Topic: CSW Nonsense AGAIN (Read 631 times)
Suing every devs until they’re broken and wreck havoc their life? This guy has a bdsm tendency, I think he could really enjoy pleasure in hell. Btw it is what we called go full retard.
This is an excellent tweet/thought by Cobra. All the best for him, and let’s hope he doesn’t become a victim of Craig Wright’s troll-lawsuits, that make the defendants spend without actual benefit for anyone.
https://twitter.com/cobrabitcoin/status/1352967587232182273
Satoshi himself uploaded the Bitcoin whitepaper to http://bitcoin.org. It's linked too from millions of pages, and cited by thousands of academic papers . Us removing it would be a betrayal to his legacy. It will never happen.
https://twitter.com/cobrabitcoin/status/1352967587232182273
Quote
Satoshi himself uploaded the Bitcoin whitepaper to http://bitcoin.org. It's linked too from millions of pages, and cited by thousands of academic papers . Us removing it would be a betrayal to his legacy. It will never happen.
The messiah is real global compliant use of the public ledger - any crap (ano!) use incl pure speculation is biggest risk to any crypto in the global adoption run
No financial e-trx system gets altered into the dark and has a bright future
No financial e-trx system gets altered into the dark and has a bright future
That's genuinely amusing. A few points:
a) None of your paltry number of SV devs are talented enough to create true regulatory compliance within your forkcoin's codebase. Pretty much all they do is copy code from Bitcoin and fiddle with it a bit.
b) Even if they were gifted coders, you still can't force regulatory compliance upon those who don't want it. Anyone who doesn't wish to adhere to compliance will simply run different code.
c) Regulatory compliance defeats the purpose of having a censorship-resistant distributed ledger. If you want to have a system where someone in charge can block your payments, just use a bank, stupid.
d) You didn't answer the question. What does any of your ideological authoritarianism and shortsightedness have to do with faketoshi and his mindless lawsuits attempting to prevent distribution of a document that is clearly intended to be freely shared?
Hahaha. Under-appreciated post. I just clicked the link, I thought it would be another useless BSV shill’s Reddit post.
Bitcoiners, something in the link will your only chance to see gmaxwell do actual yard work/man duties. 99.9% of his time is spent in front of a computer.
Another proof that Craig is a clown. I mean why would the creator of Bitcoin who wanted to remain private sue somebody for using terms from the "Bitcoin whitepaper" when the cryptocurrency is meant to offer freedom back to the people? It is indeed nonsense. 
If I remember correctly, his argument was like something something that Bitcoin isn't going the way that he planned or some BS. So much for being "decentralized" if he just wanted things to go the way he wanted lmao. 🤡
Keep Bitcoin work at scale, clean and max compliant to get max users on board incl govs and give no reason to shut down rather banks to accept?
Can't help but notice you're totally avoiding the issue where your messiah is taking legal action against the distribution of MIT licensed documentation. Are you simply too embarrassed by his actions to comment on that? Do you worry it will reflect badly on you? I'd say that's probably a legitimate concern. Given that you're an unabashed faketoshi mouthpiece, I hold you equally culpable in perpetuating this farce. You're as much a lowly piece of filth as Wright.
The messiah is real global compliant use of the public ledger - any crap (ano!) use incl pure speculation is biggest risk to any crypto in the global adoption run
No financial e-trx system gets altered into the dark and has a bright future
Keep Bitcoin work at scale, clean and max compliant to get max users on board incl govs and give no reason to shut down rather banks to accept?
Can't help but notice you're totally avoiding the issue where your messiah is taking legal action against the distribution of MIT licensed documentation.
A license that, “He Satoshi” himself, declared it under. Hahaha.
Plus the Bitcoin white paper is a historical document. By trying to stop anyone from hosting it through copyright infringement “cases”, would be the first steps in trying to control the brand, then the narrative.
It appears CSW is up to his usual nonsense again.
this guy has been crazy for years, just seeing things he does, he just wants attention, he wants to be famous ... sometimes I wonder if one day the real satoshi would appear if this faketoshi wouldn’t chase to take the life of the real satoshi . because faketoshi is crazy and his obsession with bitcoin is starting to be scary, he doesn't realize that he is embarrassed and is taking his family along this shameful path.
Keep Bitcoin work at scale, clean and max compliant to get max users on board incl govs and give no reason to shut down rather banks to accept?
Can't help but notice you're totally avoiding the issue where your messiah is taking legal action against the distribution of MIT licensed documentation. Are you simply too embarrassed by his actions to comment on that? Do you worry it will reflect badly on you? I'd say that's probably a legitimate concern. Given that you're an unabashed faketoshi mouthpiece, I hold you equally culpable in perpetuating this farce. You're as much a lowly piece of filth as Wright.
...snip...
You are an OG Bitcoiner. What do you think is Craig Wright’s main motive for doing this? I believe it’s more than money, anything material, or notoriety. It’s something else with him. I believe he simply wants to see something good burn, and destroyed.
You are an OG Bitcoiner. What do you think is Craig Wright’s main motive for doing this? I believe it’s more than money, anything material, or notoriety. It’s something else with him. I believe he simply wants to see something good burn, and destroyed.
Indeed.
It would appear that he has narcissistic tendencies and delusions of grandeur. I feel he really needs some professional help!
He has commenced on a path to 'hijack' Bitcoin and he is failing.
It is truly "do or die" for him now and by that I mean he succeeds (in some way) or (more likely) goes to jail for perjury and/or other crimes.
...
"Like I said, the Jonestown phase of Craig #Faketoshi Wright has begun.
He will go down in flames, and take everyone around him with him."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1352960746154557441
...
...
Generally, folks who advocate violent extremism against others, don't succeed.
Keep Bitcoin work at scale, clean and max compliant to get max users on board incl govs and give no reason to shut down rather banks to accept?
Not hard to see
Not hard to see
...snip...
OK, then he, Craig Wright who is “Satoshi Nakamoto”, created Bitcoin and everything with it, including the white-paper, under an MIT license, and also he “Satoshi Nakamoto”, is claiming he didn’t place it under an MIT license? Call me confused.
OK, then he, Craig Wright who is “Satoshi Nakamoto”, created Bitcoin and everything with it, including the white-paper, under an MIT license, and also he “Satoshi Nakamoto”, is claiming he didn’t place it under an MIT license? Call me confused.
Indeed. CSW is often providing historically inaccurate and/or conflicting information, mixed up with some facts for good measure.
Perhaps the only person he really needs to be suing is himself.
...
I've updated the post I re-posted in this thread relating to the known Satoshi PGP Key;
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.56151514
These clowns are unbelievable!
I'm not sure all of this is ever really worth my time and effort, but I won't stand for this BS any longer.
You are an OG Bitcoiner. What do you think is Craig Wright’s main motive for doing this? I believe it’s more than money, anything material, or notoriety. It’s something else with him. I believe he simply wants to see something good burn, and destroyed.
This guy is the most annoying person there is in the planet I swear. He always does this when bitcoin is in a good spot and is nowhere to be found when bitcoin is in a tough spot. I honestly don't even know what he's gonna gain after claiming that he's Satoshi. He's just wasting his time, his money, his lawyer's efforts, and everybody's time doing all of his antics. It's sickening.
Is there any way to stop this BS of Craig Wright being Satoshi Nakamoto? Any good investigative work that can be done to find out who Satoshi Nakamoto is?
If I remember correctly, the white paper was first published on bitcoin.org. While the domain registration info might have been private, the registering company should have the info on who purchased the domain name. Same thing with the company that used to host that website. Someone must have paid using a credit card, and the credit card has a name.
Unfortunately Satoshi literally made himself anonymous in order to maintain his privacy. Even the Pseudonym he used which is Satoshi Nakamoto is the Japanese equivalent of someone being named Michael Smith in the US, it's common and just plain unassuming. So I'm already accepting of the fact that as long as bitcoin is there, CSW will continue to heckle around. If I remember correctly, the white paper was first published on bitcoin.org. While the domain registration info might have been private, the registering company should have the info on who purchased the domain name. Same thing with the company that used to host that website. Someone must have paid using a credit card, and the credit card has a name.
Is there any way to stop this BS of Craig Wright being Satoshi Nakamoto? Any good investigative work that can be done to find out who Satoshi Nakamoto is?
If I remember correctly, the white paper was first published on bitcoin.org. While the domain registration info might have been private, the registering company should have the info on who purchased the domain name. Same thing with the company that used to host that website. Someone must have paid using a credit card, and the credit card has a name.
If I remember correctly, the white paper was first published on bitcoin.org. While the domain registration info might have been private, the registering company should have the info on who purchased the domain name. Same thing with the company that used to host that website. Someone must have paid using a credit card, and the credit card has a name.
...snip...
OK, then he, Craig Wright who is “Satoshi Nakamoto”, created Bitcoin and everything with it, including the white-paper, under an MIT license, and also he “Satoshi Nakamoto”, is claiming he didn’t place it under an MIT license? Call me confused.
OK, then he, Craig Wright who is “Satoshi Nakamoto”, created Bitcoin and everything with it, including the white-paper, under an MIT license, and also he “Satoshi Nakamoto”, is claiming he didn’t place it under an MIT license? Call me confused.
Indeed. CSW is often providing historically inaccurate and/or conflicting information, mixed up with some facts for good measure.
Perhaps the only person he really needs to be suing is himself.
...
I've updated the post I re-posted in this thread relating to the known Satoshi PGP Key;
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.56151514
These clowns are unbelievable!
I'm not sure all of this is ever really worth my time and effort, but I won't stand for this BS any longer.
Another proof that Craig is a clown. I mean why would the creator of Bitcoin who wanted to remain private sue somebody for using terms from the "Bitcoin whitepaper" when the cryptocurrency is meant to offer freedom back to the people? It is indeed nonsense.
I think Satoshi’s whitepaper has to be placed on IPFS network to shield it from shady personalities like CSW and such. It would prevent this precious paper from sudden "dissolution". Anyone knows if it there? I have tried to find it among IPFS stuff using search engine but didn't managed to get any link.
No need. The paper is already hosted all over the internet and by a lot of different individuals. Most importantly it can also be found on bitcoin blockchain, the immutable ledger that can not be erased. Someone put it there a long time ago. Besides the Scammer Craig is not targeting the bitcoin paper, he is targeting individuals and wants to cause them harm (eg. wasting their time and money in court). 
gmaxwell has put a superb thread up - have a read 
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/so-you-want-to-get-sued-by-a-scammer-5311388
Hopefully the drama caused by CSW a will have some positives -
- more people will read the whitepaper
- more people will realise what a fraud he is !
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/so-you-want-to-get-sued-by-a-scammer-5311388
Hopefully the drama caused by CSW a will have some positives -
- more people will read the whitepaper
- more people will realise what a fraud he is !
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.
OK, then he, Craig Wright who is “Satoshi Nakamoto”, created Bitcoin and everything with it, including the white-paper, under an MIT license, and also he “Satoshi Nakamoto”, is claiming he didn’t place it under an MIT license? Call me confused.
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.
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: