bitcoin world for him/her to be popular in this thread forum...well with that congratulation! you are now popular but not in good
traits because only Satoshi nakamoto is the founder and creator,
Topic: GAVIN: "I believe Craig Steven Wright is the person who invented Bitcoin" (Read 3743 times)
June 17, 2016, 05:48:54 AM
All i can say to Gavin is a totally type of a person who loved to deceive the community here in
bitcoin world for him/her to be popular in this thread forum...well with that congratulation! you are now popular but not in good
traits because only Satoshi nakamoto is the founder and creator,
bitcoin world for him/her to be popular in this thread forum...well with that congratulation! you are now popular but not in good
traits because only Satoshi nakamoto is the founder and creator,
May 04, 2016, 07:27:18 PM
He is not satoshi.
https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170
https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md
https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170
https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md
That is a jumbled analysis which doesn't explain well the situation.
I already explained it more clearly:
Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key:
The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed.
And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology. 
Let me unpack that more for n00bs. The point is that every Bitcoin signature signs the hash (of a hash) of the transaction. And so if someone can create two transactions that have the same hash, then one can use the same signature for both, i.e. no need to have the private key to generate a new signature.
What Craig did was reuse an existing signature from the block chain which is attributed to Satoshi, and supplied it as the signature for a new transactions. Specifically the new transaction is some text written by Sartre but the key point is that normally it should impossible to find a new set of data which can generate the same hash, because of the preimage resistance security property of the SHA256 cryptographic hash function.
Re-read my post, you didn't seem to understand it. Craig has not said he is Satoshi. Find a quote where he said that. You won't. He has always said it was his colleague.
Listen to the first few minutes of the BBC interview
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191165
"You're going to show me that Satoshi is you?"
Craig - "yes"
Remember Craig is a lawyer. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of 'is' is.
Craig has consistently claimed he was backing "the persona behind Satoshi" and was part of a group involved with Satoshi, so the above statement is consistent with that, without him actually being the man who developed the code of Bitcoin with his own fingers. The interviewer did not ask Craig "are you going to prove you are the man who wrote the code of Bitcoin?" which obviously can't be proved nor disproved by any signature since Satoshi did not sign the code of Bitcoin.
Is Satoshi after all of Blockstream?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hs2ca/can_all_core_developers_confirm_they_havent/
Quote
I have had no communication with Mr Wright at all, let alone signed anything. I understand that there is some information sheet Wright is giving reporters that specifically attacks me, however!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hs2ca/can_all_core_developers_confirm_they_havent/
Hey dufus - why don't you look at the BBC article itself: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
It says: "Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright has publicly identified himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto."
Where did they get the information from - they got it from Craig Wright - still going to say he hasn't identified himself as being Satoshi?
It says: "Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright has publicly identified himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto."
Where did they get the information from - they got it from Craig Wright - still going to say he hasn't identified himself as being Satoshi?
You are quoting what a reporter has said, not what Craig has said. I said find a quote where Craig has claimed his is the man who wrote the code for Bitcoin. You will never find that.
Butthurt idiot. Bye.
I see you locked your thread again. You are an emotional basketcase.
I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.
It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course).
And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would have told Gavin it was his friend and not him).
You are just butthurt.
It is very relevant.
Craig has played Gavin. He knows Gavin needs support for his preferences for the block scaling debate.
Butthurt by what exactly?
(perhaps due to seeing your same post spammed in every topic?)
Don't pretend you've forgotten when you closed the technical thread where we were debating and told me in PM that you never wanted to talk to me again.
I don't have time for your melodrama. Bye.
It's increasingly obvious that despite not being able to present actual cryptographic proof Wright is putting a lot of effort into obfuscation and trying to sway the public opinion, whether it's for his business interests or something else.
You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key.
Also by getting core Bitcoin devs and their tribe to claim that the proof Craig provided is not a proof, he has revealed them as being disingenuous. Very clever political game theory he has concocted.
Craig has astutely accomplished his goal, as only 42% of Bitcoiners conclude he can't be Satoshi. And when and if Craig signs coins from an early block of Bitcoin, the level of confusion will increase. Craig is playing a political game theory.
I think bringing in a dead person into this is just a scapegoat by Craig Wright to confuse spectators. If this is true, why would he pretend being Satoshi by signing a fake message? Until Craig comes up with this extraordinary proof he says, I refuse to believe anything that came from him.
Refusing to believe is not the same as proving he is not. Craig is winning the political game theory. He is a clever lawyer mofo.
Reading this, quite interesting:
http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:
Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.
So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.
Thoughts pro and con?
Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.
So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.
Thoughts pro and con?
I just came up with another theory though...we might be missing the forest for the trees. Much of what CW has said has proven sketchy, or even downright lies (claiming multiple fake phd's for instance). We do know one thing that's incontrovertible: CW was very interested in high performance computing / supercomputing. Think about that for a minute.
Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?
It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...
Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?
It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...
I think that CSW stumbled upon Bitcoin circa 2013 (late 2012 at the earliest) and started concocting a narrative to fit his long con. Stumbling upon the death of David Kleiman, a person who CSW co-wrote with, Craig saw that the pieces of Dave's life fit nicely in what's known about Satoshi. It was just a matter of creating docs to make it look like he and Dave were partners of sorts which I've demonstrated he's done.
May 04, 2016, 04:16:30 AM
No - what Craig did was grab an existing signature used by Satoshi and pretend he had created it to sign a document by Sartre (which is fraud and even Gavin is not sure what on earth to make of that).
And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim).
Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics?
And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim).
Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics?
Re-read my post, you didn't seem to understand it. Craig has not said he is Satoshi. Find a quote where he said that. You won't. He has always said it was his colleague.
And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology.
I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.
I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.
It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course).
And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would have told Gavin it was his friend and not him).
You are just butthurt.
It is very relevant.
Craig has played Gavin. He knows Gavin needs support for his preferences for the block scaling debate.
May 04, 2016, 04:04:31 AM
Quote
Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them
hahah this guy is so funny lol. He doesn't need to move any coin to prove it, just sign the fcking message if he has the prive keys
Quote from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609812
Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise.
To understand what is really going on, you need to read carefully what Craig Wright has always said and continues to reiterate:
In his initial blog post, Wright noted that “Satoshi is dead... but this is only the beginning.” He also said that he would follow up with a more detailed mathematical explanation for the revelation. Now, the world will likely have to wait for “the coming days”—however long that may be—for more clues.
If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.
I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.
Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi,
Satoshi is dead.
But this is only the beginning.
I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.
Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi,
Satoshi is dead.
But this is only the beginning.
You need to remember that Craig Wright has never claimed he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead, he has claimed that his former colleague (who died) was Satoshi. He claims he was backing his colleague's the development of Bitcoin.
This Australian Says He and His Dead Friend Invented Bitcoin
Quote from: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hq3rz/david_kleiman_craig_wrights_friend_more_likely/
David Kleiman, Craig Wright's friend more likely Satoshi Nakamoto
OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order.
OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order.
Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key:
The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed.
Realize that he has probably promised to endorse Andresen's block chain scaling preferences and thus probably why Gavin wants him to be Satoshi:
Andresen’s only attempt at an explanation for Wright’s bizarre behavior, he says, is an ambivalence about definitively revealing himself after so many years in hiding. “I think the most likely explanation is that … he really doesn’t want to take on the mantle of being the inventor of Bitcoin,” says Andresen, who notes that his own credibility is at stake, too. “Maybe he wants things to be really weird and unclear, which would be bad for me.”
That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking.
That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking.
Remember that after his death, David Kleiman's family recovered his USB flash drive and gave it to Craig Wright. Thus likely Craig Wright may have an unpublished transaction but not the actual private key. So he may be about to fool the world into thinking he is Satoshi, or making some proof that he was the man behind the man who was the real Satoshi.
May 03, 2016, 01:12:13 AM
The entire BTC is shady. the black market who is 90% from BTC, to miners and exchangers. almost everything is shady when it's about Bitcoin
lol yet over 200,000 legitimate business accept bitcoin.
you might aswell call FIAT shady because of the street drug deals in detroit and the prostitution on the red-light district. along with all the fiat money laundering in HSBC bank. aswell as the bribes and blackmails of government officials. not only that but the banker bailouts and banker bonuses while simultaneously making millions of people homeless
in fact, you cannot buy almost anything with BTC because BTC was not made as a currency. it's VERY hard to be understand of the normal people. 200.000 biz on paper. in reality are not even half...
Mate Bitcoin is not rocket science to understand. It can be both a currency and an investment vehicle but most people use it only as a long-term storage of value because they are satisfied with their fiat or don't want to spend from their Bitcoin stash because of a possible price rise. How do you define normal people? You don't need to be a computer scientist or a financial expert to use Bitcoin. Anyone can get into Bitcoin if they want to use it it's not that hard to comprehend at all.
Anyone can use it, yes, and there are people that would benefit from using it, but not everyone will actually want to use it for one reason or another, and some might get turned off by the community, in extreme cases.
May 03, 2016, 01:08:22 AM
The entire BTC is shady. the black market who is 90% from BTC, to miners and exchangers. almost everything is shady when it's about Bitcoin
lol yet over 200,000 legitimate business accept bitcoin.
you might aswell call FIAT shady because of the street drug deals in detroit and the prostitution on the red-light district. along with all the fiat money laundering in HSBC bank. aswell as the bribes and blackmails of government officials. not only that but the banker bailouts and banker bonuses while simultaneously making millions of people homeless
in fact, you cannot buy almost anything with BTC because BTC was not made as a currency. it's VERY hard to be understand of the normal people. 200.000 biz on paper. in reality are not even half...
Mate Bitcoin is not rocket science to understand. It can be both a currency and an investment vehicle but most people use it only as a long-term storage of value because they are satisfied with their fiat or don't want to spend from their Bitcoin stash because of a possible price rise. How do you define normal people? You don't need to be a computer scientist or a financial expert to use Bitcoin. Anyone can get into Bitcoin if they want to use it it's not that hard to comprehend at all.
May 03, 2016, 01:06:19 AM
If say Gavin and his classic friends made a hoax, the detail that does not match is why would they ask Andreas who is pro-core to validate it?
They might not want to release all the evidences altogether, to reduce the shock to the market, but the fact that Andreas get asked makes this claim much more likely to be true. We will see how it develops
Satoshi has 1 million coins, which can kill any fork he does not like at ease, even that fork has 99% hash rate support, so this news should never be taken lightly
They might not want to release all the evidences altogether, to reduce the shock to the market, but the fact that Andreas get asked makes this claim much more likely to be true. We will see how it develops
Satoshi has 1 million coins, which can kill any fork he does not like at ease, even that fork has 99% hash rate support, so this news should never be taken lightly
According to CW his 1,100,111 btc were transferred on or around 6/9/11 to a trust controlled by Dave Kleiman until 2020.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html
By the way wouldn't there be a record of 1,100,111 btc being transferred on or around 6/9/2011 from Satoshi to Kleiman? Also why would Kleiman pay market value for those coins on 6/9/2011 but then offer to return them in 2020??
May 03, 2016, 01:00:00 AM
He is too smart. He took a input script ,converted into a file and provided the signature, which is open for everyone.
May 03, 2016, 12:41:29 AM
If say Gavin and his classic friends made a hoax, the detail that does not match is why would they ask Andreas who is pro-core to validate it?
They might not want to release all the evidences altogether, to reduce the shock to the market, but the fact that Andreas get asked makes this claim much more likely to be true. We will see how it develops
Satoshi has 1 million coins, which can kill any fork he does not like at ease, even that fork has 99% hash rate support, so this news should never be taken lightly
They might not want to release all the evidences altogether, to reduce the shock to the market, but the fact that Andreas get asked makes this claim much more likely to be true. We will see how it develops
Satoshi has 1 million coins, which can kill any fork he does not like at ease, even that fork has 99% hash rate support, so this news should never be taken lightly
May 02, 2016, 04:44:23 PM
The entire BTC is shady. the black market who is 90% from BTC, to miners and exchangers. almost everything is shady when it's about Bitcoin
lol yet over 200,000 legitimate business accept bitcoin.
you might aswell call FIAT shady because of the street drug deals in detroit and the prostitution on the red-light district. along with all the fiat money laundering in HSBC bank. aswell as the bribes and blackmails of government officials. not only that but the banker bailouts and banker bonuses while simultaneously making millions of people homeless
in fact, you cannot buy almost anything with BTC because BTC was not made as a currency. it's VERY hard to be understand of the normal people. 200.000 biz on paper. in reality are not even half...
May 02, 2016, 02:35:29 PM
All the mainstream press coordination reminds me of when Mike Hearn "left" Bitcoin and on that day- tons of coordinated press released-
It makes it all seem like it was planned ahead of time-
It makes it all seem like it was planned ahead of time-
Yeah I agree.
This looks like an coordinated "attack".
However the price did not drop that much. This is a good sign imo.
People don't believe that story until Wright shows real prove.
May 02, 2016, 02:06:21 PM
even on the BBC video he is saying he is demonstrating the first transaction ever (block 248)
here is the debunk
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrights_signature_is_worthless/
Find it in Satoshi's 2009 transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true
Convert inputscript from hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce
to base64
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
this is the signature of the transaction encrypted using the private key for: 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S
emphasis: the data is the transaction data.. that is 7 years old!! and publicly available
if he was to sign a message today! the signature, evenwhen signed with the same private key would be completely different
emphasis: signing "my name is bob" would result in a different signature than "My Name Is Bob" even when both messages are signed with the same private key.
so if you see him display:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
he is not signing anything new. he is just literally copying and pasting a 7 year old message(tx) that was signed 7years ago
here is the debunk
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrights_signature_is_worthless/
Find it in Satoshi's 2009 transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true
Convert inputscript from hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce
to base64
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
this is the signature of the transaction encrypted using the private key for: 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S
emphasis: the data is the transaction data.. that is 7 years old!! and publicly available
if he was to sign a message today! the signature, evenwhen signed with the same private key would be completely different
emphasis: signing "my name is bob" would result in a different signature than "My Name Is Bob" even when both messages are signed with the same private key.
so if you see him display:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
he is not signing anything new. he is just literally copying and pasting a 7 year old message(tx) that was signed 7years ago
May 02, 2016, 01:41:16 PM
All the mainstream press coordination reminds me of when Mike Hearn "left" Bitcoin and on that day- tons of coordinated press released-
It makes it all seem like it was planned ahead of time-
It makes it all seem like it was planned ahead of time-
May 02, 2016, 01:33:50 PM
What the fucking fuck?
This video was put up 2 hours back by bbc
How come they interview wright at the same time when andresen speaks up at consensus?
May 02, 2016, 01:31:12 PM
The only way would be if this guy really is Satoshi. But that does not seem very likely.
May 02, 2016, 01:25:54 PM
The only logical explanation would be that Craig pulled a quick one on Gavin and Gavin fell for that hook line and sinker.... Gavin cannot say, Sorry I was fooled... so he turns around and says... Sorry I was
hacked. The most common excuse when something goes wrong. Gavin cannot acknowledge that he made a mistake, because it will make him look like a fool, and everyone will stop supporting him with
his Classic proposal. Sometimes you say things without processing the consequences... The only proof, would be for Craig to sign a message with his private key or to move some coins.
What? But Gavin said he WASN'T hacked, so your whole theory is wrong.hacked. The most common excuse when something goes wrong. Gavin cannot acknowledge that he made a mistake, because it will make him look like a fool, and everyone will stop supporting him with
his Classic proposal. Sometimes you say things without processing the consequences... The only proof, would be for Craig to sign a message with his private key or to move some coins.
But I agree, the only logical explanation is that Craig pulled a quick one on Gavin. It's highly unlikely in my opinion that Gavin would be stupid enough to lie about something like this and ruin his whole reputation.
May 02, 2016, 01:25:38 PM
Gavin is pushing further.Now he says Craig is Satoshi and that he wasn't hacked.
"Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, and I have not been hacked."
https://twitter.com/btctn/status/727145824510058496
EDIT: Missing some real source here to be honest. Roger Ver published this it seems.
"Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, and I have not been hacked."
https://twitter.com/btctn/status/727145824510058496
EDIT: Missing some real source here to be honest. Roger Ver published this it seems.
Is it being live streamed? Where is all this info coming from?
May 02, 2016, 01:22:40 PM
The only logical explanation would be that Craig pulled a quick one on Gavin and Gavin fell for that hook line and sinker.... Gavin cannot say, Sorry I was fooled... so he turns around and says... Sorry I was
hacked. The most common excuse when something goes wrong. Gavin cannot acknowledge that he made a mistake, because it will make him look like a fool, and everyone will stop supporting him with
his Classic proposal. Sometimes you say things without processing the consequences... The only proof, would be for Craig to sign a message with his private key or to move some coins.
hacked. The most common excuse when something goes wrong. Gavin cannot acknowledge that he made a mistake, because it will make him look like a fool, and everyone will stop supporting him with
his Classic proposal. Sometimes you say things without processing the consequences... The only proof, would be for Craig to sign a message with his private key or to move some coins.
May 02, 2016, 01:21:44 PM
I also think its him, lets face it guys its finally over with all these question about who is the one that is after it.
I like to thank him although he do not want the fame and all.
I like to thank him although he do not want the fame and all.
May 02, 2016, 01:05:28 PM
he should do this:
Jump to: