaningless for the uninitiated.  No one reading this right now needs to witness a retraction from Gavin to know the truth.  We can see it for ourselves.  But countless millions of people around the world do not possess the slightest interest in making an effort to verify anything.  People, for the most part, are lazy and/or ignorant.  They're completely in the dark and easy to manipulate.  They're just going to believe what they hear and not question it.  

Craig and his following of demented shitweasels know this and are happy to exploit it.  Our unwillingness to confront this issue is making their job easier.

Theymos would very likely have to comply with a court order for this. The mods would be the least of his worries though as Craig would likely just go after the forum as a whole.


I would slightly disagree. Most people lost respect when Gavin obviously got fooled, but It matters because Craig is using it as one of the pieces of evidence of him being satoshi and therefore he signed it then so he doesn't need to now. If Gavin came out and said "in retrospect it was very likely that I was duped" that would help a lot, though obviously Craig will disregard it and excuse it away like he always does.


Giving him that info was optional and not all mods did.

I assume this is about the interview in which he claimed he saw a signed message that proves the troll's claim. The fact that we have to trust instead of verify speaks volumes.
What I have seen is 7250BTC worth of signed messages that prove the opposite.

When a lie is repeating over and over it become accepted as a truth, this does make the lie truth though. But Craig White and his propaganda team wants their lie become accepted as a truth. I am with the concept of having a different board. I will give closer suggestion as o_e_l_e_o that it should be under reputation board.

I was searching the keyword "bitcoin" on Google. The first result is bitcoin.org, second is bitcoin dot com, of course Roger Ver wants his BCH to be accepted as bitcoin. Third condesk followed by wikipedia, other bitcoin related service and news portals. Unfortunately bitcointalk does not have a place in there. It will be nice to monetize the forum for the keyword "bitcoin". Internet users who are looking for bitcoin related information they can easily find it from SERP instead of clicking on Ver's BCH and consider BCH is bitcoin. Search engine monetization is not something avoidable these days for a community specially when the keyword "bitcoin" has monthly 665M organic hits and 8.85M websites exists with the title "bitcoin". These are huge numbers. Out of these 8.85M websites who knows who are spreading false information. So as the bitcoin community we should take the matter in our hand to spread correct information for bitcoin.

I don't know how Gavin doesn't realized the basic of Bitcoin. It was supposed to be very simple - sign and verify.
Every single bitcoiner including it's creator is abide by the fact that losing your private key is losing your ownership, period.

No one can make Gavin officially retract his endorsement. Tin-foil hats on, JUST A THEORY, but I believe he could actually have been a CIA mole, or turned into a mole when he visited the CIA headquarters in Langley. His actions, by dividing the community through Bitcoin XT, also supports the theory. It was the basic Divide and Rule strategy.

It's probably better to invite other Bitcoin Core Developers and have their opinions, like Eric Lombrozo? Luke Dashjr?

I understand that (at least at one point) theymos asked for the dox of all the mods for tax purposes. I believe that he gave mods the option to have a percentage of their mod payments withheld in lieu of providing their dox (presumably to be given to the government). I doubt that many forum users *always* access the forum via tor, and probably few, if any of the mods do. Plus, there is always the potential that a mod would access the forum via the clearnet.

It is good that the forum allows for people with privacy concerns to access the forum via tor, but I don't think it would be a good thing to be giving people reasons to want to stay anonymous.

If CSW (or anyone for that matter) were to sue a forum member for what they wrote on the forum, the first person they would likely speak to is theymos. Theymos would likely not voluntarily provide information, however once he is subjected to a subpoena, including after said subpoena is fought in court, he wont have any choice.

What statement?

Gavin's statement is meaningless.  Bitcoin is not about trusting that Gavin was able to verify satoshi's signature.  It's about being able to verify it for ourselves.  Gavin was a great influence on Bitcoin and if people like him and Roger weren't around early on, I have no doubt that Bitcoin would not be a success today (or at least nowhere near what it has become).  Wanting him to do a retraction is foolish.  His opinion literally doesn't matter.  If everyone can't verify who satoshi is on their own, then an individual's statement means nothing.  Anyone who's been in Bitcoin long enough knows this, so it's odd reading people want a retraction.  It literally would mean nothing. 

Cripes, after bitcoincleanup.com, now I need to register gavinandressenview.com to make a petition asking Gavin to revise his statement  (Just kidding, I don't think I'll do such a thing).