Tomorrow, on Bloomberg, Dr. Craig Steven Wright on "60 Minutes".
even i can go there completely anonymous if i pay the proper amount of money
Topic: Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto - Evidence Here - page 3. (Read 13677 times)
even i can go there completely anonymous if i pay the proper amount of money
Tomorrow, on Bloomberg, Dr. Craig Steven Wright on "60 Minutes".
I don't know how people can keep believing anything Ayre has to say at this point. Its cult-like behavior. Brainwashed mentality likely reinforced by heavy bags.
I ask you again - where is your God now?
Same place he's always been. Though I do admit the whole saga is entertaining.
I am not sure he is Satoshi Nakamoto, because there must be scientific proof to be able to confirm the truth. It may be necessary to match fingerprints with the devices used for the creation of bitcoin projects or other legacy evidence that can be recognized more forensically, such as DNA.
Everyone may be able to claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, but that confession must be accompanied by valid evidence which is indisputable.
Everyone may be able to claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, but that confession must be accompanied by valid evidence which is indisputable.
You're asking for a bit too much with the whole DNA thing. I would be happy with a publicly signed message from one of Satoshi's private keys, which Wright has so far been unable to provide.
If you want a list of evidence that suggests Wright is not Satoshi, its far longer than the list of evidence that suggests that he is:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-bitcoin-sv-bsv-fake-team-member-and-plagiarized-white-paper-5149062
PGP or GTFO
What is the point in trying to prove you are Satoshi??? What is actually there to gain fron it?? I don't think it should be too difficult to prove you are a particular person if youvare indeed not faking.
I am not sure he is Satoshi Nakamoto, because there must be scientific proof to be able to confirm the truth. It may be necessary to match fingerprints with the devices used for the creation of bitcoin projects or other legacy evidence that can be recognized more forensically, such as DNA.Everyone may be able to claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, but that confession must be accompanied by valid evidence which is indisputable.
I ask you again - where is your God now?
What is the point in trying to prove you are Satoshi??? What is actually there to gain fron it?? I don't think it should be too difficult to prove you are a particular person if youvare indeed not faking.
Satoshi ‘Narcomoto’: Before Craig Wright, the Escobar Family Owned Bitcoin’s Trademark
https://www.ccn.com/satoshi-narcomoto-before-craig-wright-the-escobar-family-owned-bitcoins-trademark
"
Before Craig Wright, the Bitcoin trademark was registered to none other than the Escobar family. That’s according to official documents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which show Pablo Escobar’s brother, Roberto Escobar, as the former main signatory on Bitcoin’s naming rights."
https://www.ccn.com/satoshi-narcomoto-before-craig-wright-the-escobar-family-owned-bitcoins-trademark
"
Before Craig Wright, the Bitcoin trademark was registered to none other than the Escobar family. That’s according to official documents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which show Pablo Escobar’s brother, Roberto Escobar, as the former main signatory on Bitcoin’s naming rights."
A copyright can be maintained under a pseudonym.
Bitcoin version 0.1 was copyrighted from word go.
Anyone of the opinion that a court can not establish who paid for bitcoin.org domain registration in 2008 and has a tax record of it, is beyond hope.
Bitcoin version 0.1 was copyrighted from word go.
Anyone of the opinion that a court can not establish who paid for bitcoin.org domain registration in 2008 and has a tax record of it, is beyond hope.
Quote
Dr. Craig says "I registered with the U.S. Copyright Office so that I can confirm my authorship and copyright ownership, and start teaching people the true meaning of what Bitcoin is about and stop people twisting the narrative"
This article seems to depict the case rather well in my opinion: Craig Wright registers US copyright in Bitcoin 0.1 and the Bitcoin white paper — what this means.
Basically what it states is that:
- Registering under false claim comes pretty cheap, as the fine is a maximum of 2500 USD, lest he insist in court where fraud could be on the table.
- Bitcoin software was released under an open source MIT licence, and therefore you cannot sue for derivate usage since the licence allows it freely.
- Copyright registration cannot be challenged, although someone else could also claim copyrights to the same works, and then take it on up to court for conflicting claims.
- Copyright has weight to establish a presumption of fact when it occurs within the first five years of publication. He’s five years late in this case.
Basically what it states is that:
- Registering under false claim comes pretty cheap, as the fine is a maximum of 2500 USD, lest he insist in court where fraud could be on the table.
- Bitcoin software was released under an open source MIT licence, and therefore you cannot sue for derivate usage since the licence allows it freely.
- Copyright registration cannot be challenged, although someone else could also claim copyrights to the same works, and then take it on up to court for conflicting claims.
- Copyright has weight to establish a presumption of fact when it occurs within the first five years of publication. He’s five years late in this case.
Perhaps if you read the whole press release, you would have realized that it pretty much says the exact opposite of what you or CSW wants it to.
https://www.copyright.gov/press-media-info/press-updates.html?loclr=twcop
In other words, the situation is exactly as nutildah explains. Nothing had been investigated, proven, or verified. CSW said "I am Satoshi" and someone else wrote that down. That's it.
https://www.copyright.gov/press-media-info/press-updates.html?loclr=twcop
Quote
the claimant certifies as to the truth of the statements made in the submitted materials. The Copyright Office does not investigate the truth of any statement made.
Quote
In a case in which a work is registered under a pseudonym, the Copyright Office does not investigate whether there is a provable connection between the claimant and the pseudonymous author.
In other words, the situation is exactly as nutildah explains. Nothing had been investigated, proven, or verified. CSW said "I am Satoshi" and someone else wrote that down. That's it.
Quote from the press release of the US Copyright Office:
Quote
In the case of the two registrations issued to Mr. Wright, during the examination process, the Office took note of the well-known pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto,” and asked the applicant to confirm that Craig Steven Wright was the author and claimant of the works being registered. Mr. Wright made that confirmation. This correspondence is part of the public registration record.
Right, so the copyright office asked him if he was Satoshi, and he said "yes," and now its on record. Doesn't constitute proof of anything.
Yeh he was so concerned about anonymity that he paid for Bitcoin.org domain with credit card in 2008 and got Australian Tax record for it.
Again, you offer zero evidence of this being true other than because a pathological liar said its true.
Meanwhile, in Bitcoin world:
Meanwhile in the real world, the U.S. Copyright Office has completely debunked your earlier assertions:
https://www.coindesk.com/us-copyright-office-says-it-does-not-recognize-craig-wright-as-satoshi
Quote from the press release of the US Copyright Office:
Quote
In the case of the two registrations issued to Mr. Wright, during the examination process, the Office took note of the well-known pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto,” and asked the applicant to confirm that Craig Steven Wright was the author and claimant of the works being registered. Mr. Wright made that confirmation. This correspondence is part of the public registration record.
In all honesty, i don't think the real Satoshi, an inventor of a groundbreaking technology that is more concerned about anonymously will fight so hard in public to be recognized 
it doesn't sound like what the real satoshi will do, if satoshi doesn't want to be known for so long, then why the sudden cry for recognition?
I expect Mr Satoshi to be bigger than this child's play.
it doesn't sound like what the real satoshi will do, if satoshi doesn't want to be known for so long, then why the sudden cry for recognition?
I expect Mr Satoshi to be bigger than this child's play.
Yeh he was so concerned about anonymity that he paid for Bitcoin.org domain with credit card in 2008 and got Australian Tax record for it.
Ah yeh he also copyrighted it because he wanted to stay anonymous.
Some peoples bags are definitive to big to carry, head is starved of oxygen.
Can you tell me the identity of the person behind the credit card used to pay for this bitcoin.org domain you talk about? am sure any credit card carries the information of the owner, and if this is the case there is no need to look any further, or for Mr Craig to cry out so loud for recognition, the bank which issue that card can rightly state who's identity is attached to the credit card, or even the Australian Tax record can also provide this information,
So i think it is easy to know know if CW is satoshi or not
Craig Wright claimed the expenses for the bitcoin.org purchase on his tax in the 2008/2009 tax year.
That is also a fact.
In all honesty, i don't think the real Satoshi, an inventor of a groundbreaking technology that is more concerned about anonymously will fight so hard in public to be recognized
it doesn't sound like what the real satoshi will do, if satoshi doesn't want to be known for so long, then why the sudden cry for recognition?
I expect Mr Satoshi to be bigger than this child's play.
it doesn't sound like what the real satoshi will do, if satoshi doesn't want to be known for so long, then why the sudden cry for recognition?
I expect Mr Satoshi to be bigger than this child's play.
Yeh he was so concerned about anonymity that he paid for Bitcoin.org domain with credit card in 2008 and got Australian Tax record for it.
Ah yeh he also copyrighted it because he wanted to stay anonymous.
Some peoples bags are definitive to big to carry, head is starved of oxygen.
Can you tell me the identity of the person behind the credit card used to pay for this bitcoin.org domain you talk about? am sure any credit card carries the information of the owner, and if this is the case there is no need to look any further, or for Mr Craig to cry out so loud for recognition, the bank which issue that card can rightly state who's identity is attached to the credit card, or even the Australian Tax record can also provide this information,
So i think it is easy to know know if CW is satoshi or not
Yeh he was so concerned about anonymity that he paid for Bitcoin.org domain with credit card in 2008 and got Australian Tax record for it.
Again, you offer zero evidence of this being true other than because a pathological liar said its true.
Meanwhile, in Bitcoin world:
Meanwhile in the real world, the U.S. Copyright Office has completely debunked your earlier assertions:
https://www.coindesk.com/us-copyright-office-says-it-does-not-recognize-craig-wright-as-satoshi
Meanwhile, in Bitcoin world:
https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/05/22/new-record-block-on-stn-stress-test/
https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/05/22/new-record-block-on-stn-stress-test/
Quote
So the team began incrementing the cap in successive cycles. The end result was better than hoped for, after seeing how robustly 0.2.0 handled 1GB the decision was taken to push past the initial target. The test ended with a 1.424GB block containing 359,793 transactions. At this point some degradation of services like block explorers was observed. The Bitcoin SV nodes handled things ok and probably could have been pushed further but the Stresstest team and the nChain team both needed some sleep.
The following table shows some of the more notable blocks from the test period:
The following table shows some of the more notable blocks from the test period:
Jump to: