Topic: Donate to Cøbra (pending court battle against Craig Wright) - page 4. (Read 1847 times)

Thanks OP for making this thread and Cobra for responding.

I initially didn't think too much of the issue but overlooked the fact that you could very well be doxed and then dragged through painful and expensive litigation.

I do think there must be a lot of other options we can't yet see and perhaps even there must be someone out there willing to take on this case to defend pro bono.

Bitcoin has been good to me though. I will feel obliged to at least put tangible support behind this. Let's see how serious it really is first or how far it is legally able to go.

Fortunately, in service of Wright's big fraud Wright commits lots of smaller frauds, and some of those are provable to a very high degree.  In the Florida federal case wright was already judicially found to have fabricated evidence and committed perjury.  Unfortunately, so far the only direct consequence is a few hundred grand in penalties and some adverse inferences.

But he's also engaging in the same kind of ultimately provable perjury in every other case. If you look at the history of conmen you'll see that it often takes years for them to be brought to justice.

At this point I also wouldn't bet that that his core fraud couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt-- the primary challenging blocking that is just the lack of criminal investigation powers.  Keep in mind: even though there is so much evidence of his fraud out there, he ultimately published almost all of it himself-- his discovery was self-produced!  We haven't even started to see the kind of stuff that will get exposed by a real investigation, where he can't stuff the record with forgeries produced on the spot or hide things he doesn't like.  If this crap is what he wants the world to see, consider what he doesn't want the world to see?  Consider what testimony might become available when his supporters are facing the risk of criminal prosecution and jail time themselves?

Somehow people get mixed up about what proof means in a criminal context:  We convict people of murder all the time, yet none are ever proved guilty in a strong mathematical sense.  Instead, we have the body, the motive, the fingerprint covered murder weapon, maybe a video recording, even when there there is a confession that isn't a mathematical-sense proof-- false confessions are common... Secret government agents could always have planted the evidence, drugged the witnesses, and faked the video. But enough of it and no reasonable doubt remains. The standard of proof isn't absolutely no doubt, we don't require that anything but guilt be a logical impossibility.

In Wright's case, his numerous forgeries and lies are the bloody murder weapon, the victims that funded his Nigerian scam on the basis of of his promise to dump bitcoin and buy BSV are the body, his tax rebate fraud, profits, efforts to steal Bitcoins (in his lawsuit against developers), his upcoming efforts to steal bitcoin.org show his motives, and so on.

Personally, now having seen what is public now I have absolutely no reasonable doubt.  I know that is also true for many of the the people who've been around a long time and seen the evidence.

That court's jurisdiction doesn't extend beyond Britain so it can't force bitcoin.org to do anything, which I believe is why Cobra didn't give a shit about it.
In any case it seems like the purpose of this shenanigan was either to deanonymize Cobra and make some money in the process. The later was the only achievement since they tried so hard and pumped BSV only 20% which is funny because if it were any other shitcoin the pump would have been above 1000%. This also shows that the amount of crap people give to this shitcoin is also decreasing.

This is like kicking in the ass of anonymity. Even when there was no solid proof from other side to sue Cøbra.

But, anyways I admire Cøbra's firmness of not giving a shit.

I was just here to confirm if the WhitePaper would still be there on Bitcoin.org.

"we"? nope
there is no community loss.. CSW achieved nothing more than any old lady could,,,

just like fridgit old woman who complain to TV stations to not show sexualised tv shows before 9pm. that old lady does not need to own the tv show or any porn to make a claim to stop someone displaying something.

all it means is a website cannot display a document.

it is not proof of ownership of document or anything else
other websites including government sites have already started displaying the whitepaper as a act of defiance against CSW.
cobra only lost his websites case to display it because cobra didnt want to turn up and identify himself
hundreds of corporations and government sites are not afraid of revealing themselves and putting CSW back in his cave if he tried to sue them

there is also a group that sued CSW to provide proof of ID

So did we loose ? What's next ? Remove the WhitePaper or let the dogs bark ?

3 billion he is asking fabricating belonnhs to me. I bet he cant prove where did the rest 19990 coins went from that 12id wallet. Well no worries i lost my email account but the key. Hopefully it is still on that electric wire and underneath many tables in that old school. Also other 5 worth 4 bill is also there... hopefully by next year it will all go away and csw will still pursue to come and examine the writing on the wite and the tables...good luck...

Indeed.  We also need to apply pressure to conferences, as they provide an audience for him to propagandise in front of.  It needs to be a total embargo.

Where do we begin?

Instructions weren't clear, will donate now.

Many, many people can afford to donate to what I consider a worthy cause. I donated £50 worth of BTC myself.

Pretty noble endeavor but I don't think that Cøbra needs the help right now, plus we all have our own problems right now and I think that we can't afford putting other people's plight before ours. Nonetheless, Cøbra will win this because CSW is a fake ass and the only thing that keeps this fake afloat is the money that he gets from this lawsuits.

When someone is being charged with a crime, such as identity theft or perjury, it is up to the prosecution to prove the person is either stealing someone's identity or lied under oath.

The original question was: What crimes do you think CSW has committed? In order for Wright to have any influence, or assert any rights for being satoshi, he will need to in fact prove that he is satoshi. However, if a government were to charge him with a crime for falsely claiming to be satoshi, the prosecution will need to prove that Wright is in fact not satoshi.

I get that CSW is not very popular in this forum, and I have a very low opinion of him myself. However being unpopular does not mean you should not have your due process rights.

You are right but proof is an entirely different matter. The person making a claim must prove their claim not the others. When someone is pulling identity fraud they have to prove the identity they claim they have is their real identity not others prove they are lying.
That also doesn't change the fact that he is a criminal.

The rest is just legal shenanigans that Craig Scammer Wright is using to disrupt bitcoin by attacking individuals and forcing them to waste their precious time defending a nonsense. That just proves the flaw in our legal systems.

While I don't believe CSW is not satoshi (in fact I believe CSW is not satoshi), I cannot prove this to be true. The absence of proof that a statement is true is not evidence the statement is false. Similarly, attempts to fraudulently prove a statement to be true is not evidence the statement is false, although it may be evidence the person presenting the fraudulent evidence should not be trusted.

The above distinction is important because, in order to convict someone of lying under oath, the prosecution needs to prove the statement is false. There isn't anyone else claiming to be satoshi, not even satohsi Nakamoto himself. The same principle applies to identity theft. I think it is plausible that Dave Kleiman is satoshi, that CSW knows this and that no one will ever be able to prove they CSW is not satoshi, however, it is also possible that the litigation between Kleiman's estate and Wright was an effort to give credence to Wright being satoshi (I did not follow the litigation closely, nor am I aware of its outcome).

I have long suspected that satoshi no longer has access to his cryptic keys, either because he is dead, in jail, or for whatever reason lost access to his keys. I think if satoshi did have access to his keys, and is not CSW, he would have presented a signed message saying that Wright is not satoshi by now.

If Wright were to actually prove he is satoshi in court in his case against you, he should be able to easily enforce any rights associated with being satoshi has (I am hesitant to believe satoshi has many rights -- see my below comment). However, if for example, Wright were to win a default judgment against you, and the court were to rule that he is in fact satoshi, he would not be able to enforce any associated rights (if this were the case, he could simply sue someone friendly to him in order to have a court rule in his favor). I think BSV has insane technical specifications, but I also think CSW probably also owns an outsized number of BSV coin via being a major miner of that coin. CSW probably doesn't own the same number of BSV coin that satoshi mined of bitcoin, but he probably has a lot of BSV. I think if CSW were to win a case against a major bitcoin figure, the price of BSV would increase a lot. I have commented before as to why CSW might win a case, and it is not because of actual merit.

In the very unlikely event that Wright was able to legitimately prove he is in fact satoshi, he very clearly should not have any rights over the bitcoin software, or the bitcoin database/ledger (commonly known as the blockchain), as satoshi's very first commit of the bitcoin software code explicitly said it was distributed under an MIT license. The whitepaper was appearently included in the original code files, but it is less explicit that the whitepaper was published under the MIT license.

omg he even hired private investigators and they are probably scanning every word you ever wrote online on twitter and forum to find some clues
That means that anyone can claim to be you and even some puppet he hired to be fake Cøbra who loses the case in theory just for Faketoshi to claim his pyrrhic victory, and I don't understand how court can really confirm identity.


It's good thing that COPA filled a lawsuit against him and I don't think he has any chance in court except if he finds some corrupt judge that is willing to take some bribe.

a good initiative but i think a much better movement is if we started a campaign forcing all exchanges to remove BSV from their trading pairs. according to coinmarketcap.com there are still a lot of them that offer the trading pair for this scam coin.

to name a few big names according to their volume and popularity: Huobi, OKEx, HitBTC, Poloniex, BiOne, KuCoin, Bitfinex, Bittrex, Gate.io, Bithumb and Binance Jex.

although this shitcoin has been dumping for over a year now but all these exchanges are providing liquidity to the scammer who would then use the funds to sue people and also cause disruption in bitcoin's development (like suing bitcoin devs).

True, that's a big disadvantage for them. They have no idea who they sued. According to court papers, they hired private investigators to find out my identity. As expected those investigators failed to find anything. Going into a lawsuit completely blind is beyond stupid, especially when your claim is very weak.

Another disadvantage for them is the publicity this case is attracting. If he wins this case, he is legally recognized as Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of Bitcoin. He's asserting he has "database rights" to the Bitcoin ledger. He asserts he owns the "Bitcoin" name. He'll inevitably claim the Satoshi coins. This is why he fights so hard to get a court to declare him as Satoshi, so he can begin enforcing these claims against exchanges, wallets, developers, etc. Obviously he will lose, but I suppose he's deluded himself and his followers into believing this is a viable strategy to take BSV to the moon. But there are just too many eyes on this, and too much money in this space to allow someone like him to even have the chance to legally assume the Satoshi moniker and associated intellectual property. The best intellectual property law firm in the UK is actively working on this whitepaper issue. He is outgunned legally.

Courts lack an adequate remedy for loss of anonymity, which would be irreparable.


I don’t even see how that question can be reached.  It is reasonably indisputable that Satoshi irrevocably licenced the whitepaper for distribution by others.


I have not proved myself Napoleon yet.  The nice men in white coats doubt I will ever, but that’s because they are crazy.  Should I sue them to set them straight?


An attorney in the relevant jurisdiction would know how best to explain why that is the threshold question.

I was not aware about that link. However, it seems the mod moved this to Bitcoin Discussion board.


Talk for a few months, some interview from Wright and then everything will cool down again until he comes up with another made up case against someone else in bitcoin community.

You may sue him back, ask for compensation for an attempt to damage your image with his made up crap.

He is fake, there are no public prove that he owns the copyright, he had not proved himself satoshi yet, and I doubt he will ever. First let him prove (which he can not) that he is satoshi then ask the court for the next step.

Cøbra, of course there are many people offering their opinions on this particular point.  Some are urging you to reveal yourself; others, to the contrary.

More as a message to them—to all of them, I will tell you what you already damn well know:  Because you are anonymous, only you have the requisite information for making decisions about how to handle this.

It is obvious that if you dox yourself, then even after you win the case, you will still suffer significant detriments from disclosure of your identity:  Irreparable loss of the privacy which is of inestimable value in itself, risk of exposure to harassment or worse from random nutjobs (as Jameson Lopp suffered a few years ago), the likelihood of further pseudolegal attacks from a party who has publicly declared that, in substantial essence, he will maliciously abuse legal process to “destroy” people who don’t dance to his tune—these are only a few of the detriments that immediately come to mind.  Only you know yourself and your life.  Only you know how well you can handle this, in the long term.

On the flipside, perhaps you may have a strategic advantage.  CSW and his lawyers have no significant information about the party whom they have sued.  Legalities aside, as a practical matter, there are personal characteristics and qualities which can make a difference, sometimes a decisive difference, in the course of litigation.  That is not the theory of how the law is supposed to work; but that is how it does work, for better or for worse.

An intelligent lawyer (which CSW lacks) usually tries to keep such factors in mind before suing—perhaps sometimes only to avoid being shocked by an unexpectedly formidable adversary.  In the same vein, an unethical lawyer representing a malicious plaintiff may want to know whether or not he is picking on someone whom he can bully and manipulate in court.  I know that hypothetically, if I were to out myself, many people would be surprised...  Maybe you, too.  Either way.  At this point, only you have the knowledge that is necessary to evaluate that.  In a word, only you know your own profile.

Overall, it is grossly unjust for you to be placed in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position whereby to defend yourself legally from a malicious abuse of process, you may need to incur on yourself the aforesaid detriments which, thereafter, the court cannot cure.  I hope that a way can be found to avoid that dilemma, which CSW is deliberately, manipulatively exploiting.

On a personal note, in my own experience, the road to Hell is paved with the broken corpses of martyrs; and by standing up for my own principles and ideals with blind intransigence, I have sometimes so damaged my same principles and ideals as to constitute a betrayal motivated by loyalty.  It is a trap for activist personalities.  Only you can know yourself well enough to avoid such things.

---

P.S., on another note, I may owe you a public apology for a few of the harsh statements that I have made to you before.  No matter how you may reasonably choose to handle the above issue, the way that you are standing up for the truth and for Bitcoin speaks as to your character.