Topic: Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto - Evidence Here - page 5. (Read 13677 times)

-1 Merit.

If Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, then why he choose Chines name, and a huge people think that bitcoin is made by China. It is for me hilarious and confusing, and now i just quit to think who is Satoshi. Now I know bitcoin and i think it is enough that bitcoin give us profit.   

The registration was filed in April. The registration was accepted in May. The copyright has NOT been granted. The only thing Wright has done is file paperwork. Nobody has awarded him a copyright, yet.

So does he lost all of his account passwords in this forum and github?
Has he lost all of his wallets private keys and bitcoins?
Satoshi tried to decentralized the works as much as possible. He created both this forum and the bitcoin.org but went on to transfer the ownership to others. If satoshi really wanted to come out, it would not have been this difficult.

Satoshi Nakamoto is still unknown and no one can prove who is,  but once they give a lot of proof that he is really Satoshi we will trust him.  But for the some proof I don't think he is Satoshi Nakamoto respect the decisiom of real Satoshi Nakamoto if they want private life. Because if he want to reveal his Idenity in the first place they show it to the public but probably not.

I agree with you, I decline any evidence except for him to sign any of the addresses associated with Nakamoto, if he told us that he lost it, then game over for him it's unacceptable, this could end by only signing any wallet, we are using as proof of ownership here in Bitcointalk, he should also do that, I think Craig is just a fall guy.

I thought if I will just point it out with red circles it will be enough for you to see the difference(beside the Title of the claim itself) - the example you provided was just registered, while the example with CSW has this text:

And to be even more specific than that - this line specifically means it was approved by US Government Copyright Office and if you still want to indicate that anyone can claim anything and get registered by US G.C.O. I will point to the example you provided, it has passed to the US G.C.O and that is it, it does not have the response from authority, no "Regarding copyright claimant:".

I hope it is clear enough for you know.

Craig Wright Is Playing Three-Dimensional Checkers

https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-is-playing-three-dimensional-checkers

Craig Wright’s attempt to copyright the bitcoin white paper is a bold, if silly, move by a person who may be both of those things.

Copyright registration is a simple way of claiming ownership of a literary work, song, or piece of art. I could, for example, claim copyright over my exciting new musical “Bitcoin White Paper LIVE!” (shown below), a theatrical rendition of Satoshi Nakamoto’s seminal writing in the style of Rogers and Hammerstein. But should I?

No. That would be silly.

Clearly, Wright thought he should. As revealed Tuesday, in April he filed registrations of the white paper with the U.S. Copyright Office on behalf of, we learned, the Bitcoin Association and the suddenly popular BSV token.

To be fair, there’s a certain game-theoretical logic to Wright’s move. Suppose (humor me here) Wright is Satoshi, as he has claimed for years. Then his copyright should hold up against any court challenge, settling
once and for all the question of who Satoshi is… right?

If Wright isn’t Satoshi and the real Satoshi wants to claim copyright, she still would have to go to court and exhibit prior proof of authorship, which Twitter pumpers will say is also good for bitcoin somehow.

Finally, if Satoshi never shows up then Wright can do what he wants with the copyright, including sue others for infringement, who might then file countersuits to stop Wright from enforcing copyright.

Any of these scenarios will lead to little more than a few additional exciting headlines about bitcoin ownership in the mainstream media. We folks in the know will nod sagely and go on with our lives.

Speaking of nodding sagely, Star Wars fans will recognize this as an excellent opportunity to leave the old ways behind.

Just as a bolt of lightning destroyed the original Jedi texts in that tree on Blue Milk Island while Yoda hooted in ghost form, the same thing is now happening to the legend of Satoshi. Her technology and concepts have
moved far beyond the desires and whims of one anonymous author, Australian or not, and so we enter a new, post-Satoshi era today.

In fact, Satoshi no longer matters. Any way you slice this thala-siren bologna, we win.

do you think faketoshi is satoshi nakamoto? think a little:

If you create a coin as a bitcoin, and post it in a forum like bitcointalk, why would you disappear for a long time and after a long time you would come back with many excuses just to not show proof that you are satoshi?

look at the behavior of faketoshi, and look at what satoshi created, you realize that they are different people.

faketoshi is as a spoiled baby despaired by attention. a guy that remains anonymous is not someone desperate for attention, you can not see this?

Man...this brings me back to the time when I made a guy waste money on attempting to register a trademark for a name I was already using. The government is not good at vetting the information submitted. You can submit whatever you want as well as falsified documents to try and prove your first use or publication date. It essentially sticks as long as nobody challenges it. In my case, I actually filed for the trademark before I got this guy to waste his money. When he found out I had already registered first, he modified his application and created a fake flyer with a date on it before my first use date. He wasn't smart about it though because he used a well known font on the flyer that did not exist at the time he claimed.

BTW, Coin Legal Ltd owns the trademark to Bitcoin in a class for cryptocurrency and claims first use 20090112. It was registered July 27, 2018 and still living. All I can find on that company is mention of a single officer named Olof Kyros GUSTAFSSON. There are numerous others registered in other classes. Again, it means absolutely nothing other than that someone spent the money on it and nobody challenged it.

Trademarks and copyrights exist the moment it's first used or created in tangible form. The U.S. is a first to use country. Registering with the government only gives you certain legal rights. The real creator(s) wouldn't really even need to file copyrights or trademarks just due to widespread, worldwide, and well known use unless they wanted to sue people for monetary damages. They would already have common law ownership the moment they wrote the white paper, created the Bitcoin logo, etc.

This is a great cash mate the differences in the date have pointed out the abnormalities in the write up I have said without number before that Craig can never be santoshi if he truly is he could have come out to show evidence that no one will be able to deny. Bitcoin creator have remain anonymous and I know with time everybody will be clearfy on who is behind bitcoin.

your ronald example was registering a name and got it rubber stamped to some EQUITY thing that sounds like bitcoin.
its not the same situation as saying categorically the bitcoin whitepaper

if the ronald dude registered the whitepaper then craig did, then ronald could mess with craig.
but ronald registered for a "equity based peer to peer currency"

all your point is making is that i could register for a "asset based peer to peer currency"
all your point is making is that someone else could register for a "debt based peer to peer currency"
all your point is making is that someone else could register for a "scurity based peer to peer currency"

the ronald example has no point relating to the bitcoin whitepaper

maybe a point to make is if some american paid the $35 and got the name changed to:
satoshi and 'everyone under open licence'
rather than craig and see how easy it is to change that record to remove craigs name

point is the REGISTRATION was in april.
no one contested it. thus no investigation/no verification process was needed. thus automatic rubber stamp changed
thus in may the C.O changed ownership from an anonymous pseudonym to a guy with a birth certificate.

now that certificate can be used to make many more false claim court cases and hope the defendants 'settle' early just to avoid having to prove its a false claim

lets word it another way.
it cost craig $35 to do this. but would cost someone else alot more now to contest it

That's great and all, but you are completely missing the point.

The point is that anyone who wishes to can fill in a form for a copyright claim, and it will be registered, as was done so by a random dude called Ronald 3 years ago. Everyone in this forum could fill in the form and we would all have bitcoin registered as our own. It means nothing.

The "Date of Creation" and "Date of Publication" that you are circling are irrelevant. There is a box (3a and 3b) on the form you submit (viewable here: https://www.copyright.gov/forms/formtx.pdf) which the claimant fills in the year of creation and publication. Those entries you have circled simply mimic whatever was entered in those boxes. They says nothing about those data being truthful or verified.

The entire stunt, just like everything to do with CSW, is pathetically laughable.

In my opinion Craig Wright is 100% a liar. All the evidence he provided are falsified and not enough. Everything he says is completely contradictory to Satoshi's posts on this forum. If I'm wrong then Bitcoin is dead and also all current cryptocurrencies are, as noone wants to follow a person like him. Guy is screaming con-artist from 10 miles away. IF you wanna follow this person that's your head. If he proves he is Satoshi I'm quiting and I bet 99,99% of all these magnificent people on this forum will do the same. This person can only damage bitcoin and all crypto for his personal gain. He doesn't care about anything else except his own personal wealth and he uses any means legal or not to achieve it. His supporters are scammy too and should not be trusted.

Since you are unable to see the difference between Ronald Keala's application and Craig Wright's issued certificate let me point it out:

1. Image 1 - Ronald Keala Kua Maria's application:


2. Image 2 - Craig Wright's issued certificate:


3. Image 3 - Craig Wright's second issued certificate:


P.S. I pointed the most important part with color red


Good Luck

Pretty weird that the writer of the Bitcoin whitepaper waited so long to claim the copyright of what's his. Oh wait...

Registering a copyright apparently costs $35.


https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1130812389048238080

I'll just leave this here:

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=3&ti=1,3&Search%5FArg=equity%20based&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=jI9fB_21cgfzdEN5fsuVSd0vjoX2&SEQ=20190521153630&SID=2
https://archive.is/bYO4v


Turns out someone called Ronald Keala Kua Maria beat CSW to this particular nonsense stunt around 3 years ago - fill in a form, provide no evidence, and have your application registered. I don't remember anyone making a big deal of it then. I wonder why?


By your logic, Ronald Keala Kua Maria is definitively Satoshi Nakamoto. Checkmate.

Indeed.

I saw, a few weeks ago, news with a lot of evidence that Satoshi Nakamoto lives in the United States. A man who refused to give any interview or see any reporter when they went looking for him. A man who was described by his own brother as an old nerd who has money but doesn't care a bit about it, thus maintaining a totally simple life (to the point that he still lives in his mother's house, even when he is over 50 years old). That news also commented something about Satoshi Nakamoto being his birth name in Japan, but when he moved to the United States with his parents, while still a child, he had to change his name according to the American laws of that time..
I still like way more that version of the story than this one about Craig Wright