Topic: Gavin Andresen calls it a "mistake" to trust CSW (Read 793 times)

courts are just mediators/arbiters of dispute
they only handle whatever is presented to them in court. they do not delve in and do their own private investigations. they just take info from both sides and weigh up the accuracy, proof, details that sound more reliable and least doubtful

imaging you wanted to fairy tail create a narrative that you own $1bill
you and a buddy can secret handshake to play the roles of opposition

both enter a court on opposite sides saying there is a dispute over $1bill. where neither side asks to prove it exists. or shows that it exists. but simply want to show a dispute over who owns a said $1b. where the amount is not in dispute
(thus no real money needs to exist)

a few days into court your oppositions agree to settle that someone owns the $1b and the other is now happy with that decision..
now you have a judgement that X(winner) owns $1b

which is then used to be proof of collateral that X is a billionaire
.. but there was no real money

courts are not tricking anyone. they are just mediators. however the real trickers are those that abuse the courts into declaring a verdict that benefits those in the courts oppositional seats of defence and claimant

I would say better late than never. At least Gavin realised what he did was a mistake and is acknowledging it.
CSW has been a piece of comedy right from the beginning in the crypto community.
All his claims to be Satoshi were never proven by him which made him a liar in front of everyone.
Despite that he has ben making false allegations against the bitcoin devs which is making him a villain in the community.
No wonder why he has so much of hatred from everyone.

I think the world in general responds to you, or at least your surrounding environment does. Even if I compare "life" to this forum, I can draw some comparisons. Perhaps a bit of a cop-out for me, to say that I deliberately steer away from meta, where I feel I might destabilise my benign state on this forum. And if that means I don't speak out when I should, I can live with that (comments like these are as far as I go, and even so, are rare forays).

So I don't think you're a fool or corrupt. You choose your priorities, and who can fault you for choosing yourself or your happiness?


You might not see it or see why (but that's also not your fault, the way we're all wired means we can understand and comprehend some things but not empathise). I'm one of the least technical users on the forum so CW's pronouncements appear immediately to me as a conman's ramblings. It is the perhaps the curse of the technically initiated that some of his words make sense, to the point they obscure his abberant babble.

I'm following the logic of Wright's claim, not my own


in my first comment from that post, I say that the courts themselves are manipulating their audience with no reasonable grounds other than to make the institution as a whole appear to be just (and authoritative, virtuous, trustworthy etc)

i.e. the courts (and it's employees) are attempting to perform a confidence trick on those attending (or otherwise observing) upon entering the chambers (or even beforehand)

Gavin should have come out and said this a long time ago. Not only that but he should have publicly denounced him as well and admitted that he was almost certainly duped. Craig has been using the so called 'fact' that he hoodwinked Gavin as one of the 'proofs' that he is satoshi and that he didn't need to sign an address because he'd already done so to Andresen and doing so would just be questioned again anyway. I don't know whether Gavin was just embarrassed about being duped and didn't want to look a fool or he was worried about legal ramifications from Craig but he should have done the right thing and actually put a nail in Craig rather than let himself be used as tool to further Craig's own agenda.


He's all these things but also a very dangerous and malicious individual. It wouldn't be so bad if he was just some harmless fantasist but he isn't. He's actively tying to hijack bitcoin for his own financial gain and who knows how far he can take this. 

alot of people think in court people can be penalised for lying
however thats things in criminal court.
no one really gets fined or prison time in civil court

also there are ways to avoid telling the truth if there was a perjury threat
a. "i do not remember/recall"
b. "in my opinion, i think, from what i remember, from what i know, from what i beleive"

that way its not stating facts/categoric answer..  that can be then proven a lie. and instead you are fighting an idea not a fact. thus you cant claim they lied if its just a uninformed thought/belief

much like defamation. if someone thinks another person is a fraud. based on what he "knows". its not a claim of fraud its just an opinion/belief

having an opinion/beleif is not a crime
and thats how liars get to say things without it being a illegal(punishable) lie

now read through all of GA messages about his BELIEFs, opinions, and thoughts that CSW was maybe more possibly X than not possibly X

its vague wording to escape being trapped into a illegal(punishable) lie

..
in earlier court cases
a question could have been asked to GA to settle it
"do you have existing verifiable, or something that can be re-creatable proof that proves CSW is X. that you can provide the court. "

"or is it simply your belief/opinion"

What nonsense. There's no such rule on Bitcoin protocol/consensus. In past, Bitcoin-Qt had default configuration which allow transaction with certain coin-age or all output has amount >= 0.01 BTC. But after short time, most miner decide to ignore such default configuration.


1. There are plenty proof csw isn't satoshi. For example, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/op-ed-how-many-wrongs-make-wright.
2. It's true Bitcoin isn't turing complete, even after Taproot addition.
3. AFAIK there's no OP_RETURN which makes Bitcoin script turning complete.

It is true of course that anyone can fall for a conman. But after said conman had been exposed, if my testimony/blog posts/statements/whatever were being used by said conman in court as evidence to support suing innocent third parties, I would be eager to rescind those posts as soon as possible.

I always read that like Gavin trying to convince himself. Like, he still had some small logical part of his brain saying "This obviously isn't how Satoshi would behave", and that manifested in him telling CSW not to behave like that anymore to try to ease Gavin's cognitive dissonance.

Sources?

Provide a link to any "core devlopers" doing anything to trigger that response or admit that you're just making some shit up (yet again).

Can be reproduced easily:  Technical experts that directly interacted with Satoshi and could be called on to give evidence that Wright isn't Satoshi + people with actual commit access in the project (for appearances) - people that have supported Wright and can be trusted to keep their mouth shut so long as they're left alone.

Or the guy who designed it that way and advocated for the way it actually works (e.g. when people asked about lost coins).

So I take it you wouldn't consider it improper for the defandants to join GA as a defendant in the case?

There is no shame in being caught up at some point in the fangs of a narcissistic nutcase. Happens to the best - it's a learning experience most have to go through at least once in life unfortunatelly.
Makes me a little sad that CSW is still a topic to talk about. Would be great to have his name slowly disappear from anything related to Bitcoin, he's just a meaningless, sad egocentric individual, nothing more.

I’ve asked about the first Twitter statement here before but not sure I’ve been given a definitive answer. So my question for you Mr Robots in here ..are either of these statements by CW true at all..do they prove he’s lying…Or perhaps neither?

When I asked him this on Twitter I figured it proved he’s lying but perhaps this statement simply means btc was built to be programmable in a way that would allow for SC’s to run on it ..eventually?



Szabo says btc isn’t Turing complete (have seen Andreas say the same)..so doesn’t this prove he’s not Satoshi ?

https://youtu.be/bxzgGwdcTuE

Magicians/clairvoyants etc have one basic principle: know your mark

Even experienced conmen themselves can be conned on this basis, the starting point is to get good information about what a person's strong beliefs or expectations are, then use that as a guide to devise the framework for a trick (all the more clever is to use crowd/group psychology to influence those expectations/beliefs in ways that 1-to-1 would not be reliable/viable). The point is to exploit the frontier of someone's awareness: discover the edges of that frontier, then you can think about where to target

and this of course means that courtroom officials can easily be conned, no-one is out of the question. it's quite easy to see how (particularly in the British courts) the overall culture of the justice system is designed to impress the casual observer with it's legitimacy, which of course shouldn't be necessary...  why would simply dispensing justice not be enough?


I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but courts in the self-proclaimed civilized world can/will/have ignored what experts, the public and the media knew about disputes that end up in a courtroom. There is no good reason to believe that popular awareness of the facts would have averted Wright's lawsuits.


you have all, knowingly or not, entered into perhaps the highest strata of politics by way of working on this project. In essence, you guys woke a sleeping giant, kicked the hornets nest etc.

The clues that such apparently innocuous behavior pisses certain resourceful people off (i.e. open source software that turns powerful+profitable industries into landfill) were actually already there for all to see. Satoshi more than implied that he was seeking to usurp an entrenched and corrupt system, and we might argue that central banks are the most egregious such example, if not simply among the worst. I'm surprised the attacks have not yet been more fierce.

Call that victim-blaming, but I'm just saying what I'm seeing. I'm definitely not going for consolation, that's equally worthless to you all as my 20/20 hindsight.


and so Gavin is definitely overdue that atomic wedgie

I don't know what rationale Wright claims for how he devised the list of people "he" is suing, but it's for sure curious to consider who he left out, and what the (real) reasons could be. Gavin and Mike Hearn are just about the only Bitcoin developers who ever got a hearing in major news outlets, and Gavin on more than one issue. If anyone is some kind of "face of Bitcoin" by the simplest/most superficial means, then one would assume that suing Gavin was more than worth a shot (surely the guiding principle of all overly-litigious efforts). Yet every divisive, controversial or publicly known figure is consistently absent from Wrights prosecutions.

Surely this latest (simple) argument that the (quoting the white paper: "electronic cash" ) system should have made allowance for recovering users lost funds not have implicated the earliest contributors more than any others? Is it not they who progressively made that less possible? (despite the feature-not-bug reality)

and does that not implicate Gavin most of all in such a damages claim? Andresen was leading the earliest dev team in the original effort to (continue to ) e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y make it increasingly more impossible for the developers to choose who should be assigned which money, for any reason, however arbitrary?

together:
1. the (heavily publicized by Wright) meeting between Wright and Andresen
2. the ~2 years direct relationship Satoshi had with Andresen before he went quiet

demonstrates that Wright has had many opportunities to speak directly with Gavin about this very issue, both before, during and long after these damages were "inflicted" (assuming on point 2 that you were to believe Wright's stories)

When you put this all together, I don't buy this interpretation of "greedy/bored billionaire bankrolls extravagantly disingenuous conman in convoluted court cases", that to me sounds like the real crime-caper movie plot.
That it's taken so long for an attack against the Bitcoin developer ecosystem to reach even this point may indicate that there is some fairly careful planning going on, and that we should all expect more.

It might be that he said it many times but I have only seen this blog post and the posts that he made endorsing CSW. I get he might want to be left alone and I respect that. I have nothing personal against him I would like to see him come out once and for all and say that CSW should not be trusted and own up to his mistakes. Changing a old blog post looks like you are hiding your tracks instead of coming out and announcing to the public what happened and why he thought he could trust CSW.  The NDA would be admissible because Gavin is getting attacked and slander (if he does have a nda) and can appeal a nda but a nda is just for ideas that have not been disclosed Gavin does not have to talk about the specific reason he just needs to come out and denounce CSW more strongly. No Nda in the world will stop you from doing that it stops you talking about previous dealings but he does not have to talk about that or could say that he cannot talk about it which would mean the same thing and would not get him in trouble. I refuse to believe that Gavin who is smart would get tied up in a nda by Craig. 

Gavin has stated many times that he did not believe CSW was satoshi. It never seems to be good enough for the core developers that constantly slander him. This latest round of harassment caused him to amend an old blog post but I think he really just wants to be left alone. He did a lot of great things for Bitcoin, then gave up his power and left. Still, for some reason people think they’re entitled to more from him. I feel bad for him, as he’s been a constant target by developers that will never reach his level of contributions to Bitcoin.

it doesnt require knowing secrets about GA to blackmail GA into silence for the X years
its instead very simple.. an few NDA's

The main question I have for Gavin Andresen is why he has stayed silent when all of this was going on? I thought someone like him who had a reputation once would want to keep his reputation and would have spoken out about this sooner? Does CSW have secrets on Gavin that he is scared might get out if he comes out more strongly in public? I find it odd that someone would allow their name to be dragged through the mud without every returning back to the btc community.

CSW lost the case aysg76 quoted as it was about CSW trying to say he owned literacy copyright of the blockheader file.  the judge knows literacy rights(copyright) is if someone owns a quote. and someone else plagiarised it(stole his copyright) CSW would have had a case.. but the judge also knew enough about bitcoin to know that CSW couldnt win

(very short and dumbed down version of why CSW couldnt win)
the block header changes every block. new prevblock id in every block, new times in every block, new tx merkle tree hash in every block, new nonces in every block. new difficulty every 2016 blocks, new version number every few years
no blockheader contains the same content (or in literacy terms no block is the same paragraph of words)

so no plagiarism. oh and the real satoshi relinquished copyright ownership over to the MIT open licence.

as for the other case.. about the core developers. well they are not CSW employees nor under any contract with CSW to do as CSW wants
also. CSW has said many times that its CSW belief that BSV is "the bitcoin" and so if CSW wants coins off "bitcoin" then he can take them coins off the addresses in BSV, as that is CSW property and what CSW deems is "bitcoin"
thus no need to be bothering core devs
CSW already has his cake and can eat it

if CSW wants to own BSV, he already does
it wont require "proof of satoshi" to claim ownership of BSV, craig already owns it
thus he already owns access to the addresses and has access power to move coins out of his addresses on his BSV

im sure core dev lawyers(solicitors) can word it better than i have

The fact is he is not ready to accept the reality and keep on pushing the bar high in all these court filings to prove the lie in building his fake identity.As you said about committing his mistakes and getting less hate is option but he is not willing to take that path which is why at last he will be having nothing but the clown indentity in the whole audience views.


As for the latest case against core bitcoin developers to make the changes so that he has access to his coins is already on the losing verge as UK court is ruling out his filing in which he will gain nothing at the end.He is already losing his net worth with such cases in hope to earn billion dollars but you know he is not ready to accept his mistakes which I said earlier also so his fate in his hands.

Perhaps in addition to the  current situation, which few self centred forum members and few others those who are aware that in every social experimentation the members of the movement divide themselves on the basis their personal interest instead of the collective interest.

The blockchain  implemention and its application also its improvement and scalling fully depends our selfless efforts now and in the future.  As I told you, there should be a minimum age rule without a transaction fee which has not realised.  If the Bitcoin community continuously fight each others just for their self centred interest it not noodles good at all for the main purpose bitcoin advent.  It can halt the smooth running of Bitcoin. On the topic I can say that each person know their own personal fault.  Gavin and Craig both have caused a serious setback for the Bitcoin progression. On the other hand they both are playing their parts according to their abilities and capacities. They both have personal responsibilities to correct themselves for the benefits of the Bitcoin community.  Perhaps, I may have to take a new disconnect for the current situation of court cases filed by Craig.  Each person has rights to enjoy their liberty and freedom but when some one become utterly greedy for selfish purposes is unacceptable.

As PM Sunak has reshuffle his cabinet, I think it is time for me to use the parliamentary model to improve the Bitcoin community image for the best interest of the Bitcoin community.

According to the generation rule that says that a free transaction must be 3 blocks deep before it can be transfered again for free, which has not fully realised.  If Gavin could have pay more attention to it then it would have been done accordingly.  So is the case of Gavin and Craig. They both have their own mistakes and fallout.  I am impressed to see the credibility of Craig to stair up the thing time to time by filling new cases against bitcoin forum members and developers. I think he does not get exosted because of mind's capacity.  After all, I have really nothing to say about the current climate in the Bitcoin community because I am not there to say anything which is legitimate or reasonable because I am out.  It is time for Bitcoin community members to setup new policies to tackle any collective problems arises collectively.

firstly i think that ayres wasnt even at that point needing "proof" he was already involved and invested in whatever greed CSW can produce for profits on investment
from what i can recall CSW was promising returns by way of patent claim compensation, book deals and movie deals(biographies) aswell as other business investment deals.. which is why even though we all and ayres knows CSW is not satoshi. ayres is still feeding CSW out of greed not beleif
(scamer B does not need to know scammer A's story is proven. scammer B just needs to know how much ROI he can make out of any con A wants to do)

gavin didnt sign (in america pre-travel) out of just pure interest. nor get on a plane and stay at a hotel using his own money(there was money amounts moved to get him to london via that first contract). and no one signs subsequent NDA's with breach punishments without also having compensations for compliance too.

if gavin did sign a NDA without getting money out of it. then i too would call GA a idiot

from my opinion.. and common sense
CSW cant sign a satoshi key. so lets put that story to bed that a "satoshi proof" actually/truly happened (that was just the scripted narrative to tell public).. in my opinion

common sense is there was no real address signing session.. and instead was a  contract NDA event of future speaking events.. of scheduling speaking dates to set a narrative up
(the hotel contract had dates of when gavin could say things, but only what CSW allowed to be said(which was why there was a few months delay between the event and gavins first mentioning of it))

..
there is ofcourse the narrative that
GA was duped by CSW paraphrasing public satoshi quotes and revealed emails to fool GA into going to london. and gavin did attend and seen CSW do something on CSW laptop(edited to CSW goals). and then a fresh laptop with CSW copy of linux and wallet put on it(edited to CSW goals) and gavin seen both proofs and went away amazed.. but unable to show the wider public what he seen.. via no screen shots no usb sticks of messages or signatures. etc

but that just sounds too "fantasy story without proof beyond his word" to me

..
come on.. even you as a spokesperson if told by contract you cannot say a-s  for X months, but at the X month you can say d-g but not a-c nor h-s
even you would want to get some spokesperson fee out of the future speaking events, correct

i personally am independently wealthy. so i havnt, nor want nor need to be paid to speak. i just say things how they are and am frank about it.
but if someone did want to shut me up or control what i should say. they could not afford me. but no one should be controlled and restricted for free