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

I don't think they'd fund Gavin to lie-- as far as anyone can tell Wright was suckering Ayre and probably needed Gavin's endorsement to convince Ayre too.

Thanks for the citation, interesting point.

I think we've seen that Wright has been extremely slow to learn from his errors-- a common trait for narcissists because it's difficult to learn from an error if you can't admit you made one.

We're very fortunate because one of the things the community does poorly is withholding knowledge of his mistakes until the knowledge is strategically useful.  Fortunately, he's gone on to submit to court docs that randos on twitter already proved were forgeries and stuff like that.

Some past errors he's mostly stopped making, e.g. his modern talks almost never go into technical details (which has made them much less amusing to watch) but his improvements seem to come extremely slowly.

back in the 2015-6 days CSW didnt have much money in his own pockets. but remembering from some of the stuff said in court cases about who was in attendance at the 'proof event' it was not just GA and CSW

(forgive memory..) i think it was S.mathews, ayres and possible j.nguyen
and some (excuse bad memory.. cant be assed to go back through notes) about legal team baker mckenzie involved
and more contract signing after arriving in england* but before the purchase of the clean laptop**

we all know CSW is funded by s.matthews, J.nguyen and ayres in those days and these days

*this was "the" NDA(disclosed at court) also signed before travelling to the UK
**https://www.youtube.com/embed/R03ypV9CsTc?start=3204&end=3242
take CSW buddies words with alot of salt but s.mathews said in the london hotel GA signed another NDA in that session


Ga mentioning about 'talking about patents sounds like a scammer'.. i see that was not picked up as a hint by CSW as CSW continued to mention patents.

Impossible to prove or disprove franky1,  and some people have cited his comments about it not being good to hold bitcoin as suggesting there might be jealousy reasons to burn it down.  I know for a fact that some other early Bitcoiners turned on to full bitcoin hate because they lost or gave away their Bitcoin or never acquired a large amount when they could have.   But that kind of stuff is just speculation and I think in this case it fails occam's razor: People get conned, it happens and it happens more often than complicated movie plot payoff schemes.

I think I'd have to see evidence of a *huge* payment to rate the bought off theory more highly than someone who was just tricked-- and there is no reason to think the Wright would have been able to make a huge payment in the first place.

It's true but Wright clearly has some magic charisma over people in person.  I think in 1:1 interactions Wright is probably highly effective at controlling the direction of conversation through carefully calibrated abuse, feigned outrage, storming out, etc.

Satoshi was also more abrasive towards Gavin in private than we know him to have been in public communications (e.g. more like that dismissal of future altcoin scammer Larimer, the only time Satoshi was ever outright abrasive in public).  Especially if Gavin had recently reviewed his discussions with Satoshi he might have been newly offended and when wright was a dick he could have thought "well, that checks out". For the rest of us we see Wrigt's public conduct as 180 degrees off of Satoshi, but Gavin might have over valued the few criticisms he got from Satoshi and thought the two weren't polar opposites.

Probably the most shocking thing to me is that in Gavin and Wright's communication, at some point Wright started fire and brimstone-ing about patents or something and Gavin responded with something along the lines of "see when you talk like that it makes people think you're a scammer".  WTF, why did Gavin coach him to scam better??  Total facepalm moment there, but I guess Gavin was already committed to the believe that Wright was legit.

i think its much more simple than 'someone was duped' or "he is dumb'
tl:dr
(much like how ex doctors get paid to go against their skills and knowledge to go on speaking tours to say some anti-vaxxer BS, they know its wrong to say it, but the money is good)

---

waffle explainer:
i seen gavin in early adopter years mention he will only want to work on bitcoin for a few more years before retiring to try other things.
a few years later arrived and his reputation and credibility was already damaged due to the whole brand wars of bitcoin reference clients. so knowing he was nearing his retirement deadline was close, just decided to take an offer of a payday for the cost of his remaining reputation. thinking his reputation meant nothing to him beyond that date.

so not duped into a con. but contracted to sell his reputation(soul). which was then used to promote a con

(it makes more logical common sense then pretending he was just dumb)

as for the narrative about what intrigued ga to visit CSW being "we talked a bit and he sounded like a satoshi" pfft.
when CSW is not just paraphrasing known satoshi quotes. csw back then more so but even now says things about bitcoins functions and features that are nothing like what the real satoshi said

and anyone normal can see that, so i dont think ga was lulled into believing csw. i think it was just a contract to make a speaking endorsement using some lame contracted narrative

The higher you climb, the harder you fall.

Gavin wasn't some random schmuck who knew about bitcoin. He was a well known bitcoin developer who also had control over the reference implementation project, bitcoin core. Some people may have even considered him a replacement for Satoshi after he went away.

Someone in a position like this needs to be more careful about what he says and does. Otherwise a small slip would lead to a big fall. Supporting the scammer was a big slip, so was the fall.
This is why whatever he does after making the mistake is not going to matter much, specially when it is many years after the mistake.

Anyone can make a mistake.  It's what you do about it after that is evidence of your character.

More likely because Wright and his conspirators had again been linking to the old statement as 'proof' of their claims.


There are many kinds of error that are *easier* to make if you're smart.  A fool would look at something suspicious and go "this is complicated, you're probably trying to scam me"-- while a smart person might be able to pretzel logic themselves into putting down their cynicism and gut instinct buying into a contrived story.  A smart person can usually reason their way out of danger while someone less smart has to rely on instinct and caution.  Being smart works until it doesn't and there are plenty of examples of extremely smart people who got conned.

Being smart also doesn't mean being street smart.  You can go back and find posts from before Wright by Gavin insulting other bitcoin developers saying they are obsessed with potential threats and attacks and waste too much time making things secure, and counter insults towards him saying he's naive for thinking the world is benign.

My view is that much of the time much of the world is mostly benign, but we have to prepare for when it isn't: when things are benign things will go right no matter what choices we make, it's when they aren't that our choices matter.  Gavin was totally unprepared to be the target of a conman that was willing to spin an arbitrarily convoluted story -- while I was prepared.  But at the end of the day I'm the target of two lawsuits one demanding billions the other demanding hundreds of billions, sucking up my time and causing me stress and he isn't.  So much for being 'right'.  I think I'd rather be in his position: You'd all think I'm a fool or corrupt, sure, but no one who cares what random people on the internet thinks will ever be happy.

It is genuinely surprising to me that any technical person ever fell for Wright-- he just is so *obvious* with his technobabbling and bogus excuses and even was back when the endorsement happened.  But if any Bitcoin contributor fell for Wright Gavin would have been the most likely both because of his trusting perspective and the fact that Wright aligned himself with Gavin's position in the political dispute at the time (which, from my perspective Gavin was losing or even had already lost). An endorsement by Satoshi would have been a total hail Mary and hard for many people to resist.

Fundamentally that blocksize drama was driven by the same underlying perspectives:  Should bitcoin eliminate a technically and economically important limit one critical to the long term economic argument for security and then trust that things are going work out (somehow), or should it maintain limits that establish needed incentives and which bound how wrong things can go?  (It's fun to point out that in BSV they got the limit removed and then have bloated the chain specifically to make it impractical for people to run nodes and block their efforts to edit the ledger to steal coins-- one of the vulnerabilities we pointed out might arise from removing the limit that the people opposing us thought was too ridiculous to bother countering...)

In any case, I think it's important to realize that anyone can fall for a conman, that's what conmen do.  We can be more or less vulnerable based on our attitudes and actions, but blaming victims for falling for a con doesn't protect anyone.  To fall for a con you need only make one bad decision on one bad day. Everyone has a bad day now and again.

It's also easy to fault Gavin for what happened after, but at the same time-- what did other people do after?  Gavin was at least tricked and had to face the barrier of cognitive dissonance and the ego hit of admitting error, other people didn't suffer the same challenges. Where's the statement from developers, the project, industry groups debunking Gavin's endorsement?  The bitcoin core project removed Gavin's remaining unused access to the repo to counter the risk that he'd hand it to Wright but pretty much stopped there.   A few people, like me, carried on debunking Wright's claims but as individuals it carried little weight, were largely ignored by the public and media, and it's ultimately why I'm a target of Wright's lawsuits.  As a whole the Bitcoin community (including the technical subcommunity) didn't act to counter Wright but just ignored him and let him fester, amassing strength and resources, exchanges went along and listed his scamcoin token -- pumping cash into his coffers.   Would all these PR agencies and law firms be working for Wright, would these billionaire sponsers still be pumping money into him had it been established in the public consciousness that he was a con and a crook?  Quite possibly not.

That's true for many other people, usually without anyone noticing them (including people in this thread!)  Wright and people promoting him have put a lot of effort (any money) into playing up people when they think it benefits the credibility of their con.  There are plenty of other former early bitcoiners and contributors who you almost never hear mentioned (including some of the victims of Wright's vexatious litigation).


Somewhat related, I ran into this old thread recently where a querulous Bitcoiner was asking bitcoiner's to post letters of commitment promising that they'd never be naughty.

I rejected the concept, arguing that any promise meaningless and that his demands were "completely pointless— not because people are trusted to not do evil but because Bitcoin users won't accept technology that makes it possible"

By comparison, Gavin played along: "I hereby promise and solemnly swear on pain of atomic wedgie that I will never ever work on or endorse any changes to the Bitcoin system that would enable any person or group to confiscate, blacklist, or devalue any other person or group's bitcoin."

...and what we have today is the latter person having an incompletely and late withdrawn endorsement of someone who's trying to confiscate coins,  while I'm getting slammed with multiple court cases demanding billions in damages for *not* playing along with the confiscation attempt.

It just goes to show that words are just words.  It's important that we have systems whos security doesn't depend on meaningless commitments and important that each and every Bitcoiner act to protect those properties.

No because you would have to prove that Gavin Andresen knew that CSW was a scammer and we do not know if that is true. I think he could have been naive and fell for the tricks that others have by Craig. He is a master at it that is why he has a following but on the other side I thought Gavin would know better because of his technical skills with btc and he is still intelligent as he showed in the early years but him taking so long to talk about the mistake of trusting Craig goes against him. He should have talked about it sooner and he probably would have a better reputation among the btc community and would have looked better in front of a court if someone did try to sue him. I do not think they could sue him for damages though because you can never prove he knew that csw was a scammer.

It might not save him but I would respect him more if he did make a stronger statement about not trusting csw. He still has influence because we are talking about him today. People reading the history of btc will come across Gavin and will trust him because he had direct contact with Satoshi and that is talked about on this forum so even if veteran members know of this newer members are going to research and see he was heavily involved with Satoshi and trust him because of that until they do their research and find out more about it they will keep trusting him and that could mean they start trusting csw before they find out what happened.

I think it is not going to be enough to actually save his credibility and I think it is not going to change anything at all. While I believe that it is not going to change anything, he could do it himself to save himself. This way if anyone asks, he could say that he rejected CSW eventually, which people will say it was too late, but at least he could have a defense ready for it, and he could say he was fooled and he found the truth and rejected it when he learned.

This won't change peoples views of him, but it could at least give him some sort of defense mechanism to protect himself from hatred, a way to change the perspective a bit if he could do it.

I may only speculate on the benefit of going back on his words today.  Can he not get rid of liability in case things go against his way?  People get to trust Craig, Craig proves to be a scammer, then people sue Gavin because he said Craig was Satoshi.  Or something like that.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

He could apologize all he wants, he lost credibility with this and he wo would never regain it back, and that's okay. Bitcoin is decentralized, there is no person who has any type of say in bitcoin, Craig is a known scammer at this point and Gavin is just a person who fell for a scammer which many people in crypto did, even if for another scammer, we all faced scammers.

This is why I won't blame Gavin, it happens and it's fine but at the same time I think it's quite important to realize that it's not a big deal if you ignore Gavin as well, just consider him as another random person you do not know talking and it should be fine, I would certainly never consider anything he says with any weight at all.

The worrying part is that he has not come forward and tried to rekindle the relationship he had with the btc community. I will admit I was not aware of some of the things that have been discussed here but now that I am aware I have had to rethink my opinion. I thought Gavin Andresen was a guy to look up to but it turns out just because someone  is involved in a good cause early on does not mean they are good. If he was good and he had good intentions he would have owned up to endorsing CSW it has been years since he has. The op is right that someone who once held acclaim among the btc community has not given a strong enough statement about the intentions and malicious acts done by CSW. Someone with influence even if it is unjust or no longer as strong as it was should stand up and admit to their mistakes instead of doing a half baked version. I always wondered why he disappeared but the only thing I can think of now is he is hiding from the monster that he helped create by endorsing him to the community.

If he steps forward now and apologizes for his mistakes and publicly denounces CSW I think that could go a long way to redemption but I do not have faith in that because they would have done already. There is no way someone watches what CSW is doing and claiming and sits back and lets it happen. If you have influence you have to use that and warn people of the dangers something that Gavin continues not to do.  Talk about falling from grace....

There's no doubt that CSW is not the real Satoshi because he loses the Bitcoin copyright in the UK court hours ago but what I don't get is if the message you quoted from actually from the link Gavin Andresen you provided because what was written there seems not to be the same thing to what you posted or I'm I not reading correctly.
This is what I saw "After spending time with him I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt: Craig Wright is Satoshi.
Part of that time was spent on a careful cryptographic verification of messages signed with keys that only Satoshi should possess. But even before I witnessed the keys signed and then verified on a clean computer that could not have been tampered with, I was reasonably certain I was sitting next to the Father of Bitcoin."

Holdlonaut has already won the case against CWS since last year, and it has also been proven that CWS is not the Satoshi of Bitcoin; he may be Satoshi to his family (wife and kids) 😅, but not to anybody in the community. The community will not consider it because there is no evidence to prove he's the real Bitcoin developer. Anyone who has yet to accept it will one day also realize that it was a mistake to trust CWS, just as Gavin Andresen has confessed.

https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1583086284792205312

Or Gavin was simply blinded by CSW charisma
I wonder did Gavin also played a lot of games with certain government agency as well, and could that affect his judgement as well?

Anyway, I see more bad new for Craig Wright as he just lost his Bitcoin copyright claim in UK court, but I am sure that won't stop him going to more courts in future:
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/02/08/craig-wright-loses-bitcoin-copyright-claim-in-uk-court/

again back when gavin was "doing good" (circa 2010-2014)
early on in the good days he had already announced he would only be inspired and energised in the "bitcoin experiment" for about 3-5 years before he may move on

so timeline shows he planned a retirement date and by 2015 he was at his retirement mindset.. ready to take a payday exit from anywhere he could

i wouldnt say he was a fool. id say he went foul for funds(sellout/ sold his reputation/soul to the devil)

i went for "idiot or playing games"

to be fair, if Gavin were concealing his original reasons for giving Craig Wright the thumbs-up, ill intent is only one possibility. If we don't know his reason(s), then that's as much as we may ever know

History can't be rewritten, but it's important to recognize one's own mistakes, both personally and publicly. Given the significance of Gavin himself (especially before he chose to support Bitcoin Cash, which undoubtedly some saw as a bad decision), his support of the idea that Craig is Satoshi was a significant point for Faketoshi believers. It's great that he admitted now that trusting Craig was a mistake. And while he didn't say that he no longer believes Craig is Satoshi, at least he's not making guesses any more.
Sure, I agree it's overdue, but I think it's better late than never.

I did not know. I recently learned about the problems with his involvement and I bet any newbie will be more easily fooled to believe he still has influence in the btc community. If you search Gavin online you can see multiple sources talking about how he was important and the things he did for btc. None of them report on the controversies involving him. I think at one time he was important to btc and did a lot of good things but he seemed to lose his way and I can see why members here question him but the OP admits that he still has influence and they are one of the most informed members on the forum. I think Gavin could amend a lot of the criticism he has received and a good way to start would be publicly condemning CSW.

Maybe you're next on his "what I need to do" list, because you claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto the same way Faketoshi does, without any evidence.

---

Which members does he influence in any way? To those who have no idea who he is at all, or to those who know very well what he has done, and by that I mean all those bad things from the time when he allegedly cared about Bitcoin? That man has 0% real influence, and he'd be better off crawling under a rock and staying there. He is fake to the same extent as the faker he supported.

It is obvious what is next. CSW will continue to make himself look like a idiot but that is why he is famous because he has tried to take over the btc community and tried to expose the most important people in btc with false accusations. Claiming to be satoshi without any proof and some people believe him. This will continue until he gets his goal in destroying btc or he gets put in jail for the slander cases he has made.

Gavin needs to come out with a better public statement denouncing CSW because even if some members here do not like him any more he still has a influence on members in the community and he can use that to do some good by coming out with a stronger statement against CSW

It would seem I neglected to make this thread self-moderated. Please stop derailing this thread before I lock it.

@moses
so your claims are that you are satoshi.. and gavin.. whilst it seems your actually playing the part of CSW by doing these games of yours

so your claiming you know about the history and also know about bitcoin
yet your posts have soo many errors and inaccuracies that are soo bad, that you are just debunking yourself by even trying to make the claims you make

dont waste months on trying to pretend your some early adopter or developer. becasue you are wasting your own time..
take a few months off and spend it learning about what bitcoin really is and does. and how you can if you grew some morals find a lawful and ethical way to make an income rather than your shady games you have played in recent months


oh by the way. this forum stores users posts. so its easy to see what games you have been playing. so there is no point in acting like your newest post is the only one anyone has ever seen about you and your games

Listen Mr fanky1, you were not there when I was discussing Bitcoin for the first time on 5th May in IRC. I am Gavin Andresen here, my IRC nick was Gavin but not Gavin Bell. Do you understand. You need to know first who was behind the nick Gavin Andresen ?  You have no clues, why I chose Gavin Bell and gave him my own IRC nick "Gavin Andresen". It is my business not yours. You have found opportunity with my invention Bitcoin and Blockchain, you are lucky and you must know who is behind the amount BitcoinMoses ? 

Just stop attacking me other wise first I will reveal your Identity  before I reveal mine. Why can't you just use your own wisdom and ethics you talk about. I know Craig Wright since 4 May 2007. Stop lecturing me.

@moses
you have no clue about the history of bitcoin... (socially or technically)
.. take a few months off and learn some stuff

it was actually CSW plus his investors that reached out and contacted a bitcoin conference organiser to contact her contacts of well known people to see who would be willing to get paid to visit CSW

everything else you saying to try to attempt to get yourself involved in all that drama is just BS

you are not well versed in the history, nor even how bitcoin works.
accept your flaws. and realise you are not convincing anyone

It is getting to get very hit.  What we need to understand it the core point of the element.  How about the true fact without fiction regarding the relationship of the two, called Craig Wright and Gavin Andresen ? 

There must be some top secret between them but all that masterminded by a third person name Jon Matonis. In the real fact It is Gavin Bell and Jon Matonis who hired Craig Wright quickly in 2016 because I woke up after some years in 2014 because just protect my old friend Dorian Nakamoto.

Finally they, all together stopped me to reveal my identity by putting Craig on BBC stage where he proved by signing message with public key because he has no clues of PGP and Bitcoin as he was a "Newbie" the Bitcoin Drama.

I think, it is time for me clean the Bitcoin Space and put to rest the question who is satoshi nakamoto ?  And we can move forward in the next stage of Bitcoin mass adoption buy you know, without Bitcoin drama in the real world in real time many thing go "slowmo" so let's stop paying too much attention to other things and focus on Bitcoin market development and governments intentions if Bitcoin and all crypto currency need to be regulated ?

Craig is a great actor, he is playing his role as you all playing yours. I am just watching and wondering about the whole thing. Every one knows the an extraordinary claim requires an extra ordinary evidence. Craig said, he stomed on the Satoshis Hard drive and destroyed the Private Keys of Satoshi. Now, is saying some one has stollen the encrypted private keys of Tulip Trust and he is now filled case against my 12 Deciples and demanding to change the Bitcoin code. What a nonsense ?  Bitcoin code was not developed by my 12  deciples known as  bitcoin developers, it I, Am Satoshi Nakamoto, I wrote the Bitcoin code and all my 32 disciples and appostles together helping me by running the Bitcoin System Software smoothly. If any one try to break the Bitcoin then by scamming legal enforcement, I will not tolerate it.

It is time for my 12 disciples to contact me. So we together can teach a tough lesson to any one who impersonate me to scam investors or governments.

A couple of years ago someone called Craig Wright starts claiming to be the real creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Then this person starts contacting different bitcoin experts to convince them to support his claims. One of them is Gavin Adresen. Only Gavin is convinced after the meeting with the scammer and without seeing any reliable proof. Gavin then starts supporting his claim (read the article in OP).

Someone who does this is either an idiot or malicious. I tend to think the later.

NDA are not valid reason to decline answering in criminal law..
bit in civil law(contract law) NDA are applicable

and CSW loves doing civil cases where his "witnesses" for his side are all contracted up to be his silent sheep, or pleet out the bahh's of whatever CSW shepherds them to say

however if there was ever a criminal case against CSW his cards will fall fast where he cant rely on his NDA and the witnesses can get penalised by the courts for lying/withholding evidence and such

---

side note comedy observation

a certain group of idiots in this forum(and they appear in this topic) seem obviously sponsored/bribed to sing a certain song sheet about certain things they say for the last few years that defend a certain corporate brand that wants bitcoin bloated and expensive to then promote some other flawed subnetwork as the offramp people should move over to.

you can spot the usual signs. they defend a certain thing with the same rehearsed words. they lack independent thought of wanting research, nor can they back up their narrative with block-data or code. they just want to use social networks of quotes of other followers as their proofs


they dont want code fixes for code bugs. nor to strengthen consensus... they instead sing the echoed song sheet of wanting soft consensus to remain and continue to allow the bloat, where by they also want to abuse fees of everyone to increase.. as their fix for the spam they want tolerated.

they, by appearing to act like idiots by defending a certain agenda.. sounds familiar right..? wright?

Gavin supported an obvious liar. I don't get how you could be so easily fooled. Craig never did anything good for the community. He's a narcissist who wants to use outdated centralized systems to influence bitcoin. A good examples of this attitude are patent claims and court cases where he tries to sue proponents of free speech. He thinks that the court can somehow give him rights to bitcoin. This idiot thinks he'll fight his way into history books.

Craig is sick, but what was Gavin's agenda here? What did he hope to achieve by supporting Craig?
Somebody should tell Craig that no matter what patents he gets and what court cases he wins, he can't turn back time.

This is another reminder that we should all learn to always verify what we read, regardless of the expertise or reputation of the person saying it. Someone could be extremely smart and savvy in an area, and make rookie errors in another, or they could be bought over.

Do not be "influenced" by the opinion of others regardless how highly you rate them; Always Verify.

---

This edit by Gavin Andresen is more like putting band aid over a deep tissue cut. There is a lot more that could be said to further distance himself from the idea that Craig Wright is Satoshi and categorically call it a lie.

Better late than never.

Devs are supposed to be smart. I had a lot of respect to people who are smart enough to update code and implement bug fixes, but then we have this:

"I saw him sign a message, put it on a USB stick that I provided to him and saw it verified on a clean computer that I had witnessed the downloading of the verification software, and it had been unpacked from a factory-sealed box," he said. "And it was a message I gave to him, so it was a message of my choosing. So I am convinced he has that key. So I don’t know why he did this wacky, complicated thing [on his blog]."

The above text is from 2016.

We all know this was fake. Craig never had the keys and Gavin either knew about it and went along with it lying to everyone or he was conned by Wright. Wright never had and still doesn't have Satoshi's keys and if he did he wouldn't be suing bitcoin devs to get access.
Wright wants to destroy bitcoin. If he had Satoshi's coins he'd crash the market and used the money to shill SV and pump it to start a FOMO rally.
Real Satoshi would never be the enemy of bitcoin like Wright.

NDA is applicable when dealing with national security or contracts with high monetary risks, I am not aware of a NDA where keeping silent is considered as obstruction of justice, unless there are some stupid rules in US or other countries that allow such a thing.

Why is Gavin Andresen a idiot? I have been around more long enough not to be known as a newcomer but I do not know why the btc community is so hostile towards him? From what I have read he has always been level headed and done what he thought was best for the btc community and it was a big loss when he stopped developing for btc.

That's a fact that you and I know but if we look through the eyes of newcomers Andresen is someone who could be made to look like an "expert" who knows what he is talking about. Lest we forget that we live in a society that average people tend to easily believe random stuff they read on the internet.

GA did help with things in previous years. much like certain leaders of the past. but their voice today does not create code that activates today.

we have seen politicians get bought out and publicise certain corporate leanings and sides in the past.

just because they were leaders on date X does not mean we have to believe them on date Y nor does it mean they have power on date Z

we can uniquely praise their Date X activity. and find offence in date Y and not be bothered or not find it important or do find it important about Z
all as separate opinions of the same person.

there was even controversy abut date W. where some think core was defacto god group. and anything outside core is traitor group not belonging to bitcoin.
where other people think bitcoin should not have a god group. but instead a diverse network of multiple teams where no one is god. and instead just byzantine generals that should al be able to propose features and find unity over  features the community find usefulness in which the byzantine generals all then contribute towards providing code for in their own brands.. and not some opposition fight about who should be thrown off the network first

where by W is treated separate to X, Y Z but overall people can have thoughts that W is leaning one way or y leans the other or z is neutral

i dont think GA and CSW were buddies. it was a business deal (money changed hands)

Gavin Andresen still commands respect among the btc community he helped make it what it is today even if he has not been around like he was in the early years without him and his time that he put into developing btc I do not think he would have got to where we are today so quickly. His name is forever associated with btc and there comes responsibility with that. I do not doubt that he is reluctant to publicly denounce CSW hard because of their former friendship and he does not want the drama but it is the socially responsible thing to do.

My point is that this half baked non-denouncing is not enough. He can and should just outright call CSW a liar and a fraud, as everyone else has.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I (and everyone else here) already fully know that Andresen's statements cannot be relied upon in any way. However, CSW continues to rely on witness testimony in court, because that is all he has. Having one his most well known and prominent witnesses make a complete denunciation is more powerful than the statement of "it was a mistake to trust CSW", as I'm sure CSW will no doubt perform his usual mental gymnastics to say that Andresen was referring to something else entirely.

I place no value whatsoever in the opinion of people like Mashinsky or SBF either, but I still think they should come forward, accept the blame, and apologize to all the users of their platforms for scamming them.

CSW, GA, both of them lie, I know mister T and he doesn't look like CSW. mister T wants to stay anonymous otherwise he would come here and reveal his real identity. CSW's claims have no merits whatsoever. Please do not feed more to this fire.

Andresen has long since ceased to be someone to look to anyway, so I don't understand your point at all, what he says or does not say makes no difference to the issue.


It's not (and never was) credible for him to claim that trusting Craig Wright made even 1 scintilla of sense, when he had more than enough:

• knowledge
• skill
• responsibility

...to actually assess what Craig Wright presented to him, instead of saying "of that looks good to me, I trust you o' unknown and unproven person making earth shattering claims to be the person I worked with on early Bitcoin under a pseudonym"

Andresen was clearly playing games, or a total idiot, and thus disqualifies himself from the list of "people to listen to"

Gavin Andresen's first mistake was to speak to the 3 letter agencies and then admitting it to Satoshi Nakamoto... after that, Satoshi Nakamoto was gone...... then he left Bitcoin as the Lead developer and joined Mike Hearn as the competition to Bitcoin, making him a hostile enemy in most people's eyes.

He then caused more harm to Bitcoin, by supporting CW in his claim that he was the real Satoshi Nakamoto.... and that exploded in his face. Where do we draw the line between sabotage and mistakes?

In my opinion, GA should have become a person of distrust the moment he went to the most famous three-letter agency and opened his soul on the subject of Bitcoin (for compensation, of course). I always wondered how Satoshi could even consider such a man as a trustworthy person and give him credibility after he left.

The damage done by GA when he stood by Faketoshi is irreparable regardless of all his apologies - and the question is why he is bringing up this topic again as if anyone with a modicum of common sense doesn't understand what actually happened.

GA should do this far earlier. But at least we should say "better late than never" for saying that statement.


GA has some influence on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community. So some people might be angry at GA since his statement could mislead few newbie to buy BSV rather than other cryptocurrency with better history/potential.

Just for the context as Gavin's statment may not be just coincidence: "Craig Wright's UK Case Against 16 Bitcoin Developers to Go to Full Trial", 3rd February 2023.

Well, in jurisdictions that have already gave CSW a green light to enforce whatever legal action he'd like e.g. the UK, the fact that the volume of fact-checking information about CSW that was ignored by the courts indicates that they will not be influenced by so much by the prosecution losing one document of their legal ammunition. It just makes CSW's fight a little harder but not impossible.

Gavin's writing is one key "documents" CSW is relying on in his lawsuits against everybody contesting his claims or exposing is lies.

CSW already managed to obtain court order hence bitcoin whitepaper is not available on bitcoin.org for UK people (IPs).
CSW is dragging into lawsuits from people on Twitter to Bitcoin businesses and even Bitcoin developers for not allowing him to steal millions of bitcoin.

So... it's not a small thing this update.

We should try to relax a bit. It’s not like Gavin is some official spokesperson for Bitcoin, and obviously the whole claim to fame on Craig’s side is half winded. IMO he’s Satoshi’s antithesis. What caused the resurgence of this debate lol

Finally does the right thing. Hats off to him.

While the wave of bankruptcies and collapses have made CSW largely irrelevant last year and this one too, he's not going to be able to take any action against bitcoin while the price of Bitcoin SV is down (assuming Calvin Ayre is too tied up to give him financial firepower at the moment).

YES IT WAS MONEY AND YES GA GOT PAID IN 2016
EVERYONE KNOWS HE GOT PAID IN 2016 TO VISIT CSW

and in pretty much all NDA's its a lump sum at the NDA signing day. not a ongoing payment for life

most NDA have a time limit/expiry included. this does not mean paying periodically until expiry. this is a "here take some cash in 2016. now shut up for X years or we will want that money back + X MULTIPLE ontop as penalty" type of deal

thats how NDA's work

in short. yes GA got paid to go to the UK in 2016 and say whatever the contract wants him to say.. or not say

there was obviously more then one NDA
as there is the pre-flight NDA(spring 2016) where he could not speak of having a meetup until an arranged date later in year.

and another contract about what he should and could say at a certain date and he had to stick to such limitations

as thats how standard NDA's/contracts work

It means nothing if you ask me since it is already too late. It's not like he needed that much time to figure it out! It takes a second to know if someone is lying when they can't provide any kind of proof not this many years. I don't buy the NDA thing either since he could have not-say he is Satoshi in first place!

Something definitely shady is going on behind the scene between Andresen and Wright and in my opinion the only reason why Gavin went back on his words is the fallout between them, possibly Craig scammed him or refused to pay the money he promised Gavin after his support or something similar.

My ass. You can't rewrite history, specially on the internet that is "written in ink". Nothing is going to wash the following shame from Gavin's forehead:

The only important question we should ask is "what was the benefit of supporting a clear scammer in 2016 and what is the benefit in going back on his words today?
Was it money? Position? Government favor? Threat of prosecution by government? Something else?

I am not entirely sure why we need Gavin Andresen to call him not satoshi? First of all, to start things with the fact that, who is Gavin Andresen? I have never heard of him before, but I am assuming that he is someone that matters to some people, he is someone who has influence over some people and known by some people. I do not know him, but since there is a topic about him, that means he must be known. But even in that case, isn't it obvious that, me, as someone who has been in crypto for nearly 10 years now, never heard of him, should say something about how unimportant he is? And even if he was somehow important, isn't it better not care about what others say, and realize that dude is not satoshi anyway, so who cares what others say?

Gavin Andresen has always been someone with integrity but why did it take them so long? You should have known that a lot of people are being tricked by CSW and that is causing harm not only to those people but the greater cryptocurrency community. I like Gavin and he is someone I have looked up to because he was very important in the early development of btc but I wish he acted on this earlier.

Gavin posted this only because many people recently started to post on social media that Faketoshi is still using Gavin old posts everywhere as some kind of ''proof'' that he is the real Satoshi  
Now I guess he finally saw everyone mentioning his name so he decided to update his old post... but he didn't wrote that he made a mistake of thinking CSW is Satoshi, he made a mistake only for trusting him as much as he did.
Game is not over, just Gavin is not playing it anymore... until his new blog post.

To put it all in contrast, after one meeting with CSW, it led to a 4 paragraph endorsement of him being Satoshi, six if you count the opening and closing sentence. But with 7 years between that and lots of evidence suggesting that SCW is full of crap and is out to ruin bitcoin, we get a one paragraph which does not debunk that earlier statement, but only mildly suggests it could be wrong.

I would have expected a more defined statement, confirming that CSW is not Satoshi and the earlier statement was made erroneously.
But maybe this would suffice for mow, since CSW has ridden on that earlier endorsement for a long time now.

- Jay -

back in those early days)(2010-11-12) GA said he didnt want to be lead maintainer for ever and was thinking he may give it 5 years before retiring and such
which also kinda lined up to the events where by it was about time for him to fall on the sword and take a payday exit.

you find that many people when they want to retire early give up their reputation in the role they sat in for a good exit pay or a back hander from a side gig, politicians do it all the time

thats why i think common sense and logic leans more to a back hander pay day/golden retirement handshake as his farewell party exit gift.. more so than believing/being duped

I know every human being has a price, but it sounds hard to believe that someone who worked very close with Satoshi and also helped with the development of BTC was paid to say that Faketoshi was the real Satoshi even when he knew he wasn't. Gavin also gave out BTC to people for free, i know it was in the early days, but he would have so much of it even now; i don't think a payment for speech is most likely.
Yeah CSW is from Australia. Signing an NDA to not speak on the basis of a potential identity theft should be invalid because it should be a crime in itself, but as far as i know the court hasn't officially proven CSW to be an identity thief, even if all of us and any sane person knows he is one, so maybe that doesn't count.

I cannot give a personal assessment on the matter, but I can tell you that the blockchain and cryptography community has examined the evidence presented by Craig Wright regarding his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto and most of the community does not consider it sufficient. Additionally, many experts and members of the community have expressed skepticism about his claims. Thus, Gavin Andresen's position of no longer believing in Craig Wright's claims seems to be in line with the majority of existing opinions in the community.

Good, at least someone openly stated their mistake about the involvement in game of who is and who isn’t Satoshi. This should be lesson to all those who keep digging deep down the history and try to impersonate the name of Satoshi.  I think it’s really disrespectful to get started over that conversation. I know there is curiosity since the beginning but if Satoshi never wanted to be visible then why the heck world cares about it. Let him be in piece and enjoy his millions of bitcoins that are in his wallet. There could be sad news about his life, why we should even try to get the matters in our hands. It would have been different if they were present and were open to discuss the bitcoin agenda.

I wasn't really taken seriously by the crypto community at the time and they seemed a lot like they didn't care. There might also have been a mod/dev or two on here that knew more about what was going on because discussions didn't seem to gain much traction.


This is likely dependent on where the contract was signed, where the contract was enforced and how explicit the contract was. Also considering this might've been potential identity theft on the part of the faketoshis it's possible something like that wasn't valid in Australia to begin with (CSW was from aus iirc).

NDA's are a contract not a visit to a surgeon to stitch your mouth
NDA's come with conditions:
compensation (payment for agreement/ payment to say certain things/not say other things)
punishment(usually financial threat if breached)
they can come with deadlines/expiry

seeing as CSW done a NDA in the uk
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-disclosure-agreements/non-disclosure-agreements#what-to-consider
usually NDA last 3-5 years(but its defined by whatever term is signed for in the contract)

so again logic is if GA is now talking. it must have been under 7 years

as for if GA even actually truly believed in the CSW crap...
i personally think it was a 'payment for speech' contract. he was paid to say he believed it and paid to not say it was a lie/fake..
obviously even a non techie guy can see that the games CSW was playing in 2016 were not believable so i dont think GA was fooled.. but paid off, sounds more likely

It will never be too late for others as well to come out and speak up their minds towards Craig Wright, the bad side of him is that he has taken the old and famous relationship he had with great personalities in the past to lure and depict the truth ftom them about the whole thing since he thinks he had a reputation already with them, this gives him more wings to continue the attack when the whole thing started about claiming to be Satoshi, he know they will all support him financially towards winning the case even though he knew from within himself that he lacks every jurisdiction to do so.

Sometimes we found those we trust never to have been the the place of pedigree he left them in the past because they were no more whom we used to know, Gavin Andresen have seen another version of live perspective with Craig Wright and have seen the truth and things behind the veil, when you see an old friend, don't trust them, ask first who they are now, they might take your old relationship as your weakness to entrust in them.

I am just finding out that Gavin Andresen was in support of Faketoshi being Satoshi the real creator of BTC. I know it has been a very long time, since 2016, and maybe Gavin has now found out all of Faketoshi's lies, but i still think this new additional paragraph doesn't totally dismiss Faketoshi's claims, he only regrets and refuses to be involved anymore in who is Satoshi and who isn't anymore.

I don't know too much about legal matters, but if you have signed something that means you have to stay silent on an issue, what if you later find out that the person actually lied to you, are you still bound to stay silent and will you face legal charges if you decide not to stay silent again?

i know and i have. but thats not the point or what i am on about(not that one(pre-visit NDA))..

exactly and thats the point
from the stories said between GA and CSW
GA signed something before getting on plane
GA signed something at the visit before CSW got "assistant to buy a fresh laptop"

and like any good lawyer HR firm would ask. to have another thing signed after event to re-enforce the previous contracts


CSW now relies on the ayres buddy witness .. you know the one
"i trust CSW because i spoke with his mom"

You can read the (a?) NDA agreement that Gavin signed which was submitted as part of the Hodlonaut trial. It's available on Twitter here: https://nitter.it/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1575785115061432320. There is of course the possibility of a second, still confidential, NDA existing.

I of course agree that everyone with any sense is already in complete agreement that Andresen was fooled by CSW. But this statement may be relevant to any upcoming CSW trials, where he relies heavily on witness testimony, since he is unable to provide any hard evidence of any sort, cryptographic or otherwise.

I'll take it.  Perhaps it could have been more explicit, but it's easy enough to read between the lines and take the inferred meaning.  Pride is probably a factor too.  It's not always easy to admit when someone has made a fool of you.

This is long overdue and I agree that the only reasonable explanation is that he has signed a legal paper and was bound to stay silent.
Still, better late than never, hence I salute this move.

GA signed some NDA's before and during the visit with CSW. some he disclosed publicly but..
the logical explanation(my opinion)
.. i believe that GA had some other NDA he did not disclose. which put him into silence for X years, which has possibly expired allowing him to now say more

either way no one trusts CSW. the only fangirls he has are BRIBED/sponsored/blackmailed/contracted into saying positive stuff. even the ones that tweet saying they trust him dont. but they toe their party bus line for greed or fear of loss of income.. not trust

True, recent statement of Gavin Andresen does not deny or oppose the idea of CSW being Satoshi nor support the fact that CSW's is not Satoshi and is a fake.  The statement somehow states that they had some business deal and later he found out that CSW is cheating him.  Gavin Andresen should have clearly stated and put a stand that CSW is cheating people  when CSW is claiming to be Satoshi.  

I agree that it would be a lot stronger to say that CSW is not Satoshi than saying it was a mistake trusting CSW.  Since the statement can branch out anywhere instead of the issue about CSW being fake Satoshi.

An additional paragraph appeared this morning at the top of a blog post Gavin Andresen wrote back in May 2016 about his meeting with CSW.


There has been a lot of discussion over the years about why Andresen never came out and formally denounced CSW, since it beyond any doubt that he is categorically not Satoshi. This is a step in the right direction, but it's a bit weak for my liking. Obviously it was a mistake to ever trust CSW, but Andresen needs to go further and categorically say "Sorry, I was wrong. CSW is obviously not Satoshi."