Isn't it poignantly entertaining how easily people will cave to copyright trolls if they reside in unfree places and/or aren't anonymous?
Can't blame them though, they are running a business and having a legal action taken against your business will be bad for the PR of your business. Maybe if we were to change their archaic copyright laws, maybe we can work something out of it. Not gonna lie, that it is entertaining though. 
Topic: CSW Nonsense AGAIN - page 2. (Read 631 times)
Fuck Craig Wright and his suing ass. Own a bitcoin-related website? Host the whitepaper in behalf of the community.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-a-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash-system-5311423
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-a-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash-system-5311423
Isn't it poignantly entertaining how easily people will cave to copyright trolls if they reside in unfree places and/or aren't anonymous?
Great to see that at least Cobra won't allow himself to be intimidated.
Great to see that at least Cobra won't allow himself to be intimidated.
This^
However (whilst we are here), could someone kindly explain to me why Cobra renamed the known Satoshi Nakamoto PGP Key here;
Retweeted. Hopefully there will be some response.
Indeed ...
"It's still on the server, just been renamed: http://bitcoin.org/satoshinakamoto.asc "
- https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1333447873799856129
...
"Well perhaps you might kindly rename it back to Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc for historical reference;
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5772 "
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_XBT/status/1336623022904578055
...
- http://www.bitcoin.org/satoshinakamoto.asc (this historically incorrect link will download the key)
whilst
- http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc (this historically correct link will not download the key)
It's not currently where satoshi left it you see ...
For future reference, here's my public key. It's the same one that's been there since the bitcoin.org site first went up in 2008. Grab it now in case you need it later.
http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
The presence of the whitepaper on bitcoin.org is historically relevant, although (it seems currently) that the correct presence of the corresponding PGP key for the gmx email address in the whitepaper is not?
Talk about taking liberties!
This inconsistency is not helping the cases of hodlonaut or Peter McCormack in the 'fight' against CSW's claims either.
Some proof that Bitcoin.pdf is MIT licensed.
In March 2009, nakamoto2 added the bitcoin.pdf file with License: MIT License to Sourceforge.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090106201347/https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/
Please archive this website on alternative mirrors before the history gets erased by FUDders.
In March 2009, nakamoto2 added the bitcoin.pdf file with License: MIT License to Sourceforge.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090106201347/https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/
Please archive this website on alternative mirrors before the history gets erased by FUDders.
Isn't it poignantly entertaining how easily people will cave to copyright trolls if they reside in unfree places and/or aren't anonymous?
Great to see that at least Cobra won't allow himself to be intimidated.
Great to see that at least Cobra won't allow himself to be intimidated.
that was a stupid move by the bitcoin core team. period.
we are lucky that cobra is still in control of bitcoin.org otherwise it would have also gone the same stupid rout of panicking at the first sight of some lawyers of a well known scammer!
in any case this is yet another example of how decentralize and centralize worlds can never be mixed. a "website" is always going to be centralized even if it is open source and even if it is controlled by people whom we may think we can trust!
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (works fine)
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/740#issue-558461327
the reasoning doesn't make any sense either. the site for "reference implementation" of "bitcoin" must have the "bitcoin" paper hosted also. additionally the paper was published in public domain which means it doesn't have any license. and the writer has given up their right already.
on top of all that the copyright office has already ridiculed Craig Scammer Wright's claims long ago. the fact that core team panicked like this is very strange to me.
yet another reason why removing the paper was stupid:
the original software was released with the paper and everything was licenced under MIT license. https://web.archive.org/web/20091127010808/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/
so there is no excuse about saying "the licensing status of this file is unclear".
we are lucky that cobra is still in control of bitcoin.org otherwise it would have also gone the same stupid rout of panicking at the first sight of some lawyers of a well known scammer!
in any case this is yet another example of how decentralize and centralize worlds can never be mixed. a "website" is always going to be centralized even if it is open source and even if it is controlled by people whom we may think we can trust!
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (works fine)
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/740#issue-558461327
the reasoning doesn't make any sense either. the site for "reference implementation" of "bitcoin" must have the "bitcoin" paper hosted also. additionally the paper was published in public domain which means it doesn't have any license. and the writer has given up their right already.
on top of all that the copyright office has already ridiculed Craig Scammer Wright's claims long ago. the fact that core team panicked like this is very strange to me.
yet another reason why removing the paper was stupid:
the original software was released with the paper and everything was licenced under MIT license. https://web.archive.org/web/20091127010808/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/
so there is no excuse about saying "the licensing status of this file is unclear".
You might need to understand law, MIT licence and copyrights
Lots of rich Bitcoiners would gladly cover the legal fees if this was taken to the court, but I doubt it would ever go that far, this is just some weak patent trolling that would get dismissed very quickly. Craig already tried to start many lawsuits, and none of them were ruled in his favor. I think the decision to remove the whitepaper from bitcoincore.org was way too quick.
Even if orionwl would have a very high likeliness of winning the case, crap, going to court is going to take up a lot of time and is definitely a huge hassle. Regardless if he made the right decision or not, I really don't blame him. In the first place he maintains Bitcoin Core's code; I'd rather prefer him sticking with that rather than wasting time with lawyers.
Also, Hodlonaut, one of the people CSW sued, went to court for 2 years with this case if I remember correctly. Though this might just be fearmongering by CSW in the end, I personally wouldn't risk it. Just my 2 Satoshis.
https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/1352181235766988800
he doesn't want to get involved in a lawsuit(time and money consuming)
he doesn't want to get involved in a lawsuit(time and money consuming)
Lots of rich Bitcoiners would gladly cover the legal fees if this was taken to the court, but I doubt it would ever go that far, this is just some weak patent trolling that would get dismissed very quickly. Craig already tried to start many lawsuits, and none of them were ruled in his favor. I think the decision to remove the whitepaper from bitcoincore.org was way too quick.
As for the core devs removing references, idk what their reason might be. One thing's for sure though, they want to steer clear from CSW's bullshit until the dust has settled, or it is understood that whatever the dude is doing is nothing but a stupid publicity stunt.
https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/1352181235766988800he doesn't want to get involved in a lawsuit(time and money consuming)
Damn,we will have to pay a fee to CJW every time we read the Bitcoin Core whitepaper or every time someone writes the word "Bitcoin" on the internet. 
What are we gonna do?We are doomed...
The Bitcoin Core whitepaper and the name "Bitcoin" are such valuable assets.Craig Wright will get ownership over them and sell those assets for billions of dollars.lmao
Jokes aside,what can CJW actually with the whitepaper?Can he change something in the whitepaper without consensus from the Bitcoin Core community?
What are we gonna do?We are doomed... The Bitcoin Core whitepaper and the name "Bitcoin" are such valuable assets.Craig Wright will get ownership over them and sell those assets for billions of dollars.lmao
Jokes aside,what can CJW actually with the whitepaper?Can he change something in the whitepaper without consensus from the Bitcoin Core community?
Wind_FURY, I don't know for sure, and I think you're probably right, but I do remember that Craig Wright got a copyright from somewhere in the US (a relevant office), claiming that he is the creator of Bitcoin and the author of the whitepaper. I think his copyright was registered because the policy is that whoever claims authorship first becomes the one who gets it recognized.
Here's an article mentioning something about the copyrights: https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-attempts-to-copyright-the-satoshi-white-paper-and-original-bitcoin-code.
There's also some crucial info about the issue of registering the copyright claim there:
Here's an article mentioning something about the copyrights: https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-attempts-to-copyright-the-satoshi-white-paper-and-original-bitcoin-code.
There's also some crucial info about the issue of registering the copyright claim there:
Quote
Registering a copyright is just filing a form. The Copyright Office does not investigate the validity of the claim; they just register it. Unfortunately there is no official way to challenge a registration. If there are competing claims, the Office will just register all of them.
So he "filed a form", and now is apparently trying to get the most of it.He's not alone. There are other people who filed a claim on bitcoin's copyright, just for the lulz and just to make it hard for him to do something that 'might' damage other people's business regarding bitcoin. What CSW doesn't know is that people aren't that stupid and would just go along with whatever he has in mind. He has been constantly trying to bully and bullshit his way to fame and he's getting it soon.
As for the core devs removing references, idk what their reason might be. One thing's for sure though, they want to steer clear from CSW's bullshit until the dust has settled, or it is understood that whatever the dude is doing is nothing but a stupid publicity stunt.
Why is Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key not currently on bitcoin.org ?
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5284596
...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5284596
...
One day, perhaps sometime soon, people will head some of the things I ramble on about ...
"Regarding CSW and the Bitcoin Whitepaper"
- https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/regarding-csw
EDIT: Updated (additional): 22nd January 2021
Here is CSW talking about the known 'satoshi' PGP public key ...
1. The Original Website - Satoshi Nakamoto - Dr. Craig S. Wright & Ryan X. Charles. - Jan 4, 2021
- https://youtu.be/_E7iuVM4CIA?t=5140
He is trying to claim that the satoshi PGP key linked at the base of the page was supposedly changed by core devs who later controlled bitcoin.org
- https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/ - Earliest snapshot 31st Jan, 2010
He is asserting that because the earliest snapshot in the web archive of the very same known PGP is from 28th Feb, 2011 that it is not his PGP key.
- https://web.archive.org/web/20110228054007/http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
See the OP.
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5284596
Does Craig Wright not actually understand how PGP and cryptography works ? He most certainly does not understand how identity works in Bitcoin.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with robots.txt 'hiding' information. A false claim.
The known satoshi PGP Key (timestamped 2008) is signed with the email address in the f*cking whitepaper, which he is currently trying (and failing) to claim ownership of.
...
So, where is Craig's own copy of his 'Satoshi Nakamoto' PGP Key then ? A 'PGP Key' was most certainly present on the website he claims to be his !
How about a signed message of proof ?
"A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)
Not your PGP key; Not your whitepaper; Not your domain name.
...
"No they have not.
Earliest http://bitcoin.org snapshot Jan 31st 2009 ...
- https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/
Scroll to the base of the page and click the PGP Key link ...
"Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin @ gmx .com
PGP key"
It's the same PGP key."
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_XBT/status/1352252043239555074
...
"It does not matter what you try to assert.
The PGP key in question belongs to the real Satoshi Nakamoto.
I saved a copy of the original PGP Key in 2010.
This is me ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.188
I will testify to the above."
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_XBT/status/1352253734865285124
...
...snip...
"Regarding CSW and the Bitcoin Whitepaper"
- https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/regarding-csw
Quote
Yesterday both Bitcoin.org and Bitcoincore.org received allegations of copyright infringement of the Bitcoin whitepaper by lawyers representing Craig Steven Wright. In this letter, they claim Craig owns the copyright to the paper, the Bitcoin name, and ownership of bitcoin.org. They also claim he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, and the original owner of bitcoin.org. Bitcoin.org and Bitcoincore.org were both asked to take down the whitepaper. We believe these claims are without merit, and refuse to do so.
Unfortunately, without consulting us, Bitcoin Core developers scrambled to remove the Bitcoin whitepaper from bitcoincore.org, in response to these allegations of copyright infringement, lending credence to these false claims. The Bitcoin Core website was modified to remove references to the whitepaper, their local copy of the whitepaper PDF was deleted, and with less than 2 hours of public review, this change was merged. By surrendering in this way, the Bitcoin Core project has lent ammunition to Bitcoin’s enemies, engaged in self-censorship, and compromised its integrity. This surrender will no doubt be weaponized to make new false claims, like that the Bitcoin Core developers “know” CSW to be Satoshi Nakamoto and this is why they acted in this way.
The Bitcoin whitepaper was included in the original Bitcoin project files with the project clearly published under the MIT license by Satoshi Nakamoto. We believe there is no doubt we have the legal right to host the Bitcoin whitepaper. Furthermore, Satoshi Nakamoto has a known PGP public key, therefore it is cryptographically possible for someone to verify themselves to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Unfortunately, Craig has been unable to do this.
We will continue hosting the Bitcoin whitepaper and won’t be silenced or intimidated. Others hosting the whitepaper should follow our lead in resisting these false allegations.
Posted to the Bitcoin.org Site Blog on 21 January 2021 by Cøbra
Unfortunately, without consulting us, Bitcoin Core developers scrambled to remove the Bitcoin whitepaper from bitcoincore.org, in response to these allegations of copyright infringement, lending credence to these false claims. The Bitcoin Core website was modified to remove references to the whitepaper, their local copy of the whitepaper PDF was deleted, and with less than 2 hours of public review, this change was merged. By surrendering in this way, the Bitcoin Core project has lent ammunition to Bitcoin’s enemies, engaged in self-censorship, and compromised its integrity. This surrender will no doubt be weaponized to make new false claims, like that the Bitcoin Core developers “know” CSW to be Satoshi Nakamoto and this is why they acted in this way.
The Bitcoin whitepaper was included in the original Bitcoin project files with the project clearly published under the MIT license by Satoshi Nakamoto. We believe there is no doubt we have the legal right to host the Bitcoin whitepaper. Furthermore, Satoshi Nakamoto has a known PGP public key, therefore it is cryptographically possible for someone to verify themselves to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Unfortunately, Craig has been unable to do this.
We will continue hosting the Bitcoin whitepaper and won’t be silenced or intimidated. Others hosting the whitepaper should follow our lead in resisting these false allegations.
Posted to the Bitcoin.org Site Blog on 21 January 2021 by Cøbra
EDIT: Updated (additional): 22nd January 2021
Here is CSW talking about the known 'satoshi' PGP public key ...
1. The Original Website - Satoshi Nakamoto - Dr. Craig S. Wright & Ryan X. Charles. - Jan 4, 2021
- https://youtu.be/_E7iuVM4CIA?t=5140
He is trying to claim that the satoshi PGP key linked at the base of the page was supposedly changed by core devs who later controlled bitcoin.org
- https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/ - Earliest snapshot 31st Jan, 2010
He is asserting that because the earliest snapshot in the web archive of the very same known PGP is from 28th Feb, 2011 that it is not his PGP key.
- https://web.archive.org/web/20110228054007/http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
See the OP.
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5284596
Does Craig Wright not actually understand how PGP and cryptography works ? He most certainly does not understand how identity works in Bitcoin.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with robots.txt 'hiding' information. A false claim.
The known satoshi PGP Key (timestamped 2008) is signed with the email address in the f*cking whitepaper, which he is currently trying (and failing) to claim ownership of.
...
So, where is Craig's own copy of his 'Satoshi Nakamoto' PGP Key then ? A 'PGP Key' was most certainly present on the website he claims to be his !
How about a signed message of proof ?
"A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)
Not your PGP key; Not your whitepaper; Not your domain name.
...
"No they have not.
Earliest http://bitcoin.org snapshot Jan 31st 2009 ...
- https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/
Scroll to the base of the page and click the PGP Key link ...
"Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin @ gmx .com
PGP key"
It's the same PGP key."
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_XBT/status/1352252043239555074
...
"It does not matter what you try to assert.
The PGP key in question belongs to the real Satoshi Nakamoto.
I saved a copy of the original PGP Key in 2010.
This is me ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.188
I will testify to the above."
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_XBT/status/1352253734865285124
...
...snip...
Wind_FURY, I don't know for sure, and I think you're probably right, but I do remember that Craig Wright got a copyright from somewhere in the US (a relevant office), claiming that he is the creator of Bitcoin and the author of the whitepaper. I think his copyright was registered because the policy is that whoever claims authorship first becomes the one who gets it recognized.
Here's an article mentioning something about the copyrights: https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-attempts-to-copyright-the-satoshi-white-paper-and-original-bitcoin-code.
There's also some crucial info about the issue of registering the copyright claim there:
Here's an article mentioning something about the copyrights: https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-attempts-to-copyright-the-satoshi-white-paper-and-original-bitcoin-code.
There's also some crucial info about the issue of registering the copyright claim there:
Quote
Registering a copyright is just filing a form. The Copyright Office does not investigate the validity of the claim; they just register it. Unfortunately there is no official way to challenge a registration. If there are competing claims, the Office will just register all of them.
So he "filed a form", and now is apparently trying to get the most of it.I wonder if he realises he’s not the only one who’s registered a copyright
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/people-claiming-to-be-satoshi-list-of-faketoshis-5243791
At least 4 other people have
Wind_FURY, I don't know for sure, and I think you're probably right, but I do remember that Craig Wright got a copyright from somewhere in the US (a relevant office), claiming that he is the creator of Bitcoin and the author of the whitepaper. I think his copyright was registered because the policy is that whoever claims authorship first becomes the one who gets it recognized.
Here's an article mentioning something about the copyrights: https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-attempts-to-copyright-the-satoshi-white-paper-and-original-bitcoin-code.
There's also some crucial info about the issue of registering the copyright claim there:
Here's an article mentioning something about the copyrights: https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-attempts-to-copyright-the-satoshi-white-paper-and-original-bitcoin-code.
There's also some crucial info about the issue of registering the copyright claim there:
Quote
Registering a copyright is just filing a form. The Copyright Office does not investigate the validity of the claim; they just register it. Unfortunately there is no official way to challenge a registration. If there are competing claims, the Office will just register all of them.
So he "filed a form", and now is apparently trying to get the most of it.
@Wind_FURY - I think?? that even though it’s open source , they might be a grey area re: using it for advertising purposes. The lawyers may argue that it can’t be used to promote a business ?
I may well be wrong about this !!
I may well be wrong about this !!
In a panic it seems that all references to Satoshi’s whitepaper were removed, but then when common sense prevailed , the references were put back in .
I can’t find it in, https://www.bitcoincore.org
I believe change the title to be more on-topic, “Craig Wright alleges copyright infringement of Bitcoin white-paper”
It appears CSW is up to his usual nonsense again.
Direct quote from bitcoin.org - “ Yesterday both Bitcoin.org and Bitcoincore.org received allegations of copyright infringement of the Bitcoin whitepaper by lawyers representing Craig Steven Wright. In this letter, they claim Craig owns the copyright to the paper, the Bitcoin name, and ownership of bitcoin.org. “
In a panic it seems that all references to Satoshi’s whitepaper were removed, but then when common sense prevailed , the references were put back in .
I thought CSW had been too quiet recently !! What’s his next plan ?
https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/regarding-csw
Direct quote from bitcoin.org - “ Yesterday both Bitcoin.org and Bitcoincore.org received allegations of copyright infringement of the Bitcoin whitepaper by lawyers representing Craig Steven Wright. In this letter, they claim Craig owns the copyright to the paper, the Bitcoin name, and ownership of bitcoin.org. “
In a panic it seems that all references to Satoshi’s whitepaper were removed, but then when common sense prevailed , the references were put back in .
I thought CSW had been too quiet recently !! What’s his next plan ?
https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/regarding-csw
Jump to: