Topic: Hodlonaut Trial - page 8. (Read 4198 times)

ok so i have a tough question to ask the last 4 people that posted..
it might seem harsh and tough to answer and may seem like a poke. but i feel the answer will answer their own biggest question of why is CSW lying and his partners believe/follow him even when there is evidence that debunks what he says

i am not interested in yet another social drama debate. im not even asking you to answer which would out yourselves, but just think about the answer for your own purpose

so first a describer
within the last 5years . some individuals that dont like researching have been fooled via social bias and echo chamber games of a narrative they trust due to social allegiances/loyalties  where the story is that there was a btc upgrade that was, in their belief a natural, soft consensus upgrade.
.. but the only proof ever shown of their narrative was each other quoting other people as their source of proof(echo chambers)
vs
the hard facts of node code of mandatory hard fork. petition/agreement document of economic nodes agreeing to flag for the mandatory effort to activate it with a fake promise of a extra upgrade later to appease the upgrade objectors.
and backed up by the hard immutable data of the blockchain plus the data of the altcoin created at the date. which all show that the mandatory contentious hardfork occurred..

where these people have been loyally and robustly trying to push the fake narrative soft upgrade narrative for upto 5 years. and want to cause debate if anyone talks about the real events

so the question (its rhetorical and i dont need to know it. just answer it in your mind for your own enlightenment)

why after 5 years do certain people still prefer to follow the social drama narrative of lies, just to back up and be obedient to their buddy group.
rather than admit they fell for social drama lies
rather than just come clean.
rather than realise there is actual evidence that debunks the narrative. rather than admit they were wrong, get over it and move on with their lives

i dont need to know the answer. the answer is for yourselves to think about and realise that people are too easy to trust other people based on some social/greed reason. where they even want to play dumb or ignorant at the hard data that debunks their beliefs

---

CSW has never shown good knowledge of his supposed IT, data forensics degree's but he really is well versed in his theology degree and he uses it more then any other degree he supposedly has

theology: the study in how people believe in something unseen/mystical without needing proof

Damn, is that for real? Is this supposed '0.0.8 version' of his uploaded anywhere? That's hilarious!!

That's a very good point. It reminds me of email scams apparently being bad / low effort by design, such that they only reach people who are (1) dumb to fall for scams and (2) probably too poor to bring charges against the scammers.

Sooo, did we just determine CSW is not only not satoshi, but also a 'Nigerian Prince scammer'?

There are so many problems with CSW's 0.0.8 code that it cannot be believed by a thinking person. He somehow included a bug fix which Hal Finney wouldn't point out for several months, but then reversed the bug fix for when he released 0.1.0. He somehow includes a compressed bitcoin address, support for which wouldn't be implemented for several years. His 0.0.8 file has an incorrect checksum, but its checksum just magically happens to validate perfectly for version 0.1.0. He includes code plagiarized directly from this forum, including cutting off early with incomplete code as a post on this forum did when it hit the character limit (apparently he was too stupid to realize the next post in the thread had the rest of the code).

The whole thing is an absolute smorgasbord of incompetence.

the other thing CSW forged which many are not talking about and CSW didnt do much care in editing to seem plausible to his timeline. is that "his first version" of bitcoin code (0.0.8 ) which was meant to be released to specific people CSW knew before 2009.. had a genesis hash.. of a block that contained the quote of a newspaper headline that was not even published until 2009
edit
(not the "version" in latest case reveal. but one he released as "2008 proof" a couple years ago.. (he loves to edit. then edit then edit then edit changing his story multiple times over the years))
..
you have to remember 2 key points about CSW motives
1. he doesnt care, win or lose..
2. he sees each public event he attends, every debate, every interaction, every court case as a recruitment campaign..

he doesnt want to show accurate information. he wants to show things with flaws.
why.. because if idiots contact him and believe his narrative he automatically knows the person contacting him is a idiot that believes anything
thus an easy new victim to con

its also a display of how he can scam people and get away with it. which is another recruitment method. greedy immoral people seeing a guy get away with scamming people. going to court but never seeing prison makes greedy other scammers want to get in on the game

scamming people in the amounts of millions but only having to pay hundreds of thousands in court costs.. is what some call "cost of doing business", as it scares off his victims from trying to sue him. knowing it ends up costing them more than they lost individually

Yeah. At the start of the proceedings however many years ago, CSW was being represented by Ontier. At some point he changed over to these new layers from Schjodt. In the trial he claimed it was because his previous lawyers refused to let him bring forward witnesses (). Perhaps it was actually his previous lawyers insisted on some kind of hard evidence rather than just hearsay, and when presented with the stack of obviously forged documents, emails, code, etc. which ended up being submitted, they just noped out of there realizing that CSW is a complete liability. But as you say, there is always someone else willing to take on losing cases if they will be paid handsomely for doing so. And although costs have not yet been submitted, I've been reading suggestions CSW's legal fees were more than double those of Hodlonaut.

It's not over?

How high is Hodlnaut's probability to win the case? I believe high, but would he still be required by the court to pay more than €200,000 like after the proceedings were finished in the U.K.? It's a personal win, but also a loss too, and if none of the cases prove that Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi, big loss for the Bitcoin community.

For those people who followed the legal drama but stopped, this is the timeline, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/timeline-of-hodlonaut-craig-wright-case

I would imagine that Craig is way smarter than his lawyers (and the lawyers of the other side too)... It's part of the reason why guys like him tend to have to rotate through attorneys because they are always way smarter than their lawyers.  

Many attorneys (the more integrity-based ones) do not like having such rogue (renegade) clients, but like DaveF mentioned, many attorneys will still go through the representation motions if the pay keeps flowing and makes up for their inconveniences and possible risks to their licenses by representing such scammers/scandals.

So long as he or his benefactors keep paying I don't think they care. Makes you wonder how many cases are in the courts because the lawyers involved are just taking all their clients money because if they don't they know someone else will.

As for everything else, it's obvious that they are bad forgeries but it's also obvious that BSV is a scam shitcoin and people keep flocking to it, so there is that side too.

Hopefully the judge nails CSW to wall so to speak and we can all move on.

-Dave

LOL I can't believe he is so stupid to use public font Otto that is available for free commercial use  
His law team are well aware of this scam but now they have no other choice than to continue playing this circus show with him as a main clown.

Wait a second, I just received few more ''secret messages'' written by ''DaVe KleiMaN'' using exact same handwritting:




https://www.1001fonts.com/otto-font.html

It is becoming increasingly clear that CSW's complete ineptitude with all things bitcoin extends to all things technical and computing related. These forgeries are some of the most obviously faked things I can possibly imagine. The whitepaper equations being invalidated and him not even realizing are hilarious. Here's another hilarious one: https://nitter.it/bitnorbert/status/1573577987525574656#m. He tried to forge Kleiman's signature by typing it in a handwriting font.

I do wonder why his lawyers allowed this nonsense to be submitted? Are they completely incompetent too? Or did CSW submit it without their knowledge?

This is proof that even with a lot of money and an army of lawyers, you still have to be intelligent in order to create a top-notch forgery, which might then be believed by an inexperienced/bribed judge or some senseless commission or something, as was the case in Colombia. Anywhere else in the civilized world with a somewhat independent judiciary, Faketoshi and similar fraudsters don't stand a chance and are starting to look more and more like people who have started to lose touch with reality.

The KPMG report is now available for viewing here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/xlilzv/fresh_from_oslo_kpmg_report_into_craig_wrights/

And a thread briefly discussing just a few of the issues here: https://nitter.it/wizsecurity/status/1573295840248172545

My personal favorite is where the ">" symbol is changed to a "<" symbol in a different font, not only making the forgery completely obvious, but also making the equations in the whitepaper incorrect and meaningless. The true work of Satoshi. Lol.

Did they state anywhere whether it will be released at a later time maybe?
I guess if the original is out there, we wouldn't watch their commentary and go directly to the source instead, so that may be a reason..

I've yet to catch up on day 7, therefore I may have missed such announcement.

as DaveF pointed out..
both sides have said what is needed to be said. its not for the judge to investigate every detail during the trial.. as that just slows down the trial and adds costs to both parties.
but now the trial is over, now its time for the judge and their assistants to read through it all again, and check out the references and evidence and scrutinise the detail and come to a conclusion.

the judge probably will now learn more about bitcoin and signing processes and also the ATO case documents of CSW and all the other stuff to just get a full understanding of it all

to us crypto experienced people the verdict we see/want is obvious now.
but to an outside with no previous clue about crypto. there is alot to churn through to fully know whats real and not

How much is paperwork and procedures that just take time. The decision has been made, now it must be written, proof read, documented, references cited, those references checked, approvals from others, and so on. It seems to be the same in a lot of courts, when it's major and important and you can pull in a bunch of people things can get done quickly. For things like this, although *we* think it's important, it really is just another case and it gets done when it gets done.

For now we can only sit and wait.

Since I only really know US courts and how long they take I can't comment as to that amount of time in general being fast or slow or average.

-Dave

Yeah, it seems from Bitcoin Magazine's latest video that the result may well come before then, and the judge said she would give a one day notice period to both parties before the judgement is published. Still disappointing that they haven't released the raw footage that they have from the last few days but have just made a bunch of videos of them talking about it. We want to see CSW's fails in person please!

Also, it may be that it is possible to request that the KPMG report full of CSW's forgeries be released to the public: https://nitter.it/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1572272323381559298#m. Wouldn't that be fun.

A quick verdict may look rushed. Justice is famous for taking its time.

I don't know how the costs thing works, but I'm afraid CSW may try to drag it longer by dragging the completion of costs documents.
Even more, the Nov 8 may be the "upper limit" and the result may come earlier. I hope so.

I realised when reading through bitnorbert's tweets that BDO as a witness for CSW was causing
more harm than good. The only thing they could question about KPMG's report was the processes
used in some of the results. They largely agreed with most of what KPMG found.

Those two very reputable companies while being called on opposite sides and agreeing on their
findings should paint a very clear picture for the Judge in ruling in favour of Hodlonaut.

I have mixed feelings about the 7 week delivery of the verdict, is it not obvious to the judge
of the above? then again its best to retrace everything which has taken place throughout
the trial?

To me it seems Hodlonaut put together a seriously strong case, right from day 1 the
points facts presented were big punches but the use of KPMG was a fantastic
idea, why hadnt that tactic been used before by Peter McCormack for instance?

Trial is finished. Apparently the judge has set a date of November 8th for a decision (!), so we are going to be waiting ~7 weeks to find out the outcome of the case.

Costs are being submitted within 2 weeks, so there is still time to donate to Hodlonaut's legal fees or to help fund future cases against CSW: https://opensats.org/projects/opensats_legal_defense

no judgement today, expect it in early october

other funny's to note about CSW closing statement

1. CSW happily throws his buddy Calvin ayres under the bus about doxxing hodlonaut

2. tries to suggest freedom of speech only applies if there is a session of invited debate.. where people are not free to speak unless party involved in the discussion has been invited to respond(facepalm)

if thats true then i cant say that i hate cherry flavoured pepsi as it tastes like disgusting acidy aniseed, dipped in the sweat of a homelessman
.. unless i invite a homeless man and the legal team of pepsico to this forum.. right?
nope.. i can say it and pepsico do not legally need to have a right to respond or be invited into the discussion