Topic: BSV subforum (Read 874 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).

Has anyone tried authoring an open letter to Gavin, requesting that he makes a revised statement?  And then members of the community could sign it.  I'd imagine we'd get quite a few signatories.  That would be a start, at least.

If theymos knows who it is, that won't protect them if theymos gets subpoenaed, right? Considering the level of shitfuckery going on, that would be a real risk.

The moderator could be anonymous, if he is chosen only by theymos and creates a fresh account only for the mod purposes.

I was nominated, but don't want to find myself on the DOXing end of a BS lawsuit. And it's not a subject I would enjoy spending a lot of time on.

To protect against BS lawsuits, it would be good if the Mod has always used Tor.

For the same reason, a .onion forum won't get the exposure it deserves.

I agree!
Who's going to moderate it?
I followed very closely the case with hodlonaut and the main attack is against his privacy. Mr.Wrong does not care about those tweets, he wants to humiliate and doxx every anonymous person who does not agree with his wild statements.
I can't wait to see what the judge will come up with on 8th of October. Basically she will have to decide whether Mr. Wrong is Satoshi or not.

Coming from Gmaxwell doesn't make it any better even though I supported the sub-forum idea in my first comment here because I've been wanting to learn some of the BV shit myself, I realized that giving him such attention would cause real congestion here, so it would be preferable if the BV shit was buried from the Bitcoin communities. If the OP truly wants to raise awareness, a self-moderated thread would still be beneficial.

It's strange how he keep tracking bitcoin anonymous developers via social media posts.

When I saw the title, I was amazed how the topic recieved a great attention within a short period of time. I thought it was one Bitcoin BSV troll who is in the ignore list of many users that created it. Not until I checked the OP.
I am also of the opinion that creating a sub forum just for exposure of fraud may give more credence to the fraud and could turn the board to a war zone for bitcoin believers and BSV believers.



Yea, since it's coming from gmaxwell, it could be that he has many things to speak out but they could easily be buried when scattered in different parts of the forum.

He doesn't do that because then his motivations would be obvious.  I don't think many BSVers realize that getting his hands on satoshi's coins is his entire goal.  He's not going to risk letting the cat out of the bag early and get stuck with worthless BSV coins and a community that finally sees he's a con artist.  He's going for valuable BTC and the title of satoshi.  If he by some miracle did start winning court cases, his next step would be suing BTC developers and miners in order to force a fork where his coins are unlocked.  That's the goal and he's not taking his eyes off of it for some BSV...

I've read this statement so many times, and it's ridiculous we have to keep repeating it! LoyceV is not Satoshi. Great, everyone agrees.
I'm also quite disappointed that various courts allow lawsuits that are so obviously fake. Signed messages don't lie.

I think a sub-board under Scam Accusations suits them.

To me, they always feel like flat earthers. They know it's BS, but keep going at it because they love the attention it gets them.

---

---

If Crack pretends his own ShitVork is the real Bitcoin, and if he pretends to be Satoshi, why does he need to claim Satoshi's Bitcoin on the real Bitcoin chain? He can just Fork his own BSV and steal all coins there. These 50 BSV for instance. I'd say the fact that he doesn't do that adds to the evidence that's he is indeed just another con artist.

Why not make/start a Discord server for Bitcointalk, and all community members who wants to join can join and discuss any Faketoshi investigations or leads there, then open a pinned topic in Bitcointalk, but locked, to post the most important updates and information from the Discord server.

Given that Craig manages to track down and sue anonymous people for a tweet don't you think that would be a terrible idea? You'd be preaching to the choir here anyway.



I don't think he was saying ignore it and it'll go away, just that a sub board probably isn't the right way to go about it. I think we can all agree that ignoring Craig would be a bad idea as Craig is going nowhere. The louder people are calling him out the better because he will manage to convince other people and outlets along the way if people just sit back and leave him to his scam but I don't think there's much we can do here as it's elsewhere where he's doing the damage.


You - or whoever starts the thread(s) - could choose to self-moderate it rather than argue with trolls.



I'd say he looks his age - late 40s early 50s. I'm sure the stress of it all is weighing on him but he doesn't really show it, at least not publicly. I cannot imagine living a life under so many lies but maybe charlatans and fantasists or even sociopaths aren't effected the way normal people would be. He probably has to watch his back everywhere he goes for various reasons. I'm also sure he knows it's only a matter of time before the law catches up to him not to mention how much are his benefactors going to take before they pull the plug? But maybe they're already in too deep and have to see it out until the end if they hope to recoup any money.


He's already widely discredited on everything but that doesn't stop him. I think him being charged or at least arrested will be the best thing that can happen. Him being tied up in a court case where his very freedom is on the line can't be ignored and will probably put the brakes on all his other court cases. If he can still weaponise the courts and convince others along the way then he won't stop until he's behind bars. It doesn't matter if he himself loses in court in his civil cases because he miraculously manages to find a way to spin it into a win regardless and has even stated that if something is not found in his favour he won't accept the verdict anyway so you really can't beat him here.

Are there enough threads and topics to warrant a new sub-forum only for the discussion of the BSV fraud? If it's going to have 5-6 threads, there isn't really a need for it. If we remember the usual responses when people requested other subs, like for the Lightning Network, mods usually explained that an existing sub-forum would need to be flooded with that particular topic for a new sub to be created. That's not really the case with BSV and craig wrong.

Despite that, I would still support the idea. Especially because people like gmaxwell have been silenced to speak out outside of the forum. Craig and his cult members are a threat to everything Bitcoin. They have the financial means to support their fraudulent campaigns even in court. It's a danger because they can always find those willing to accept a bribe.     

That will only work if most newbies actually go to the board which I don't see happening. I see it being infested by BSV trolls instead. The actual newbies are to be found in other places off this site.

Perhaps my proposal could be modified somewhat.

The difference between potentially libelous statements and opinions are small. Truth is a defense to a libel lawsuit.

Many forum members, I fear will make potentially libelous statements in the sub you describe. Many forum members also very much value their privacy, but I do not doubt that Theymos has information that could lead to someone learning many forum members IRL identity with additional information, for example after talking to the persons ISP. This is important because the forum could be subjected to court actions involving the disclosure of this type of information to CSW, and this may lead to the doxing of forum members who wish to remain anonymous via court filings. The forum could fight these court actions, as can the forum member who may hypothetically CSW may try to identify, but it would be costly and complex for both.

Statements made to a lawyer who represents you are generally protected by attorney client privilege. An attorney who is making statements on behalf of a client can also craft the statements carefully to avoid making the statement potentially libelous, for example by using qualifiers such as “my client believes…”, “based on documents my client has seen…”, “it is the opinion of my client…”, etc. This would reduce the risk that those who find/expose information will be revealed.

Further, once CSW lost once in court, the evidence presented in that case is public information and others subjected to similar court actions can easily use that information.

The above is in addition to my very serious concerns about the forum taking a stance on issues related to CSW. While it is my personal belief that CSW is a fraudster, and I believe this is a reasonable belief, i would rather the forum not take this position as an institution, and I feel like creating this sub would be taking this stance.

Be careful what you wish for.  Giving BSV a platform here instead of continuing to keep the status quo would be quite a change of direction.  Would then Bitcoin Cash also deserve it's own subforum?  If your answer is, "No, because Roger isn't attacking people in the community."  Then maybe you should rethink your position.  This is a forum that doesn't moderate obvious scams because they don't want to pick and choose.  Picking and choosing a Bitcoin fork to give it's own subforum seems rather unlikely to me.  No matter who calls for it.

When I first saw the topic of this thread I was scared because i first thought the idea was to support BSV but when I read the OP page I understand it was to expose Craig Wright and his team's false activities and also save newbies from being deceived by their lies.
Creating a subforum that's only meant for it will be a good idea 

On the BSV supporters,  I'd suggest going through some threads on r/BSV and see how it works out there.

I think in general a small amount of BSV supporters coming into a space with experienced BSV debunkers does little but harm the scam:  They show up and have their claims tested against facts, get pressured to justify their positions, and -- in short -- get ripped apart.  When they're not too obnoxious they're a lot of fun to debunk, and it keeps the conversation going during the long lulls.   Though because of this, it seldom happens even when it's permitted.

The situation is different though when active BSV debunkers don't outnumber them.

One of the really good contributors to rBSV is even a former BSV investor (though he never was one of the clowns out spreading pro-Wright lies-- AFAIK not a single one of those has ever been flipped, they just disappear from the internet if they get convinced that it's not real).

The biggest problem they've created on reddit is that interacting with them gives them more opportunities to file false reports and get accounts suspended.

r/bsv does eventually ban them but only when they're outright disruptive and harassing people or doing stuff that might get the subreddit in trouble, not because they're promoting the scam.  The assumption is that >95% of the readers in rbsv are well enough informed that they're already immune to the scam (or soon will be) so the only risk to worry about is that they become annoying instead of fun for the honest participants.


Back in 2017 I circulated a message to people to see if I could get a lot of long time bitcoiners to sign onto a message saying:

My apologies.  I have the utmost respect for the people of Nigeria-- but few people know what advanced fee fraud is, and the particular brand of spanish-prisoner-con (apologies to spaniards) is known to essentially all english speakers as a nigerian price scam.  To this day I receive frequent nigerian prince scam messages though they're finally starting to be outnumbered by tech support and amazon refund scams originating out of India.  Every one of us lives with negative things done by some few scammers in our countries.  I can only promise you that I know that the actions of a relatively small population of scammers in Nigeria doesn't really reflect negatively on the rest, and I'm confident that most people feel the same way.

Wright's scamming does has an African connection-- but it's by way of a conspirator in Kenya, not Nigeria.

LOL I agree on the name.  Really I'd even leave BSV out-- without Wright it's just another irrelevant altcoin-- except the two are hopelessly intertwined and often people who need to hear about Wright are looking for info on BSV, since BSV is one of the ways they monetize the scam.  Increasingly so as they've now agreed in court that BSV will now be handing over "his" coins.


Nearly all of the quite powerful discrediting used against him in court so far has come from the community.  Truth has the property that it's reproducible by others. So when community members find information which disproves Mr. Wright, we're able to point the lawyers at it for validation and reproduction.  This is essential because replacing the public's efforts in isolating the conflicts and contradictions with paid experts at hundreds of dollars per hour would be utterly ruinously expensive.   Your mental model of "well-funded individuals (presumably who have been subjected to the kind of harassment described in the OP)" is just off base.  They do not exist.   Wright and his conspirators are legitimately well funded: They expect billions in return.  All his opponents can do is hope to mitigate losses (unless they flip and accept his bribes,  I've heard that he's offered as much as $10 million dollars to people for supporting his efforts), even where they technically have the means to pay for the litigation it's with a heavy heart because it comes at a great personal cost with no hope of a benefit from it other than Bitcoin's continued health.

The fight in court is also a public information war more than you realize.  When some professional-- a lawyer, a press person, a ghost writer, etc--   is contacted by Wright to take Wright on as a client and effectively become a paid conspirator in his scheme they have to decide if they're going to be able to plausibly deny knowing it was fraud to protect their reputation later after it collapses (and potentially avoid criminal charges themselves).  The more limited Wright is in his selection the less successful he'll be.  What the rules say and what the practice on the ground is are two distinct things: even judges in the US absolutely do look at what's said in public, even informally, and are going to take a second read of things which might end up making them look like idiots in the future.  Some of the arguments -- like general impossibility of Wright's efforts to force a coin stealing backdoor onto the network-- are themselves directly a question about the public temperature on the subject of his demands and several times already mass media articles have show up as evidence in court cases as evidence of the public's perception of the subject.

But also the fight in court is also only one element of dealing with this fraud-- it's the most obnoxious because its the one where "just ignore it and let him scam people" is not a realistic option (at least for the targets), but his attack does go beyond court.   For example, Wright's conspirators have been meeting with heads of state in many parts of the world pitching their agenda (which involves outlawing bitcoin and adopting their Bitcoin knockoff).  The only way they're getting these meetings is that whatever overworked staffer is vetting the schedule does a quick search and doesn't find information that exposes what a big reputation risk an association with this conman and his con would be.

I would generally be against this kind of sub for a reason (inadvertently) highlighted by ETFbitcoin.

Although the administrators and moderators are allowed to (and to) have their own personal viewpoints on various topics of discussion, the forum as an institution is neutral on (nearly) all topics and is a very strong advocate for free speech. The forum does not moderate for accuracy of posts, nor should it.

The intention of this kind of subforum is clearly for the forum to take a particular stance on a topic of discussion. It would be very difficult to moderate this kind of sub because I do not doubt there would be a lot of inaccurate information, likely posted by people claiming to be on both sides of the BSV/CSW debate. This inaccurate information would reduce the usefulness of anyone trying to use said subform as a means to quickly (and economically) get any case filed against them thrown out of court.

I don't think crowdsourcing this type of information is probably not the best way to accomplish your stated goal. I think it would probably be better for a group of well-funded individuals (presumably who have been subjected to the kind of harassment described in the OP) to hire an attorney to privately contact those who have lawsuits filed against them with information about how to best defend against these kinds of cases. I have noticed that many of the cases have been filed outside of the US, but in the US, courts can only consider information that has been presented to the court, and the court will not consider publicly available information if it has not otherwise been submitted to the court (also, generally the plaintiff or defendant has standing to submit evidence in most situations).

Something absolutely needs to be done.  If not a subforum, I'd settle for a sticky at the top of every single forum and subforum containing the text:

Craig Wright is a proven liar, charlatan and identity thief.  SV is a worthless scamcoin.  Anyone who supports either is scum, bereft of human decency.

Followed by all the documented evidence of Wright's forgeries and lies.

Hello Greg. With due respect to your contribution to the Bitcoin community, I'd like to strongly oppose to this suggestion of yours. Here is why...

1. A dedicated sub-forum will lead to undue attention to this shitcoin, i.e. BSV.

2. Possibility of a Streisand effect can not be ruled out either.

3. A narrative like Bitcoiners are Afraid may also be floated.


I would rather suggest the following...

1. Regularly post and discuss attacks by BSV proponents on Bitcoiners on Bitcoin Discussion.

2. Expose scam by BSV community leaders at Scam Accusations.

3. Mention technical inferiority and glitches of BSV at Unmoderated BSV Thread.

4. If theymos agrees, more factoids with links to relevant threads may be shown in forum ad space.


Fundamentally, creating awareness of What is Bitcoin is probably more important than telling people Why BSV is SCAM. Otherwise, if we need a sub to defend BSV attacks, we'd probably need a hell lot of subs for defense & awareness in future. It'll open a can of worm, that we may comfortably ignore.

Oh this guy is still around? He must be wealthy to have continued to promote the faketoshi claim since then. Must be riding on the support of the government and gold miners to devalue bitcoin and cause a stalemate in the bitcoin communities. I thought the drama was over when he failed to transfer 1.2 million bitcoin from his Satoshi wallet.

A sub-board will not be a problem, but expect more anti-bitcoin and trolls to spam the hell out of it.


Was it necessary? Why are you linking his fraudulent activities to the Nigerian community? You know that would irritate anyone from that country.

I don't think an entire sub board would be necessary right now. Like others have said, this info would be best confined to their own relevant thread(s) and sub boards are only created if and once there's demand so that's the place you should start. Still, I don't think we need an entire board and could even be counter productive as I'm sure Craig would find a way to turn it into a win or a point of attack. He usually does.


Yeah, maybe rename it to BSV/Faketoshi scam sub or something.


I tend to look at BSVers as just brainwashed sheep who have fallen for an enigmatic cult leader. It doesn't matter what evidence you show them they will explain it away no matter how ridiculous the reasoning is. You could make a very rational and reasonable argument to a religious person as to why there is no god or that there's no spaceship coming to ascend a cult member off to heaven but people won't listen once they've drunk the coolaid. I'm not sure half of the BSV trolls believe Craig's bullshit anyway but have such a vested financial interest in BSV that they don't care and will promote it because they see this as getting in at ground zero and want to see BSV flip Bitcoin and take them to the moon with it.

As much as I despise Craig - and I hate to say it - I almost admire his tenacity with his long-con as he has quite an ingenious knack for excusing everything away with relative ease regardless of whether we can see through the obvious lies. Most people would have buckled under the enormous weight of having to keep up the ruse of piling bullshit on top of several layers of bullshit, but he's like a Terminator: he just keeps going no matter how many times he gets knocked down. I think prison is the only thing that's going to stop him at this point. Was there any update on why the ATO haven't actually tried to arrest him given the pretty obvious tax fraud? I'm sure he's likely to have committed tax fraud in the UK too with all the losses and hacks he's reported to the police so it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to write that off on his taxes.

1000% a great idea. I’ve got a few questions about BSV I’ve wanted to ask you specifically, being one of the most knowledgeable cryptographers on the planet.

(we are lucky to have you here, I hope you know how many of us really appreciate your participation)

If you destroy the mothership, you kill all the Chitauri (look that up if you want).

So if some events happen which have the consequence of the media telling the world that he is provably not Satoshi Nakamoto, but a clown (not even a fraudster), then the BSV morass will wither away.

Do they actually want proof? Did they ever care about valid proofs? They can spam with their "views". And trolling needs to be strong in order to get the account punished for that.


Look at 1x whatever spammers. The community have given up on them.
It can easily happen with bsv shills too.


Indeed. Just internet is different than a proper debate. On internet one can easily create 1000 accounts to support his point and the honest participant will be beaten, his arguments will be lost within a sea of crap and any honest participant who want to see a discussion will leave in disgust.


Heh, nice point of view but I doubt that this is going to happen. It would be meaning double standards related to freedom of speech and I don't think that this forum will go on that path.

---

Maybe, although more difficult to implement, a forum would be the solution; a forum where trolling is punished much more harshly and the things one tells may need to come with solid proof.
Maybe this could be done as a test ground for the new forum software.

However, I tend to come lately with ideas people may think I have time and willingness to implement (which I don't), so please think twice before thinking it's a valid idea, because maybe it's not. at least for the effort.

Having been following the recent trial closely, I also noticed you being banned from Reddit and flagged it up my post here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60972559

I'll reiterate what I said there: Reddit is a trash platform.

I am generally in support of all efforts to show CSW up for the fraudster he is. Two thoughts come to mind immediately when considering a sub-board. Firstly, it should be as a sub-board under Scams or Reputation, not under Bitcoin Discussion or any of the bitcoin centric boards. In my mind, doing the latter lends credibility to BSV. Secondly, moderation. This forum in general has a long history of not banning trolls or deleting even provably wrong information. I am not in favor of DaveF's suggestion above of just silencing the other side, as in doing so pushes us more towards the type of mob-rule echo chamber that is part of the reason Reddit is so bad. But on the other hand, without a stricter moderation policy than that which is applied in the rest of the forum, the board would I'm sure rapidly become overrun with BSV shills and trolls. It would require a carefully considered approach.

I think it would be better just to eliminate all PRO BSV people / threads and just leave the ones ridiculing how bad it is. Don't even give them the opportunity to have a voice here.
Make it perfectly clear that it's a scam / con and although the forum does not moderate scams / cons this one time it's so bad and the perpetrators of it are so scummy that they are not allowed here.

This way we are showing one voice as to how bad they are, and we are not wasting time trying to shout over the trolls / shills.

There are some things that I disagree with and don't like that I can just ignore, once you get to this stage there is no reason to even let them exist here. At least in my view.

-Dave

I support the suggestion but I'm not sure if a sub-forum is the right way to do it.
no idea how to do it better :/


It won't happen if people don't give up. It's the race of who will be tired first. And the answer is none but readers with a brain will make their own opinion.
It's a bit like politics, there is always someone not happy and ready to fight, and there is always someone to debate
In a democratic system, everyone can participate and debate, it's the job of others to show them wrong, and it's up to the population to decide

We can run a trial thread on Investigations and Reputation/Scam Accusations to see how strong the community reactions is to that, and if there is sufficient interest then a subforum can be created, though I believe it's *highly* unlikely that Theymos would create a subforum for such a temporary purpose.


[In case anyone is wondering: No, I will not volunteer to create such a thread - I have my hands full doing battle with environmental trolls. But I will definitely participate in one.]

As long as it would be for people to know that Craig Wright is not Satoshi. It is a good idea. Hope the subforum would be given a name that will easily depict its purpose?

People requested for boards. I think sub-forum can grow and later be organized into boards. But boards can only have child-boards. Boards that I remember that were demanded for are lightning network, NFT (obviously NFTs are altcoins and no need for that) and local board like Nigeria local board. But those can just be in another discussion because this is pertaining to what could help bitcoin community, and there is a need for it.

Edit:
I also think about this. But what good evidences are Faketoshi and Faketoshi supporters would have on this forum as a proof to legitimately back their fake opinions? It is still trolling.

Exactly. I fear that this kind of subforum has the potential of having the opposite effect of what it is intended for.
And since trolling is hardly punished and posting lies / inaccuracies is not against the forum rules... we may end up helping them instead of showing the actual truth.

Am I too pessimistic?

Sure why not, but don't we already have few topics in Scam Accusations section that are dedicated to BSV scam?
If we are going to create special sub-forum for CSW scam, than we should think about creating few other sub-forums people demanded several times.

They have few cult supporters even in bitcointalk forum and I am sure they will flood whatever topics in forum if CSW cult leader command them.
Creating new forum accounts is easy and they can always reactivate bunch of old accounts for attacks.

Making new forum for this is a waste of time in my opinion.

Lol, I had intended to edit the title before posting.  But ... now I can just pretend it was a really brilliant piece of click bait.



There are global mods and whatnot.   I think on reddit on r/bsv we've needed relatively little moderation except for some BSV promoters that have become too abusive --- one possibility would be to draw moderators from the participants there.  In particular, there are people who have been moderating r/bsv and doing a good job (I think in general rbsv is moderated in a way that is generally compatible with the generally lax hand approach of BCT moderation). I have no idea what the level of interest would be there: It may not be very high unless use of the subforum really takes off.

I also do not mind such a board being created, but I am not so sure about calling it a BSV subforum. The focus now is obviously on CSW, but it would not always be, and we cannot create a new board for every troll who takes it extreme.

Something like "Bitcoin protection" or "satoshi vision" sounds good.

If theymos is in agreement, who to moderate the board should not be a worry, there are patrollers, staffs and global mods. Beginners and help does not have an active local mod, but it is still going fine [enough].
If new nominations are needed, o_e_l_e_ o or LoyceV are good options.

- Jay -

I thought your account was comprised when i read the title.


I don't mind such board/subforum, since it also could tidy "Bitcoin Discussion" board a bit. But the question is, who'll be moderator of this board?

Would people be supportive of creating a sub-forum for investigating/exposing Craig Wright and his BSV scam for the protection of Bitcoin and Bitcoiners?

Most of the people doing this work have been coordinating on twitter and reddit,  but BSV scammers have been flooding the platforms with false reports and have successfully knocked out more than a couple account thanks to idiotic and/or artificially-idiotic (AI) report processing. There is also a real risk that the scammers simply buy off the platforms (e.g. in the case of reddit) or their staff (e.g. in the case of twitter) to achieve their end. 

Moving a community around can be really hard but it doesn't necessarily need to happen:  If it's clear to the attackers that at most all their attack will do is switch the URL people are collaborating at then they may just give up on the attack.

I'd say we could post in some existing subforum but part of maintaining a community around a subject that is protracted as one involving a decade long scam and a dozen court cases (each of which has months between each event) ... involves a bunch of lulz and shitposting,  traffic that is basically only interesting to people working on the subject, mocking the latest forgeries, etc.  While the big events in faketoshi land are of general interest to most forum members most of the day to day traffic is only interesting to faketoshi debunkers and people following the ongoing train wreak(s).

If it's not obvious to you why this is important to Bitcoin, here is some background:

As anyone not living under a rock probably knows by now:  The most infamous faktoshi, conman par-excellence Craig Wright, has been creating a rather substantial nuisance of himself by piling lawsuit after lawsuit against Bitcoin community members, journalists, developers, and former developers.  For example, he's sued me and a dozen other bitcoin developers and former devlopers demanding ~6 billion dollars in damages, and has a second lawsuit filed naming us that we haven't even seen yes.  His court case in norway with hodlnaut has been in the news lately.

Over time his necessity has evolved from a simple (although high value) tax rebate scam to an advanced fee fraud (nigerian prince) to what is, hopefully, its final form: an impersonation scam with a target of a >$20 billion dollar payoff:   Their plan is to steal a mountain of early bitcoins by fraudulently claiming to have owned them and lost the keys, then demanding bitcoin developers write and bitcoin users deploy a cryptographic back door to reassign those coins to them.  I say "their" because the real scam here is that likely Wright has convinced wealthy funders that together they're partners in a scheme which is going to rob the world/Satoshi but really Wright knows it won't work and his goal is just to scam the funders.

It's *very* common for cons to take the structure of the conman convincing a mark that they're really going to rob a third party, when in fact the third party is in on it, or doesn't even exist and it's the mark getting robbed.  The story however, helps keep the mark from getting good advice, explains the con's sketchy behavior, and answers varrious microeconomic questions the mark would already have ("Why are you sharing this windfall with me? -- because I need your help to pull off the con.")

Anyone with a reasonable Bitcoin background knows that Bitcoin doesn't really work that way-- if developers (or whomever) were trusted to not steal coins bitcoin could have just skipped the whole ledger thing and had them run servers like paypal.  Unfortunately, even if Wright was only able to convince his true mark that they have just a small -- say 1% -- chance of success then it would make economic sense to spend tens or hundreds of millions on the effort and that's exactly what is happening.

To put it in non-Bitcoin terms:  Mr. Bumblecharm has convinced Duke creepycal that with Bumblecharm's long history of obvious forgeries they'll be able to convince the world that Mr. Bumblecharm is true heir to the royal throne, and should property be awarded control of the empire along with its vast estates and accounts which he'll share with creepycal in exchange for funding the enterprise.  To accomplish this they're harassing, intimidating, and litigating against any visible person that disagrees in public or otherwise stands in their way.  Duke creepycal likely believed the story in the past (in the earlier nigerian prince phase) but likely doesn't believe it now (though it doesn't much matter if he does or doesn't-- he's in it for the payoff).

If this really were about royalty the public would laugh it off the stage, but since it's about something new and technical people's eyes glaze over and their reason goes out the window.  Large parts of the media is complicit because "maybe" makes a better story and a reduced lawsuit risk than "this is an obvious joke as was proved years ago"-- so even as wright get caught over and over again with utterly indisputable forgeries they're able to keep carrying to the public that this his claim is merely 'disputed by some'.  This translates into courts and professional services (like PR agencies, and lawfirms) having at enough plausible deniability that they're willing to participate in the con in exchange for payment.

His highly funded lawsuits have already cost people millions of dollars defending them and if carried to trial are expected to cost ten to tens of millions of dollars more, and there is little to limit him filing more of them.  Stopping him requires casting a light on his actions so clear and stark that no one can ignore the facts -- we need to get to a state where his lawsuits are laughed out of court and where prosecutors feel pressured to take action against an obvious fraud.

Some Bitcoiner's I've encountered say things like "I see why this is personally tragic for the people being targeted, but I don't see why this matters to Bitcoin: He can't get people to run a backdoor and devs can go anon".  But I think both this is anoverly narrow perspective.

It's true that no one can force people to adopt some hardfork like Wright wants-- but it's only because the community speaks out against it that people will know to not run it and avoid being bamboozled into it.  Bitcoin's non-cryptographic security comes from its users defending their own interests. There is no authority charged with protecting Bitcoin: it's in the hands of each and every user and owner of Bitcoins.  And as the say-- 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'.  So it's not a proper response to someone pointing out an attack to say "don't bother doing something, bitcoin is strong against attacks" when we're taking about strength that exists specifically because people will do something.

The specific pressure against developers may create a bias toward developers that are more reckless or even ones that have bad motivations (why worry that you're going to get sued by Wright if your real goal was to get your own backdoor in).   Anonymity is an additive tool some may use, but unless your involvement is to toss a patch or a post over a wall and quickly disappear it's basically impossible to stay strongly anonymous against a competent and concerted attacker: every word you say risks leaking things about you.  Satoshi is anonymous, sure, but he left in 2011 before anyone was really paying attention to bitcoin.  Anyone who participates anonymously should be assuming their identity will be exposed eventually that, at best, it's an additional security measure. Anyone who thinks anonymity is a serious fix has not given a lot of thought on what it takes to be strongly anonymous.

While Bitcoin can handle losing any particular developers but developers are a resource bitcoin uses to fight other attacks, and so it's easier for Bitcoin to be wounded or disrupted in the future if competent developers are chased out.  So while wright's attack probably can't kill bitcoin on its own, it's not inconceivable that it could weaken it enough that some future attack does much more harm.  And sure, while kill bitcoin completely is a pretty unrealistic idea-- a bitcoin that was barely used by anyone, outlawed many places, and/or unreliable would be much less valuable and useful to the world.  It might not be "totally dead" but that would still be a sorry outcome.  I worry a lot that an attack of this approach evades Bitcoin's immune response.  I think if a state were to do what Wright is doing there would be a very strong reaction-- but if the attack is disguised as a joke many people go 'meh'.

Wright's attacks are also against individual bitcoin advocates, journalists, and Bitcoin companies-- not just developers.  Even if you ignore the direct harm, they divert tremendous amounts of resources that could otherwise be spent improving bitcoin or hardening it against other attacks.  So I think that although Mr. Wright himself is an obvious joke, the harm he's causing and can cause the ecosystem is a serious concern.

So given that I think this is a subject worth at least a little attention from every serious Bitcoin-- and it's certainly worth making sure people that have picked up the mantle here have a place they can discuss their efforts without being silenced by Wright and his conspirators.

We could obviously setup a separate forum but there is a lot of work that goes into maintaining something like that which is already done by Bitcointalk.

Cheers