Topic: Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud - Tulip Trust addresses signed message - page 3. (Read 9816 times)

I haven't gotten to that point yet.

I just read the main complaint. There are no links in that document to anything else.

How is this complaint linked to any bitcoin addressess ?

I am not only interested in Craig and this lawsuit... but also why somebody would sign this and where this information came from.

So I keep an open mind =D

Ok now that I scroll down I see a huge number of documents/pdfs with excibits/possible evidence... interesting to go take a looksy.

So I am trying to download as many pdf's s possinle from courtlistener website. Not sure what this website is ? Seems maybe commercial website follows courts ? Not sure.

Then at the bottom I discover this was only page 1 and there are now 4 pages with even more documents.

Probably 100's of PDF's. I will try and download as many as possible but some are behind a paywall.

Does anybody have a link to a torrent containing all documents ?

Or are the pdf's the most important ones ? I am mostly interested in "evidence" documents, not so much court legal/motions babble and such though could be somewhat usefull as well.

So from the looks of it, document 1 was just the "intro" into this story.

And now it's dragged out in court... where slowly, day by day and week by week and month by month and year by year evidence is presented

Lots of documents to go through =D

So I have read the main complaint against Craig Wreight from this lawsuit/gov website. Keep in mind I am dutch but ok used some translation a few times for some difficult words.

So far what I can make up/understand from this document is that Craig reached out to Dad of Dave Kleiman. Dave is supposedly also co-inventor of bitcoin and there would be a third person.
Dad is too old and tech-dumb to understand all of it lol. So Dave's brother IRA steps and believes Craig story. Now IRA believes Craig and believes Dave had lots of Bitcoins.
One does not transfer bitcoins just like that. Dave and Craig run a mining company called W&K according to this document probably from Craigh. So basically all information seems to be coming from Craig.

Where is any real information or evidence from IRA itself ? From strange. There is no linking to attachments however I will examine the attachments later. Anyway Dave got crippled because of motor cycle accident. Then got infected by MRSA.. maybe he got into a fight and got injured. He was found dead in blood and shit tracks from wheelchair... bullit hole in bed. It's possible Craig went over there with a gun. Forced Dave to hand over the private keys to coins and then shot him dead. However this is only if you believe Craig's story he told to IRA.

So far I have seen 0% evidence for any of this in this main document. There was a reference to an otto font which is kinda interesting for mimicing handwritten signatures.

My first impression of this document is it's a HOAX between Ira and Craig and goverment to try and smoke out the real owners of these bitcoins ! So beware !

However it could also be that Ira himself is a scammer and is now accusing another potential scammer Craig that he owes this dead Dave some coins, which is kinda funny.

So some possibilities:

1. Ira is a scammer
2. Craigh is a scammer
3. Dave is a scammer.

4. Ira is not a scammer
5. Craigh is not a scammer
6. Dave is not a scammer.

7. They all have nothing to do with it.
8. Some might have something to do with it.
9. All have something to do with it.

Only way to tell is to look at any hard evidence which there should be plenty of if messages can be verified.

10. However here lies the problem in this court case. According to IRA craig is only one in possession of private keys, so only Craig can sign any messages.

Here today we are with very hard proof that messages were signed. Now the question is who signed these messages ?

11. Was it craig himself who signed this message ? To make the court believe he truely is scammer ? And he possed no bitcoins what so ever... In that case he owes IRA nothing.

So it is very well possibly that Craig himself signed this message if you believe IRA's and Craigh's own/e-mail story.

Therefore the source of this information/signed message is very important.

You're barking up the wrong tree. It makes no difference how or where it was posted. The signatures can be verified so CSW is a liar.

Not necessarily. Most of the addresses in that list are mining addresses. They mined a huge fortune and have yet to touch most of it (or at least some of it -- we don't know to what extent they were actually involved, only that they are the owner of all those addresses claimed by Craig to be his own). This person might not have spent a single cent to amass their fortune -- minus electricity costs which are negligible compared to what they are today.

I just did blockchain.com is what I was using long ago back in those days.

It does show some 50 coins in there on both chains.

OK. Now that I see it's genuine/true, the reality and importance and magnitude of this is slowly starting to sink in(to my brain lol).

This could indeed by satoshi or somebody close to him.

It's at least somebody with a lot of bitcoins ! LOL.

But it's only 50 bitcoins. Worth 10.000 euro or so. Oh wait that is for 1 BTC so 50 BTC is currently 500.000 euros... and there are 100 of these addresses at least, so that is 50.000.000 euros of bitcoins signing this message, that is indeed a lot !... but ok what was the value of these bitcoins in 2009 ?! not much anybody could have bought it perhaps... What could be interesting is if these bitcoin addresses were mined in sequence and if they are all from 2009 and such...

Do the other addresses also have 50 bitcoins each ? I think so this was mentioned so that is a lot more.

So this is some *very rich bastard* signing this LOL.

Then again maybe not close to satoshi, maybe earlier miner, maybe earlier buyer if it existed back in 2009 buying bitcoins.

Could also be a recent bitcoin address purchase of these private keys...

Though for now it's possible this is an "old timer" from 2009 !

I think I know who it might be... but his identity isn't really that important or is it ?

It's somebody that dumped his life's savings into bitcoin at that very time.

This slogan is his... "we are all satoshi"... and the reference to the marvelous invention of the lightning network indicates he has a background in programming and likes this tech.

So it's a pretty close fit, this person also has a youtube account.

This person benefits from BTC and BCH both... (at least financially) so there is no real reason for this person to trash one or the other, so this is a bit weird. Perhaps it is somebody else... than I had in mind... maybe satoshi himself that has a cruch against bch for copieing and then modifieing/forking his work...

I cannot imagine this cruch to be financially cause that dont make sense... the more coins copy this blockchain the richer this person gets... so this person might have reduced interest in getting rich lol or is just taking a piss at craig for fun... kinda weird... or is scared bitcoin might be ruined by giving it a bad name and his life savings investments might become worthless because of it... that might make some sense.

Then find a block explorer that meats your obviously highly specific parameters. Or set up your own node and figure it out yourself.

This is even more fishy it scans 16 blockchains not very helpfull !

Here is another one a tool/website from long ago:

https://www.blockchain.com/search?search=1MRHrSxnmtUTv48UpxorA9PX2nSEC9yndi

It reports it finds this string on two blockchains

BTC
BCH

From there on it gets fishy and it mentions conversion from new coinbase and god knows what else.

According to this tool:

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1MRHrSxnmtUTv48UpxorA9PX2nSEC9yndi

it does have 50 BTC in it.

However when I click BCH version:

https://www.blockchain.com/bch/address/1MRHrSxnmtUTv48UpxorA9PX2nSEC9yndi

Suddenly the address changes:

qr0l4ygfhvcz2s67r403a07d4weksvh5cv5gqsgd8r


It mentions something about: CashAddr (P2PKH)

Apperently this address is now encoded differently for cash address.

How convenient to create more confusion for finding strings.

Very strange... I see little point in blockchains if information is so confusion and history of transactions becomes difficult to figure out.

There is no mention of bitcoin.com being a scam site.... so this is also a bit fishy !

Well funny enough the verification tool still shows the message is valid even for the bitcoin cash encoded address:

qr0l4ygfhvcz2s67r403a07d4weksvh5cv5gqsgd8r

So at least these older tools agree there are indeed 50 bitcoins in those addresses.

Weird how bitcoin.com does not show this correctly, either indeed a scam site or some bug in that site !

At least that will be my assumption for now Maybe later I check it with some bitcoin database on my on usb harddisk lol but that will have to wait till much later !

You're using a scam site... of course it's fishy. Use a proper block explorer, e.g.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1MRHrSxnmtUTv48UpxorA9PX2nSEC9yndi

(Remove "" from message for verification purposes)

Interesting tool you found there. However as a software developer myself I must disappoint you and warn you this graphical user interface is flawed.

It does not show on which blockchain this verification takes place.

Examining the bitcoin address with bitcoin explorer it shows a strange result:

1. The BCH blockchain does contain 50 value on this address.
2. The BTC blockchain does not contain 50 value on this address and shows no transactions have taken place.

As far as I can remember BCH was copied from BTC.

According to google search result BCH was created in 2017.

So here is a mysterious question for you:

How is it possible that BCH shows this verification (or at least this tool) is true/there (in 2009 ?!?!)

While BTC does not ?!

Was this transaction somehow added to the BCH blockchain ? This could mean the BCH blockchain is compromised and fake.

Or was it deleted from BTC.

I am no expert in all of this, but this is fishy for sure ?!

Here you can check this bitcoin address for yourself:

BCH:
https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/address/1MRHrSxnmtUTv48UpxorA9PX2nSEC9yndi

VERSUS

BTC:
https://explorer.bitcoin.com/btc/address/1MRHrSxnmtUTv48UpxorA9PX2nSEC9yndi

^^^

WHAT IS VERY FISHY ABOUT THIS ONE IS, WHEN YOU OPEN IT, IT WILL SHOW A POP-UP REDIRECTING YOU TO THE BCH version.

So you must be very quick and click CANCEL within 4 SECONDS, otherwise you may be deceived in believing it is on BTC.

How's that for fishy ?!?

Explanations


Well perhaps I miss-understand some things about this news. I was under the impression that this message was from 2009, which could not really be possible because craight wreight seems to appear later in the scene.

So perhaps this is a recent message and was "simply" signed by somebody having the private keys to those bitcoin address in the BCH blockchain...

Perhaps these private keys are also valid on the BTC chain, however there is no real prove of that because there are no transactions or value on that chain, so how can we be sure this signature means anything ? Even if it did mean anything... any fool including craig himself can write shit like this.... so I kinda laugh at this...

But my question is actually more disturbing then this signing... so I repeat my question:

How is it that the BTC and BCH blockchains appear to be different in 2009 ?!?!?

That makes no sense to me and seems fishy. They should be identical ?! Since BCH blockchain was copied from BTC perhaps in 2017, to transactions from 2009 to 2017 should be the same on both chains.

I can remember even selling some BCH for PascalCoins back when bitcoin cash came to be... so that copieing was real as far as I can tell.... or perhaps it was another coin but I dont think so... I will check this later.

IT COULD BE INTERESTING TO COMPARE THE BITCOIN BLOCKCHAIN VS THE BITCOIN CASH BLOCKCHAIN TO SEE WHERE THEY DIFFER. HAS ANYBODY EVER DONE THAT ?!?!

Other explanations for this discrepancy could be this website does something weird or the bitcoin cash software does something weird... perhaps this web tool simply uses that software from bitcoin cash... and pipes it through to the web...

One simply trick a hacker or scammer could use is to implement and keep track of a  "shadow blockchain or database or part" inside bitcoin cash and consult if certain addresses contain money according to the shadow database. Perhaps this database is hidden somehow in BTC itself... I can remember it was possible to upload data long ago to the bitcoin blockchain itself... by inserting data into comments or something like that for blocks or transactions. Perhaps these possibly fake transactions are stored in BTC blockchain data/comments. This would be a very funny scam if it turns out to be true.

"Not your keys; not your coins"

"Not your PGP key; no proof of Satoshi ID"

"Not your keys; not your house"

"Not your timechain; not your DeLorean"

Even if you hired one, staked a claim and/or borrowed it temporarily ...

Again, possession is nine-tenths of the law ...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

See: "The Tichborne Claimant" ...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tichborne_case

... "the man who lost himself still walks in history, with no other name than that which the common voice of his day accorded him: the Claimant"

...

“It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it," urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room.

That is no excuse," returned Mr. Brownlow. "You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction."

If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”

― Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
- https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22816-it-was-all-mrs-bumble-she-would-do-it-urged

...

Welcome to law! [citation needed]

...

In other news ...

Researcher Re-mines Satoshi's Bitcoin Blocks To Discover His Secrets
- https://cointelegraph.com/news/researcher-re-mined-satoshi-s-bitcoin-blocks-to-discover-his-secrets

... "This would also put another nail into Craig Wright's claims of being a Bitcoin creator as he has indicated numerous times that he used dozens of computers to mine the early blocks."

...

Re: Whois Satoshi? Known Satoshi IP addresses? ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51498056

 

Mixing up custody duties imo

Wild wild west still

Isn't this related case going to not help CSW? 

If "Not your keys; not your coins" is enshrined in US case law, then this shouldn't be true: IF you have the keys, the coins ARE yours right? 
Yes, this is just US case law, but a good step in the right direction reflecting what we all believe to be true.

https://decrypt.co/39574/not-your-keys-not-your-coins-enshrined-in-us-case-law-says-lawyer

Wat are we going to do with all these wats ... - SWIM


"And finally, the key ID 0415E6CBE23FCC2D refers to:

"Dave Kleiman (Bitcoin so we neer have to wotty about infaltion and easing) <[email protected]>"

(was Craig having a scotch or something)

Source:
http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0x0415E6CBE23FCC2D

8/9 "

- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1295754838614122496

...


- https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/919925-wat


- hxxps://coingeek.com/coingeek-london-after-party-marks-bitcoins-jump-ahead-in-time/
(Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.)


- https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/588696-wat

 

---

"Craig Wright - Quote of the Day

"Look, Wright has been throwing around word salad and misdirection for years. [...] If someone has been caught lying 999 times, you're not obligated to keep an open mind for number one thousand." - @wizsecurity
 
Source: https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/07/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-3.html "

- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1295985910056734720

CSW filed list ...

Kleiman v. Wright (9:18-cv-80176), District Court, S.D. Florida
- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/?page=4

512 - May 21, 2020 - Attachment 7

- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/512/7/kleiman-v-wright/

EXHIBIT 7

- https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf

...

Craig Wright didn't mine these bitcoins, instead he made a list of public addresses, pointed at them and said 'mine'. - SWIM



...

Possession is nine-tenths of the law
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

...

*Satire*
Pulp Fiction | 'Big Kahuna Burger' (HD) - Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta | MIRAMAX *NSFW* *18+*
- https://youtu.be/Mnb_3ibUp38

  perfect!  thanks TheArchaeologist.  I see the idiot submitted 4 lists attempting to get 'his' list correct.     
What happened to three strikes and you are out?      

Good old Craigy.

So far there has not been a single thing he has done that wasn't 100% predictable.

We know he's going to lie. We know he will never admit fault. We know he will never tap into that country-sized 'wealth'. We know he will never come up with anything creative, constructive or useful. We know he will lose every single legal entanglement he enters.

It's an unimpeachable procession of fail.

If he wants to become more than a comedy mannequin and object of irritation he needs to shake it up and do something surprising.

Even the biggest dunces pull it off every now and then. Ain't got high hopes for this one though.

Here's a funny one ...

Lets imagine someone submits a list of Bitcoin addresses in a court of law, claiming ownership of said addresses, but the addresses don't actually belong to that someone.

Then, hypothetically speaking of course, the real owner of one of those addresses, god forbid, was to do something highly criminal / illegal with one of those addresses.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! The defendant might then find themselves to be in even more of a pickle than they were already. How unfortunate.

Now, hows that for a Dread Pirate Roberts defense !?

Again, hypothetically speaking of course.

...

"It’s one of the many paradoxes of BSV. Law abiding yet run by two criminals. Set in stone yet a single man can change it at a whim. Adheres to the “Satoshi’s Vision” but focused on use cases discouraged by the real Satoshi."
- https://twitter.com/cyberat2600/status/1292153523501662209

...

*Satire*
Niko B - Who's That What's That *NSFW* *Explicit Lyrics*
- https://youtu.be/mGjg_MMMhRU

No Satoshi Private Keys = No Satoshi Identity = Gherkins in your Burger!



...

In other news (hodlonaut case) ...

"Judge ruled that CSW pays my cost of $60,000 within two weeks from the June 8th judgment.

More than two months later, he has not paid a cent. Color me surprised."
- https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1293833469907349505

The addresses in the court PDF-file I extracted can be found here: https://eli5.eu/analysis/csw_tulip.txt

Straight forward text file, one address per line like this (first 10 lines from the file):

can someone point me to the entire list of CSW addresses he is claiming to 'own'?  I know it is in the PDF, but I am wondering if anyone has extracted them out as a text file somewhere so I don't have to re-invent the wheel.