Pages:
Author

Topic: Craig "Faketoshi" Wright saga continues. His team turns against him. (Read 1150 times)

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
-snip-
Funny you should mention that, since the BCash fork is also used to prove yet another back dated forgery in CSW's documents:

Quote
4. The hidden, embedded content of previous edits additionally refers to the fork between BTC and BCH, two versions of Bitcoin, an event which took place in 2017. [PM34 at 25-26]

And here's another great part of COPA's submission:

Quote
g. Following, and in evident response to, the service of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has acted as follows:

i. He has sought to disclaim responsibility for the documents previously designated by him as Reliance Documents, including through his provision of extended chain of custody information (information he had previously refused to supply even in more basic form) in which he has for the first time suggested that the documents were handled by many unidentified further persons. He has thus sought to distance himself from documents only once their veracity has been called into question.

...

iii. He has sought to replace his Reliance Documents with versions he has supposedly “discovered” in hard drives and which he claims to be preferable versions.

How convenient for CSW! As soon as COPA revealed that the documents he's been using in multiple trials over multiple years are complete forgeries, he discovered a few old hard drives containing better copies! What a coincidence! And what bad luck for CSW that he just can't seem to find a few old hard drives containing Satoshi's private keys. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 4508
**In BTC since 2013**
Another funny thing is the timeline he establishes about the “Original Bitcoin”.

It says that BTC deviated from the original white paper in 2017 and BCH was created.
Then it says that BCH deviated from the original white paper in 2018, and then the current BSV emerged, which is the original.

In short, for 10 years he has been diverted from his alleged creation. He's very bad at holding things back.  Roll Eyes


https://bitcoinsv.com/ (If possible, avoid touching this link, Craig "Faketoshi" Wright could accuse you of something!)
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
COPA have filed a document containing their analysis of CSW's "evidence", with explanations of why almost everything he submitted is a blatant forgery.

You can find the document here: https://bitcoindefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/AmendedPOCandSchedule.pdf

Here are just a couple of my favorite parts:

Quote
2. The document has been backdated. The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be later than 18 August 2019 at 9:10am (UTC). [PM25 at 8-13]

3. Searching online revealed the presence of a very similar document uploaded by Dr Wright to the website SSRN which was created just a few hours after the Grammarly timestamp of ID_000199, on the same date 18 August 2019. That uploaded document (the “SSRN Upload”) was created with software that did not yet exist in 2007. [PM25 at 40-46]
So not only is CSW completely unaware that computer files contain metadata which include such information as to when they were created and modified, but he also used software which didn't exist at the time he is claiming to have written these documents. Even his forgeries are utterly incompetent. Plenty more of the same sort of thing over a variety of his other documents:

Quote
3. The document contains embedded references to fonts including Calibri Light and Nirmala UI [PM25 at 20]. Those fonts were not yet published in 2008 [Madden Report at 165]. Further, the designers of those fonts have given evidence relied on by COPA in these proceedings that the fonts were not yet conceived of or designed by the purported date of this document.
Quote
3. Equations within ID_000227 were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 at 32, 42]
Quote
5. The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 at 21]

But then it seems at some point CSW does become aware of metadata, and thinks that changing his computer clock will be enough to fool it:

Quote
4. ID_000504 records an impossible edit time in excess of 41 days. In percentage terms, the recorded MS Word Edit Time equates to more than 100% of the time difference between the Created and Last Saved dates. This is consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM28 at 5-6]
Quote
4. The document contains an impossible edit time of minus 13 years, 7 months and 4 days [PM9 at 70].

There is plenty of more evidence if you want to read through it, from CSW referencing events which hadn't happened yet, sending emails from domains he hadn't registered yet, linking to websites which didn't exist yet, and more. COPA even got the manufacturer of a physical notepad that CSW supposedly hand wrote notes on to provide evidence that they did not manufacture that notepad at the time CSW claims he used it. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1101
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
What difference does it make to the average BTC owner? My question is genuine.
I mean, it will neither matter to the average Bitcoin user, but let's not forget that the average user follows Twitter accounts (some of which are "whale alert bots"), reads crypto articles and the like. Hell, some even gamble based on "blockchain analysis". It wouldn't impress me if there was suddenly more trading volume because of the information that there is someone with that pile of cash. (who isn't known to be selling coins)

I'd agree, though, that Satoshi appearing out of nowhere selling all his coins would be a little weird. Not concerning necessarily, but surely weird.

i don't think that would happen though. in any case, what we can do in this market is just keep ourself updated and educate what's going on. if we are moving our funds blindly, then no one is to blame but ourself if we failed with our action.
 we are all observers in this market, and we react depending on what we think will favour our stash. there may be fomo, fud or whatever it is. but it all boils down to the fact that we make decisions depending if it will benefit our vaults.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1031
Only BTC
however its the top 5 "bitcoin richlist" people should be wary of, more so than the thousands of addresses of smaller amounts
That is what it is and i don't think people should be wary of any of these particular scenarios, you can't stop people from buying BTC's, neither can you stop them from selling, so there should be no need to worry over what you cannot control. People react to too many events that happen in the network, especially when it has to do with coins moving or being sold, as a bitcoiner you have to accept that there are a lot of weak hands and manipulators in the network, and they can really influence the price; you should ignore it all when such movements are happening if you truly believe in BTC.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
What difference does it make to the average BTC owner? My question is genuine.
I mean, it will neither matter to the average Bitcoin user, but let's not forget that the average user follows Twitter accounts (some of which are "whale alert bots"), reads crypto articles and the like. Hell, some even gamble based on "blockchain analysis". It wouldn't impress me if there was suddenly more trading volume because of the information that there is someone with that pile of cash. (who isn't known to be selling coins)

I'd agree, though, that Satoshi appearing out of nowhere selling all his coins would be a little weird. Not concerning necessarily, but surely weird.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896

id be more worried about microstrategy/blackrock/grayscale doing a mass sell off
each of their keys has thousands of coin per key..
the real satoshi had separate key per 50btc. meaning if someone brute forced a key, its the top 5 "bitcoin richlist" people should be wary of, more so than the thousands of addresses of smaller amounts


I think binance also holds huge amounts of BTC


It makes no difference to a Bitcoiner who understands the market and who knows what they are doing, take note that there are a lot of weak hands in the market who only think profit all the time, they sell whenever there is fud and a possibility of the price falling and they fomo buy when BTC price is rising, and make no mistake, the number who do this are so much.

People even react to fud and panic-sell for events of a lesser degree, some even panic and sell if some public figure spreads fud in the internet, surely they'll sell if they know millions of coins they thought was a donation to the network is now available to be spent, and they could send the price crashing down temporarily.

Exactly. People don't know what they buy. That's obvious.
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4458
And so I have no doubt that if a signed message appeared from the genesis block public key which included a recent date, lots of people would panic sell and the price would indeed fall.

Do you really think that? I doubt.

Bitcoin has a total supply of 21M BTC. Let's assume there are 4M BTC that can be unlocked by "lost / forgotten" private keys. Let's also assume that suddenly someone claims ownership of all those coins (not just the 1M that is assumed to belong to Satoshi)

What difference does it make to the average BTC owner? My question is genuine.

Let me express my thoughts on this.

If someone owned 4M BTC, I wouldn't even care. Bitcoin works with PoW so it doesn't matter how many coins you own, only how much energy you use, which is attached to how much computing power you have. So I don't care.

If they sold all of that BTC, it would cause a price collapse for BTC. In that case I would run as fast as possible to buy as much as I can, because the total supply will never change!

In fact, those two arguments above is EXACTLY why Bitcoin is valuable to me.

id be more worried about microstrategy/blackrock/grayscale doing a mass sell off
each of their keys has thousands of coin per key..
the real satoshi had separate key per 50btc reward. meaning if someone brute forced a key, its only 50btc at market risk..
same goes for the supposed 4m lost, there are not hoarded on a single key..
 however its the top 5 "bitcoin richlist" people should be wary of, more so than the thousands of addresses of smaller amounts

in short, dont expect the 'lost coins' spread over thousands of addresses to cause a dump.. even if a significant address gets recently signed.
satoshis 18btc in the well known address (satoshi->hal interactions), wont cause market chaos
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1031
Only BTC
What difference does it make to the average BTC owner? My question is genuine.
It makes no difference to a Bitcoiner who understands the market and who knows what they are doing, take note that there are a lot of weak hands in the market who only think profit all the time, they sell whenever there is fud and a possibility of the price falling and they fomo buy when BTC price is rising, and make no mistake, the number who do this are so much.

People even react to fud and panic-sell for events of a lesser degree, some even panic and sell if some public figure spreads fud in the internet, surely they'll sell if they know millions of coins they thought was a donation to the network is now available to be spent, and they could send the price crashing down temporarily.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
And so I have no doubt that if a signed message appeared from the genesis block public key which included a recent date, lots of people would panic sell and the price would indeed fall.

Do you really think that? I doubt.

Bitcoin has a total supply of 21M BTC. Let's assume there are 4M BTC that can be unlocked by "lost / forgotten" private keys. Let's also assume that suddenly someone claims ownership of all those coins (not just the 1M that is assumed to belong to Satoshi)

What difference does it make to the average BTC owner? My question is genuine.

Let me express my thoughts on this.

If someone owned 4M BTC, I wouldn't even care. Bitcoin works with PoW so it doesn't matter how many coins you own, only how much energy you use, which is attached to how much computing power you have. So I don't care.

If they sold all of that BTC, it would cause a price collapse for BTC. In that case I would run as fast as possible to buy as much as I can, because the total supply will never change!

In fact, those two arguments above is EXACTLY why Bitcoin is valuable to me.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
I don't think so. Permanently lost means permanently lost. As long as there is a possibility higher than 0 to retrieve the PK that derives those addresses, then they are not permanently lost, if we wanna be accurate
Correct. The number of provably lost bitcoins, such as those sent to OP_RETURN outputs, those sent to invalid locking scripts, those which miners failed to claim in the first place, etc., is very small, and numbers around 2,828 BTC. But we frequently see the figure of around 4 million "lost" bitcoin be thrown around on this forum, on Reddit, on Twitter, on various crypto blogs and clickbait sites, and so on. It is a widely held belief, even if it is completely incorrect.

And so I have no doubt that if a signed message appeared from the genesis block public key which included a recent date, lots of people would panic sell and the price would indeed fall.
legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1561
Many people operate under the mistaken premise that any coins which have not moved in x number of years are permanently lost, and therefore removed from the supply. Many people also assume that Satoshi owns in excess of 1 million bitcoin. A message signed from the genesis block public key would lead many people to realize that assuming coins are lost with zero proof is a mistake, and worry that in excess of a million coins could be about to be sold, leading to them selling their own coins for fear of the price falling. I don't agree with this logic, but many people do.

I believe this is what pawel is referring to above.

Precisely. BTC price is decided by buy and sell orders. If, all of a sudden, a risk appears that an additional 1 million bitcoins can be dumped on the market, that would cause a panic.
And if you're money motivated, you not only have to consider what is likely to happen, but also what other traders think would happen and how will they react.

However, on second thought, I think that such event would reflect negatively on the price, but it wouldn't necessarily trigger a proper crash. After all, if someone had access to that 1 mil btc and didn't sell for all those years, what is the likelihood of them selling now all at once?
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
Many people operate under the mistaken premise that any coins which have not moved in x number of years are permanently lost, and therefore removed from the supply. Many people also assume that Satoshi owns in excess of 1 million bitcoin. A message signed from the genesis block public key would lead many people to realize that assuming coins are lost with zero proof is a mistake, and worry that in excess of a million coins could be about to be sold, leading to them selling their own coins for fear of the price falling. I don't agree with this logic, but many people do.

I believe this is what pawel is referring to above.

I don't think so. Permanently lost means permanently lost. As long as there is a possibility higher than 0 to retrieve the PK that derives those addresses, then they are not permanently lost, if we wanna be accurate
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
Many people operate under the mistaken premise that any coins which have not moved in x number of years are permanently lost, and therefore removed from the supply. Many people also assume that Satoshi owns in excess of 1 million bitcoin. A message signed from the genesis block public key would lead many people to realize that assuming coins are lost with zero proof is a mistake, and worry that in excess of a million coins could be about to be sold, leading to them selling their own coins for fear of the price falling. I don't agree with this logic, but many people do.

I believe this is what pawel is referring to above.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
Aside from what other member already said, each Satoshi action in public could be used to de-anonymize Satoshi.

Yeah you have a strong point here. Although satoshi knows well how to hide.

I also don't understand. If such action could affect the market, what might happen is further BSV crash.

Anyway, I don't see how this action could affect bitcoins price. But it's such an unrealistic scenario, so ...
legendary
Activity: 2856
Merit: 7410
Crypto Swap Exchange
I may sound silly but, wouldn't it be great if satoshi appeared, just once, to sign a message saying that CSW is fraud? Of course the main point behind this action would be to save Core Devs from paying absurd money in legal expenses

Aside from what other member already said, each Satoshi action in public could be used to de-anonymize Satoshi.

And of course, crashing the market would be an undesirable side effect.

What do you mean by that? How would the market crash?

I also don't understand. If such action could affect the market, what might happen is further BSV crash.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 560
And of course, crashing the market would be an undesirable side effect.

What do you mean by that? How would the market crash?

I guess from his context, what he meant was the market bear and not that the bitcoin network crashing as the thought might have shown in his expression, though we all have different ways of expressing ourselves but crashing in this regard could either mean the price crashing or the network completely going down crashing, which i believe that was not his intention on that.

As for Craig Wright and his fake teams, the table is turning around already by the table shaker, preys are now hunting after their hunter, law of karma.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
And of course, crashing the market would be an undesirable side effect.

What do you mean by that? How would the market crash?
Pages:
Jump to: