So, why could he not access the address and send the bitcoin dust back to gavin as he said he would from Satoshi's account?
Don't you think a more like scenario is that Craig is in SERIOUS legal jeopardy for what appears to be a tax scam and wanted to be "outed" as satohsi so he could justify his right to patent and then sell all the patents to that company to get a lot of money fast (and save his bacon)?
Topic: Evidence that Craig Wright might be Satoshi after all - page 2. (Read 2397 times)
hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.
Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.
That's a bit harsh.
See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia
)Not harsh at all. And fully consistent with your sig (I don't know what Copi is). Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. Period.
You can call it evidence supporting a _conclusion_ of Not-A. I'd even agree with you. But it ain't proof.
Copi's an Irving not an it, wrote "Introduction to Logic".
My view, fwiw, is that by failure to provide proof for A (that CW=SN), in this case Not-A is assumed as default as it was before the claim was made, as A only ever existed in the claim, subsequently unproven, made by the potentially benefiting party.
One logical? step further would be that by failure of proof for A, the likelihood of Not-A is increased.
But yeah, I give you that CW≠SN isn't 100% proven, although neither is (insert any name)≠SN.
have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.
Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.
ill just leave this here
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B
wait.. i must be satoshi too
Show me where either Andresen or Matonis have indicated that the 'proof' they were given was the replay trickery to which you refer.
Oh, you mean you can't find any such claim? Interesting.
hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.
Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.
That's a bit harsh.
See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia
)Not harsh at all. And fully consistent with your sig (I don't know what Copi is). Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. Period.
You can call it evidence supporting a _conclusion_ of Not-A. I'd even agree with you. But it ain't proof.
have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.
Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.
ill just leave this here
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B
wait.. i must be satoshi too
hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.
Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.
That's a bit harsh.
See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia
)Quote
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
Especially when the "evidence" had been provided by someone who would directly benefit from it proving his assertion, it failing to do that and then being effectively withdrawn in what could be described as a "huff".
have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.
Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.
hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.
Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.
Lol!!
What a moron.
Thanks for reasons number 2001-2051 that nobody will believe this guy is Satoshi.
What a moron.
Thanks for reasons number 2001-2051 that nobody will believe this guy is Satoshi.
In what way does filing Bitcoin-related patents provide reasons that CSW is not Satoshi? There may be a moron in this post, but it does not seem to be CSW.
This is 0 evidence.
Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.
Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.
True, there is no conclusive evidence. For any of the above.
Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to claim that Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.
However, it could be plausible to claim that Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more plausible candidates.
I'd lol if future evidence shows CSW to be Satoshi.
I'd lol also if it turned out that CSW was the exploiter of the DAO's recursive withdrawal. <- wild speculation, apropos of nothing.
you dont actually need to spend alot on defending your claim.
first you send a letter of intent. (basically a cease and desist). in there you give the warnings. you highlight how they are infringing the patent and you highlight a settlement amount.
you then warn them if they do not respond or do not cease, the settlement required grows.. you can play this game for months just letting the amounts grow without actually doing anything.
then if you want to take them to court. the majority of the debate is not about the patent claim itself. but about the lack of ceasing and the profits the competitor gained from abusing the patent vs the profits the defendant could have lost due to the competitors.
most of the time it ends up being a pay-off/settlement before it even gets to court. so just sending letters of intent is the majority of the hard work
first you send a letter of intent. (basically a cease and desist). in there you give the warnings. you highlight how they are infringing the patent and you highlight a settlement amount.
you then warn them if they do not respond or do not cease, the settlement required grows.. you can play this game for months just letting the amounts grow without actually doing anything.
then if you want to take them to court. the majority of the debate is not about the patent claim itself. but about the lack of ceasing and the profits the competitor gained from abusing the patent vs the profits the defendant could have lost due to the competitors.
most of the time it ends up being a pay-off/settlement before it even gets to court. so just sending letters of intent is the majority of the hard work
Well I am gathering the popcorn to see how this patent thing plays out, because a LOT of companies are dumping millions into Blockchain technology and if he/they are successful, it will cost him even more to
defend these claims in courts.
I always thought Bitcoin and the Blockchain is Public domain and cannot be patented by anyone. 
I still think Craig Wright knows more than what he is saying, and we
should have given him more time to prove his claims.
defend these claims in courts.
I always thought Bitcoin and the Blockchain is Public domain and cannot be patented by anyone. I still think Craig Wright knows more than what he is saying, and we should have given him more time to prove his claims.
Damn lot of patents he is going after. Looks like he has backed himself up with a lot of attorneys and is going for it all. I am sure more evidence will come forward as he tries to prove claim on these patents.
Patents are not cheap, I thought Craig Wright had financial trouble that he is trying to dig out of?
scam one person for £6000. create a couple patents. scam 20 people based on promises of 2 patents. get £120,000 to create 40 patents.
set up a corporation under the false belief that the 40 patents can net 1billion (help he priced one business at that very recently) and scam even more people.
mr wright is not a bitcoiner.. he is too involved in grabbing fiat. riding the bitcoin phenomena because governments and financial institutions do not quite understand it, to pretend he is highly involved in it. while holding no bitcoins and simply grabbing fiat at every door he knocks on
shame on him
read the LRB article. Its a company with backers who are filing the patents. it may not be craig's doing. he may not even be involved anymore (after he didn't play ball with them when they wanted him to come out)
i did like the fantasy fly on the wall "observations" of the day in the hotel when he was being chased. but it could have been wrote more first person to atleast make it sound like craig was telling his narrative of events.. rather than a ghost writer who happened to witness it all from within a closed hotel room where only craig and his mrs were staying.
In some ways, this article hurts the case that Craig is Satoshi.
Damn lot of patents he is going after. Looks like he has backed himself up with a lot of attorneys and is going for it all. I am sure more evidence will come forward as he tries to prove claim on these patents.
Patents are not cheap, I thought Craig Wright had financial trouble that he is trying to dig out of?
scam one person for £6000. create a couple patents. scam 20 people based on promises of 2 patents. get £120,000 to create 40 patents.
set up a corporation under the false belief that the 40 patents can net 1billion (help he priced one business at that very recently) and scam even more people.
mr wright is not a bitcoiner.. he is too involved in grabbing fiat. riding the bitcoin phenomena because governments and financial institutions do not quite understand it, to pretend he is highly involved in it. while holding no bitcoins and simply grabbing fiat at every door he knocks on
shame on him
read the LRB article. Its a company with backers who are filing the patents. it may not be craig's doing. he may not even be involved anymore (after he didn't play ball with them when they wanted him to come out)
i did like the fantasy fly on the wall "observations" of the day in the hotel when he was being chased. but it could have been wrote more first person to atleast make it sound like craig was telling his narrative of events.. rather than a ghost writer who happened to witness it all from within a closed hotel room where only craig and his mrs were staying.
Damn lot of patents he is going after. Looks like he has backed himself up with a lot of attorneys and is going for it all. I am sure more evidence will come forward as he tries to prove claim on these patents.
Patents are not cheap, I thought Craig Wright had financial trouble that he is trying to dig out of?
scam one person for £6000. create a couple patents. scam 20 people based on promises of 2 patents. get £120,000 to create 40 patents.
set up a corporation under the false belief that the 40 patents can net 1billion (help he priced one business at that very recently) and scam even more people.
mr wright is not a bitcoiner.. he is too involved in grabbing fiat. riding the bitcoin phenomena because governments and financial institutions do not quite understand it, to pretend he is highly involved in it. while holding no bitcoins and simply grabbing fiat at every door he knocks on
shame on him
read the LRB article. Its a company with backers who are filing the patents. it may not be craig's doing. he may not even be involved anymore (after he didn't play ball with them when they wanted him to come out)
Damn lot of patents he is going after. Looks like he has backed himself up with a lot of attorneys and is going for it all. I am sure more evidence will come forward as he tries to prove claim on these patents.
Patents are not cheap, I thought Craig Wright had financial trouble that he is trying to dig out of?
Lawyers chase money....if they believe he has a legitimate chance of being awarded these patents, they will have no problem collecting money for their services. I believe Craig is Satoshi because I don't think any scammer could pull off a scam this monumental and get away without being caught. It takes too many resources and abilities to make himself appear to be the creator of bitcoin if he is not the real Satoshi.
I dont doubt that craig wright may have known who satoshi was but his bail out of the last chance he had to prove himself was the final nail in the coffin. If he has access to the genesis block or any of satoshis known accounts then just use it and prove it. if you have that much in bitcoin lying about then he wouldnt have such financial troubles. hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.
he doesnt. have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.. it was not unique data using a specific key that was uniquely encrypted in their presence. it was old data that proves nothing.
I dont doubt that craig wright may have known who satoshi was but his bail out of the last chance he had to prove himself was the final nail in the coffin. If he has access to the genesis block or any of satoshis known accounts then just use it and prove it. if you have that much in bitcoin lying about then he wouldnt have such financial troubles. hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.
Damn lot of patents he is going after. Looks like he has backed himself up with a lot of attorneys and is going for it all. I am sure more evidence will come forward as he tries to prove claim on these patents.
Patents are not cheap, I thought Craig Wright had financial trouble that he is trying to dig out of?
scam one person for £6000. create a couple patents. scam 20 people based on promises of 2 patents. get £120,000 to create 40 patents.
set up a corporation under the false belief that the 40 patents can net 1billion (help he priced one business at that very recently) and scam even more people.
mr wright is not a bitcoiner.. he is too involved in grabbing fiat. riding the bitcoin phenomena because governments and financial institutions do not quite understand it, to pretend he is highly involved in it. while holding no bitcoins and simply grabbing fiat at every door he knocks on
shame on him
with all of them patents
with all the corporations he set up
with all the grabbing funds from government
with all the scamming rather then sharing philosophy.
craig wright is definetly not satoshi..
the real satoshi didnt do non-disclosure-orders, he had open conversations
the real satoshi didnt work on secret projects that will revolution the world and then sell the idea to corporations. he released it freely
the real satoshi didnt patent anything, he made everything open licence.
all i can see craig wright doing is not having a working product or assets and instead is "creating" vapour to sell at a high fee.. definetly not a satoshi personality at all
with all the corporations he set up
with all the grabbing funds from government
with all the scamming rather then sharing philosophy.
craig wright is definetly not satoshi..
the real satoshi didnt do non-disclosure-orders, he had open conversations
the real satoshi didnt work on secret projects that will revolution the world and then sell the idea to corporations. he released it freely
the real satoshi didnt patent anything, he made everything open licence.
all i can see craig wright doing is not having a working product or assets and instead is "creating" vapour to sell at a high fee.. definetly not a satoshi personality at all
Jump to: