Topic: Craig Wright recognised by US Govt as Satoshi, author of white paper - page 6. (Read 1684 times)

But CCN say's Craig Wright is not Satoshi,  

https://www.ccn.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto

Lol, and the drama still continues, I don't think there will be complications on bitcoin. Why he gonna do next? wipe out all the chains? I don't know why the guy is up to, but for sure he is fraud and not Satoshi, who write the original whitepaper.

I don’t know who’s the more ridiculous here, either US Govt or the Craig Wright himself. Or both of them are equally retard. Ok, enough of US Govt crap, let’s look at what the China and North Korea has to say? Ban the bitcoin and everything and anyone who has associated, affiliated, partly or fully anticipated into it.

Reportedly one of the addresses CSW claimed to own in a Florida court case (versus the Kleiman estate) has signed an authenticated message calling him a fraud. It seems he is bound to be discredited as these legal cases advance. He must be held accountable for his behavior. If he's Satoshi, he should sign a message or move the original mined bitcoins.

From what I understand a copyright registration is not the same as being a copyright holder. Yes, the U.S. government needs to hold CSW accountable, and sooner or later his time of reckoning will come. He is digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole, and taking his claim to court will put the burden on him to provide proof that he's Satoshi like he claims.

The blockchain technology and the Blockchain are both differents
- Blockchain is a name
- blockchain (technology) is a common and countable noun

Anyway, if I'm correct, the Blockchain name is already registered with blockchain.com. It's like if you register the name "Internet" it doesn't mean you invented it.

Wright is now legally establishing that he is Bitcoin’s creator after being dismayed to see his original Bitcoin design bastardized by protocol developer groups—first by Bitcoin Core (BTC) in 2017 and then again by Bitcoin Cash (BCH) developers in 2018, said Wright - sympathetic news site CoinGeek.

Jerry Brito, the executive director at CoinCentral, said that anyone can register a copyright with the US Copyright office, as it only involves filing a form. Since the Copyright Office doesn’t investigate the validity of the claims filed they have almost zero legal weight.

Brito also pointed out that someone else could also file a copyright claim to the Bitcoin whitepaper, and the Office will just register all of them. While this will definitely invite a lawsuit from Wright, the validity of both claims would be decided by a court.

However, even if Wright’s claim was found to be false it would have little consequence As Chris Harvey, a venture capital lawyer with the Harvey Esquire APC pointed out, no company has ever been prosecuted for false copyright registration, which is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500.

---

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=15&ti=1,15&Search_Arg=bitcoin&Search_Code=FT%2A&CNT=25&PID=nzoD_881lnuCunVeTvIfD742gwJ8&SEQ=20190521081301&SID=1

https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-whitepaper-software-copyrighted-craig-wright/

OP wants to be taken seriously, yet rolls out zero activity insta nuke account shit like this that can be unravelled within 0.5 seconds. My nasal hair could make the same application. It means nothing.

Weird to see people wander off into their little boxes of madness when once upon a time they were relatively together.

I suppose the real Satoshi would take it as far as possible, exhausting all other avenues for 'proof' and make it so that the only way to trust that the information is true is... using his own invention. Isn't the discovery of truth after the trials of the Hero's Journey not the ultimate 'proof of work'?

IF this was the case, who would validate Satoshi's transaction? Anyone?

The question would be that if Wright could actually sign the message, would we trust it? I can almost guarantee that this proof would be refuted by Bitcoin proponents. (Personally, I don't care. But I do find it curious how emotional people are getting about it, and that almost always clouds critical thinking.)

And I think that would be an awesome lesson, if ever it could be so. The only limitation of a trustless system is our own unwillingness to trust it.

The best trolls have the best lessons. Perhaps Craig Wright is Keyser Söze. Or maybe he's just Frank Underwood and he is enjoying the initials on his new cufflinks.

No, I wouldn't say 100% that he is NOT Satoshi if he doesn't sign any message. He may have lost the keys, destroyed them or something like that. However, message signing is the only reliable way to determine whether he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto or not. In the real sense, this event does not have any significance as it is still the same - there's no proof. I could also scream on top of my voice that I am Satoshi Nakamato, but that doesn't help in any way, there's no legible proof to back my claim.

I assume he is going to use this USA copyright to get copyrights in as many countries as possible along with the massive number of patents he is also claiming.

Thus he can go to various countries, win copyright, win some in court and thus be 'official Bitcoin' in those countries and try to lock out all other bitcoin from

local exchanges or some other skullduggery.

My 'fear' is still that he is the last man alive from what may have been the original 'satoshi group' of Hal Finney and Dave Kleiman, both of which have passed.

Craig Wright claims there as a "Tulip Trust" made with the early development bitcoins (billions of $$$) that was put in a trust that is accessible on Jan 1st, 2020.

IF such was the case, and IF he was part of the group as spokesman, then with that..he can play the same games to undervalue Bitcoin Core that he did when

he forked off of Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin SV. Raise a lot of hell and make a lot of $$$ for himself out of the chaos.

Not as unlikely as I used to think now that the USA has given him Copyright status on the 'Bitcoin White Paper' and the original bitcoin process itself.

Another concern is, this seems to cover stuff with bitcoin at the beginning before it was 'open source'. Does that mean according to US law he can now enforce

the copyright against bitcoin core and bitcoin cash? What a cluster.

anyway, this drama will go on for years out of court or in the court of public opinion...making Craig Wright, even if proved a fraud a lot of $$$$.

having looked a little deeper than just the clickbait layer

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=15&ti=1,15&Search_Arg=bitcoin&Search_Code=FT%2A&CNT=25&PID=nzoD_881lnuCunVeTvIfD742gwJ8&SEQ=20190521081301&SID=1

seems he registered on the 11th of April 2019 and the copyright office responded by changing the records author on the 20th May 2019

because no one contested the authorship within the month. the C.O didnt do any investigation/verification and just changed it uncontested.

It may have been filed on advice of his counsel so that a stronger defense can be presented, perhaps not because he actually wants rights.

why is this guy, always ambitious to claim himself as Satoshi Nakamoto. Basically, Bitcoin is a symbol of the creation of an encrypted and anonymous digital currency, so why did it not do it when he created bitcoin that year, this is an act that should not be praised as a professional in any industry.

Meaning that if he doesn't sign, then it is impossible that he is Satoshi?

Yes, unless he signs a message using the private keys of Satoshi Nakamato.

Not only that he has also claimed that the he has written most of the bitcoin code. I wonder how the U.S. is giving him the copyright registrations.
Bitcoin is decentralized, how come a centralized government has the rights to declare copyrights of a decentralized currency.

Curious. Does anyone think it is impossible that Wright is Satoshi?

Next Step: Sign a message using one of your (?) wallet addresses

Yeah, just saw that, looks like a lame attempt from the BSV camp to attract investors, newcomers and whanot by pumping its price, or there are actually A LOT of morons that bought the news and are now pouring tons of capital into this shitcoin...Either way, this is far from being organic growth, I'm expecting a huge dump very soon...not like I care anyways  

The news just used a tricky word, make it look like that US granted CW but rather CW granted or given US a copyright registration request.  This will cause confusion just what happen in this thread discussion.  I myself were caught by it until a reply stated that he just registered a copyright claim to the Bitcoin whitepaper.  So no approval yet in short, and I hope he will not be recognized.  It is a blatant lie that he is Satoshi Nakamoto because he cannot do a simple signed message on the address known used by the original author of the Bitcoin whitepaper.



It seems I will avoid coingeek from now on.  The title is total twist of word making one to think otherwise on the first glance.  They new that using granted will automatically convey a message of approved..  damn trickery!