Erm apologies in advance for unearthing this thread, it seems like
the best place to post the News below. [My search for newer threads
for Craig Wright have not shown ant results]
Has anyone seen the news from the last 4 days in relation to CSW?
He has won a minor victory appealing a Defamation Claim, My interest
was Piqued once the name Craig Wright appeared. This is from the 15th
of Jan.
https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-wins-landmark-case-in-english-court-of-appeal-defamation-claim-vs-hodlonaut-to-proceed-in-england
TBH I havent been following these cases involving CSW, it is becoming
tedious, drawn out and boring but after reading the article I did a search
and came across the below...
https://news.bitcoin.com/over-a-hundred-10-year-old-bitcoin-addresses-signed-calling-craig-wright-a-fraud/
GAME OVER
*if this post is a duplicate of another elswhere please delete
Topic: Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam] (Read 4450 times)
January 19, 2021, 11:37:02 AM
March 07, 2020, 06:07:28 PM
oh boy, you guys got jbreher in here.
Not for long. ;-)
Going to find some popcorn.
Bring it on over to Reputation...
The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?
I will do better than that: I will demonstrate that you are a liar, generally. That is a judgment of your personal character, not merely of your actions. You have spent years consistently promoting scams and lying about Bitcoin. You are dishonest and untrustworthy.
However, my judgment of your character is off-topic in this thread. I have therefore split this out to where it belongs, the Reputation forum, q.v.:
- #28719 “jbreher” is a liar (replete with unedited, fully-quoted archive of jbreher posts from the Anastasia thread)
I do so not because you challenged me (for I contemn your “challenge”), but because I think it is in the public interest occasionally to make such an exemplary case.
Moderation notice: Further argument with or about jbreher will be deleted from here as off-topic, and archived on the above-referenced Reputation thread.
March 06, 2020, 02:33:54 PM
oh boy, you guys got jbreher in here. Going to find some popcorn.
March 06, 2020, 01:18:16 PM
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
Code:
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
He will have requested (or demanded) to have his content removed.
"He". Presumably Craig? Seems plausible, even likely. Does Wayback provide any attribution traceability? I.e., is there any way to prove that removal was requested, and if so, by whom?
While I never had any reason to look into it, I had always just sort of assumed that Wayback was an incorruptible, unalterable record of past states of parts of the internet. Imagine my surprise to learn that this is not the case.
Quote
You can still use archive.fo and archive.today.
Thanks. That even worked: http://archive.ph/LMrM4
I may have more to say after I read it.
Though it does occur to me that there seems to be a valid use case for a high-capacity, unalterable, append-only database, free to be written by anyone who might care to pay whatever the market deems proper to get their data included, and free to be read at no cost by anyone anywhere at any time.
If only such a thing existed....
Oh. Wait...
March 06, 2020, 01:12:34 PM
* nullius dons moderation hat.
I should have known better to have IRL concerns drawing me away from the forum just after hv_ tested the waters again...
Deleted two posts filled with lies, half-truths, and assorted disinformation by jbreher:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
The posts are preserved for anyone to examine—because I am not Craig Wright, who evidently likes to memory-hole his own writing when convenient:
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
Code:
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
I also find it curious that jbreher managed to very selectively quote-mine this thread, and yet...
You seem driven by illogical emotion.
[...]
Another illogical emotional outburst?
[...]
Another illogical emotional outburst?
...avoided seeing this point which bears repeating, plus similar notes:
If you insist on defending Bitcoin with only facts and logic, then you will confine Bitcoin advocacy to a few obscure forums inhabited mostly by crypto-coders and technology enthusiasts with robot-logic. Thus will you surrender Bitcoin to those whose weapons are only emotional and psychological manipulation—unavoidably, to such swindlers as Craig Wright. Observe that with no facts on his side, and with no logic on his side, he successfully persuades many people who do not think through facts and logic.
I assure you that the emotional impact of my Anastasia essay was fully, consciously intendedand moreover, intended to be exemplary: This is how it’s done, folks! If you want to defeat the psychological support on which Craig Wright builds his hollow lies, then find ways to wrap true facts and sound logic in an emotionally evocative form of argument, delivered with a rhetorical eloquence measured according to the audience. (On that last point, observe that OP was authored with much simpler language than this explanation, kept short, and bracketed by pictures.) Then, you will have the winning combination that Faketoshi lacks: The facts and logic that he lacks, plus a potent weapon against his manipulation of people who neither verify facts, nor coldly reason from premises to conclusions. Under the weight of your logical iron core wrapped in passions, Faketoshi will implode as an empty shell.
I assure you that the emotional impact of my Anastasia essay was fully, consciously intendedand moreover, intended to be exemplary: This is how it’s done, folks! If you want to defeat the psychological support on which Craig Wright builds his hollow lies, then find ways to wrap true facts and sound logic in an emotionally evocative form of argument, delivered with a rhetorical eloquence measured according to the audience. (On that last point, observe that OP was authored with much simpler language than this explanation, kept short, and bracketed by pictures.) Then, you will have the winning combination that Faketoshi lacks: The facts and logic that he lacks, plus a potent weapon against his manipulation of people who neither verify facts, nor coldly reason from premises to conclusions. Under the weight of your logical iron core wrapped in passions, Faketoshi will implode as an empty shell.
See also, in a different thread:
Blackhat Mindhacking 101: Exploiting Wetware Insecurity
[...]
And the delicate Internet tea-party debate-club members would never dream of using ad hominem argumentation, even when it is objectively correct! Need I remind you that argumentum ad hominem is only an “informal fallacy”, and is not at all fallacious when personality and personal credibility are relevant tono, are the issues being argued? Oops, I forgot that. I became so “logical” that I feel like I should avoid anything ad hominem.
[...]
Dr. Wright has been expertly “verified” by the Bitcoin Chief Scientist. He also has some peer pressure on his side. hv_ and his buddies are Internet nobodies; but then, I’m the guy who named himself “of nobody” on the Internet. Who am I to call hv_ such nasty names as “shill”, “liar”, etc.? Him, and plenty like him (a dime a dozen)... Who am I to stand against Dr. Wright and the Bitcoin Chief Scientist and a crowd of folks? Authority plus peer pressure!*again When Dr. Wright sounds so sure...
[...]
Maybe my eyes are lying to me, or maybe I made a big mistake—and then everyone will laugh at me, because the sky actually is green, and the Earth is flat, and 2 + 2 = 5, and Dr. Craig Steven Wright invented Bitcoin, and I’m just so stupid that I didn’t realize it.
[...]
Quote
Nullian Rule: To exercise fully independent judgment in the face of opposition requires that one’s humility be inversely proportional to the strength of the opposition.
And the delicate Internet tea-party debate-club members would never dream of using ad hominem argumentation, even when it is objectively correct! Need I remind you that argumentum ad hominem is only an “informal fallacy”, and is not at all fallacious when personality and personal credibility are relevant tono, are the issues being argued? Oops, I forgot that. I became so “logical” that I feel like I should avoid anything ad hominem.
[...]
Dr. Wright has been expertly “verified” by the Bitcoin Chief Scientist. He also has some peer pressure on his side. hv_ and his buddies are Internet nobodies; but then, I’m the guy who named himself “of nobody” on the Internet. Who am I to call hv_ such nasty names as “shill”, “liar”, etc.? Him, and plenty like him (a dime a dozen)... Who am I to stand against Dr. Wright and the Bitcoin Chief Scientist and a crowd of folks? Authority plus peer pressure!*again When Dr. Wright sounds so sure...
[...]
Maybe my eyes are lying to me, or maybe I made a big mistake—and then everyone will laugh at me, because the sky actually is green, and the Earth is flat, and 2 + 2 = 5, and Dr. Craig Steven Wright invented Bitcoin, and I’m just so stupid that I didn’t realize it.
* nullius is suddenly feeling so insecure. :-(
Moderation note: Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood. And I am in a bad mood. Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi. Thank you.
As to Craig Wright, of course, the only question worth addressing is the threshold question of a verifiable signed message from Satoshi.
Complaints > /dev/null
March 06, 2020, 07:10:06 AM
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
He will have requested (or demanded) to have his content removed. It probably also means that he has excluded bots from scraping the posts.Code:
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
You can still use archive.fo and archive.today. You can also save it as a pdf and as a screenshot.
gotta love revisionist history.
"nah, that never happened.."
March 06, 2020, 05:07:40 AM
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
Code:
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
He will have requested (or demanded) to have his content removed. It probably also means that he has excluded bots from scraping the posts.
You can still use archive.fo and archive.today. You can also save it as a pdf and as a screenshot.
March 05, 2020, 11:28:59 PM
OTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
"Bequeathed unto us?" Do you believe Satoshi's last build to be some kind of religious instruction? A Ten Commandments-esque fixture never to be broken for fear of incurring his wrath? The fact is nobody said Bitcoin isn't allowed to evolve. Since Satoshi isn't around, we don't know whether he would approve or disapprove of implementations that could not have been conceived during his time.
BSV isn't even a rival technology so much as a cash grab led by a pathologically-lying egomaniac. Its success is solely reliant on the farce that CSW is Satoshi. It doesn't threaten BTC in the slightest, though I know your cult leader prefers the narrative that it does.
Espousing a belief that BSV is at all similar to Bitcoin 0.1 is also a farcical talking point. The fact is the BSV code still contains changes made by Peter Wuille, Greg Maxwell and even Amaury Sechet. That idea is just religiously-held dogma not dissimilar to the Calvinist sect of Christianity representing a purer form of what Christ intended.
You wield your supposed razor as would a religious zealot.
Said without the slightest trace of irony...
March 05, 2020, 07:09:12 AM
Quote from: Wind_FURY
Or that he might be under orders by "someone" to troll the Bitcoin community. Plus he's selling his shitcoin to innocent newbies, making millions from them.
I don't see it as trolling but rather a strategy to divide the bitcoin community up... It's the classic strategy at play here, Divide and conquer. I mean think about it who benefits if the bitcoin community and can't even decide on which fork is the real bitcoin or Satoshi's bitcoin? what kind of message does it send to the masses? As someone who is just dipping their toes in the world of cryptos might get confused from the get-go when everyone is claiming to be the Satoshi's Bitcoin...
It's the bankers and governments who benefit off from this... As bitcoin is a threat to traditional banking and traditional form of governments. They might be backing these individuals up because at the end of the day they benefit the most if you ask me...
March 04, 2020, 03:20:12 AM
OP: You’re right about that. Right now I don’t believe anyone that tries to claim that they are the Satoshi Nakamoto. Anyone that comes out and claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto without having the access to the wallet that belongs to Satoshi, I am not going to blame them. They must have something that proves that they are the real Satoshi. Craig Wright did this because he’s seeking clout. He just wants to be famous and scam people. And he already achieved that.
Almost every week I see posts here and there that has to do with Craig Wright, everyone is talking about him. And apart from that there are also people that believes in his coin and they think that it’s the right one. He has been able to deceive a lot of people. Very bad. I hope these people come to realize this and stay clear from him.
Almost every week I see posts here and there that has to do with Craig Wright, everyone is talking about him. And apart from that there are also people that believes in his coin and they think that it’s the right one. He has been able to deceive a lot of people. Very bad. I hope these people come to realize this and stay clear from him.
Or that he might be under orders by "someone" to troll the Bitcoin community. Plus he's selling his shitcoin to innocent newbies, making millions from them.
BUT, what is Calvin Ayre doing? Who are the real people behind his "success"? Is he merely a front-man of Ayre Group, and Bodog?
March 03, 2020, 07:29:27 AM
OP: You’re right about that. Right now I don’t believe anyone that tries to claim that they are the Satoshi Nakamoto. Anyone that comes out and claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto without having the access to the wallet that belongs to Satoshi, I am not going to blame them. They must have something that proves that they are the real Satoshi. Craig Wright did this because he’s seeking clout. He just wants to be famous and scam people. And he already achieved that.
Almost every week I see posts here and there that has to do with Craig Wright, everyone is talking about him. And apart from that there are also people that believes in his coin and they think that it’s the right one. He has been able to deceive a lot of people. Very bad. I hope these people come to realize this and stay clear from him.
Almost every week I see posts here and there that has to do with Craig Wright, everyone is talking about him. And apart from that there are also people that believes in his coin and they think that it’s the right one. He has been able to deceive a lot of people. Very bad. I hope these people come to realize this and stay clear from him.
March 02, 2020, 05:58:49 AM
I have read this thread in my local language version and it is very interesting to discuss how great CW claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto and completely he cant prove the truth (cant be trusted).
CW has made this mess and has made some bitcoin communities work a little harder to make CW prove the claim is true. I have seen many community members arguing with various evidence relating to the by CW identity theft problem and I think that is a strong hold for me that CW is fakesatoshi and I want to know if identity theft like this can be punished?
CW has made this mess and has made some bitcoin communities work a little harder to make CW prove the claim is true. I have seen many community members arguing with various evidence relating to the by CW identity theft problem and I think that is a strong hold for me that CW is fakesatoshi and I want to know if identity theft like this can be punished?
BUT, who is more punk'd, the Bitcoin community, or the Craigcoin community? 
I think the answer is the bitcoin community, because this case succeeded in making us all rampage about the false claim.We go on a rampage BECAUSE we don't want, and we are not, punk'd. Punk'd is someone like this person, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hes-thankful-he-found-bitcoin-5194581
He's "thankful" for it, and I believe it's partly our fault.
March 01, 2020, 04:37:47 AM
Since the rumour about the deceised Dave Kleiman being Satoshi floated around BEFORE Craig W. came out with his allegations,
No it didn't. The origin of that was entirely Wright: it came out of the fake trust documents that write created and 'leaked' to wired. It's easy to get confused about the history because wright had a series of "coming outs".It's not a rumour that would have made any sense at all.
Why is he claiming to own Mt.Gox addresses if it's clear to people that they don't belong to him? He never worked at Mt.Gox. He did lose bitcoins in Mt.Gox's collapse but he's claiming to own the entirety of the bitcoins in that address. Because if it's not a multisig wallet, the funds only belong to you.
He was trying to convince the AU authorities he'd spent those coins on business activities in order to get a tax rebate on expenses that never existed, and he simply picked several of the largest existent addresses. He almost certainly had no idea what any of them were. Doesn't seem to have hurt him, even people who's addresses he used -- Ver and Cypherdoc, fell for his scam. 
March 01, 2020, 02:40:30 AM
Blockchain chain analysis evidence shows fake claims by faketoshi
1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF first MTGox theft address that was claimed by CSW in court documents presented to the Supreme Court of NSW
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/craig-steven-wright-satoshi-mtgox-hacker-or-just-a-fraud-5223884
1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF first MTGox theft address that was claimed by CSW in court documents presented to the Supreme Court of NSW
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/craig-steven-wright-satoshi-mtgox-hacker-or-just-a-fraud-5223884
Why is he claiming to own Mt.Gox addresses if it's clear to people that they don't belong to him? He never worked at Mt.Gox. He did lose bitcoins in Mt.Gox's collapse but he's claiming to own the entirety of the bitcoins in that address. Because if it's not a multisig wallet, the funds only belong to you.
March 01, 2020, 02:04:43 AM
He did say something like Dave Kleiman involved
Kleiman involvement in Bitcoin's creation is no more credible than Wright: Kleiman was an IT guy who demonstrated no particular programming experience (the only evidence of him programming anything other than a trivial windows registry editing automation tool, written in visual basic). While it's not physically impossible, there is no particular reason to suspect him over (say) the guy behind the genius bar at your local apple store. The only reason anyone ever talks about Kleiman re Bitcoin is because of wrights "leaked" (and now shown to be forged) documents wrapping him into wrights 'tulip trust'.Kleiman's death is relevant... but it's relevant because by being dead he's the perfect unwitting accomplice.
When you buy into theories about Kleiman you're buying into Wright's fallback story. Some people are never going to believe the brash and technically clueless wright was behind Bitcoin, but they'll more easily believe the inaccessible deceased guy did the hard work and for wright's scamming purposes that is generally good enough.
Since the rumour about the deceised Dave Kleiman being Satoshi floated around BEFORE Craig W. came out with his allegations, it is safe to assume, that Craig read about the rumour about his acquaintance and as a result he build up his story.
February 29, 2020, 10:14:30 PM
He did say something like Dave Kleiman involved
Kleiman involvement in Bitcoin's creation is no more credible than Wright: Kleiman was an IT guy who demonstrated no particular programming experience (the only evidence of him programming anything other than a trivial windows registry editing automation tool, written in visual basic). While it's not physically impossible, there is no particular reason to suspect him over (say) the guy behind the genius bar at your local apple store. The only reason anyone ever talks about Kleiman re Bitcoin is because of wrights "leaked" (and now shown to be forged) documents wrapping him into wrights 'tulip trust'.Kleiman's death is relevant... but it's relevant because by being dead he's the perfect unwitting accomplice.
When you buy into theories about Kleiman you're buying into Wright's fallback story. Some people are never going to believe the brash and technically clueless wright was behind Bitcoin, but they'll more easily believe the inaccessible deceased guy did the hard work and for wright's scamming purposes that is generally good enough.
February 29, 2020, 09:04:44 AM
I do think he did something really bad with the real Satoshi that is why he is trying so hard right now to be considered the new Satoshi . He did say something like Dave Kleiman involved in the bitcoins foundation but one should understand that ,
Kleiman died in his home in April 2013 seemingly of natural causes related to complications from a MRSA infection
MRSA infection by the Super Bug can be very easily transferred and used as a bio weapon .
What if , CW killed him and is now trying to take his place . ? ?
Kleiman died in his home in April 2013 seemingly of natural causes related to complications from a MRSA infection
MRSA infection by the Super Bug can be very easily transferred and used as a bio weapon .
What if , CW killed him and is now trying to take his place . ? ?
February 29, 2020, 04:39:48 AM
I have read this thread in my local language version and it is very interesting to discuss how great CW claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto and completely he cant prove the truth (cant be trusted).
CW has made this mess and has made some bitcoin communities work a little harder to make CW prove the claim is true. I have seen many community members arguing with various evidence relating to the by CW identity theft problem and I think that is a strong hold for me that CW is fakesatoshi and I want to know if identity theft like this can be punished?
CW has made this mess and has made some bitcoin communities work a little harder to make CW prove the claim is true. I have seen many community members arguing with various evidence relating to the by CW identity theft problem and I think that is a strong hold for me that CW is fakesatoshi and I want to know if identity theft like this can be punished?
BUT, who is more punk'd, the Bitcoin community, or the Craigcoin community?
I think the answer is the bitcoin community, because this case succeeded in making us all rampage about the false claim. February 29, 2020, 04:09:20 AM
Some people in /r/bitcoin also said that his doctorates, and other academic achievements are also fake. The community has been "punk'd" by the Bitcoin version of Borat. BUT, who is more punk'd, the Bitcoin community, or the Craigcoin community?
February 28, 2020, 07:25:40 AM
https://www.zdnet.com/article/sgi-denies-links-with-alleged-bitcoin-founder-craig-wright/
From 2015:
The letter for some reason has been REMOVED from wayback.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151118013522/http://cloudcroft.com.au/assets/150326_sgi_letterofendorsement.pdf
Which made me just more curious what it contained.
This is the alleged text of the letter that has been removed. (URL blocked on wayback)
Silicon Graphics Pty Ltd
Level 4,
11-17 Khartoum Road,
North Ryde NSW 2113
Australia
Telephone: 1300 364 744
To whom it may concern,
SGI, the trusted leader in high performance computing, is pleased to work with Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia in assisting the development of their hyper-density machines and supercomputers. As a global leader in high performance solutions for computers, data analytics and data management, SGI considers Cloudcroft a worthy partner in the goal to accelerate time to discovery, innovation and profitability.
Cloudcroft’s proficiency in information technology is highly respected by SGI, particularly in the domains of cryptography and computer security. Cloudcroft brings this expertise to the design of its sophisticated supercomputer-based applications.
SGI and Cloudcroft have worked together with SGI’s flagship ICE platform for powerful distributed=memory supercomputers to build Sukuriputo Okane, Cloudcroft’s first supercomputer currently ranked #327 in the world. You can find more information about SGI’s ICE supercomputing platform here: https://www.sgi.com/products/servers/ice/
This super computer was tuned to 939.67 TFlops which would see it pushed into the Top 100 systems in the Top 500 HPC realm. This could have only been achieved through commitment to cooperation. SGI is very pleased with this alliance in pushing the boundaries of distributed-memory systems.
Next we must perfect the integration of Nvidia Tesla and Intel Xeon Phi accelerator cards to reach new heights in supercomputing excellence in Australia. SGI offers both accelerator options for its products thus working with Cloudcroft to ensure the next supercomputer stays green, reaches the highest ranks of the T500 list, and continues to perform through innovation is very synergistic. We look forward to a long, sustained relationship with this highly-focused Australian firm.
Yours sincerely,
Greg McKeon - Director
26 March 2015
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w8efk/wikileaks_sgi_supercomputer_letter_removed_from/
Then I found a copy of the letter on an obscure site.
http://cdn1.spotidoc.com/store/data/001035994_1-b8959504f48a66c79da40c4acb98b77c.png
Particularly curious is the lack of ® symbol in comparison from other form letters from that era.
It could have an innocent explanation.
http://cdn1.spotidoc.com/store/data/000353610_1-ba18908db49468a78f3cf6a0eb74ec17.png
From 2015:
Quote
High performance computing firm SGI has denied any involvement with Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia, a supercomputer firm that was founded by suspected bitcoin founder Craig Wright under his parent company DeMorgan.
In a letter featuring the SGI letterhead and the supposed signature of SGI APAC service director Greg McKeon, SGI acknowledged it would be assisting Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia in the development of hyper-density machines and supercomputers.
In a letter featuring the SGI letterhead and the supposed signature of SGI APAC service director Greg McKeon, SGI acknowledged it would be assisting Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia in the development of hyper-density machines and supercomputers.
The letter for some reason has been REMOVED from wayback.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151118013522/http://cloudcroft.com.au/assets/150326_sgi_letterofendorsement.pdf
Which made me just more curious what it contained.
This is the alleged text of the letter that has been removed. (URL blocked on wayback)
Quote
Silicon Graphics Pty Ltd
Level 4,
11-17 Khartoum Road,
North Ryde NSW 2113
Australia
Telephone: 1300 364 744
To whom it may concern,
SGI, the trusted leader in high performance computing, is pleased to work with Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia in assisting the development of their hyper-density machines and supercomputers. As a global leader in high performance solutions for computers, data analytics and data management, SGI considers Cloudcroft a worthy partner in the goal to accelerate time to discovery, innovation and profitability.
Cloudcroft’s proficiency in information technology is highly respected by SGI, particularly in the domains of cryptography and computer security. Cloudcroft brings this expertise to the design of its sophisticated supercomputer-based applications.
SGI and Cloudcroft have worked together with SGI’s flagship ICE platform for powerful distributed=memory supercomputers to build Sukuriputo Okane, Cloudcroft’s first supercomputer currently ranked #327 in the world. You can find more information about SGI’s ICE supercomputing platform here: https://www.sgi.com/products/servers/ice/
This super computer was tuned to 939.67 TFlops which would see it pushed into the Top 100 systems in the Top 500 HPC realm. This could have only been achieved through commitment to cooperation. SGI is very pleased with this alliance in pushing the boundaries of distributed-memory systems.
Next we must perfect the integration of Nvidia Tesla and Intel Xeon Phi accelerator cards to reach new heights in supercomputing excellence in Australia. SGI offers both accelerator options for its products thus working with Cloudcroft to ensure the next supercomputer stays green, reaches the highest ranks of the T500 list, and continues to perform through innovation is very synergistic. We look forward to a long, sustained relationship with this highly-focused Australian firm.
Yours sincerely,
Greg McKeon - Director
26 March 2015
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w8efk/wikileaks_sgi_supercomputer_letter_removed_from/
Then I found a copy of the letter on an obscure site.
http://cdn1.spotidoc.com/store/data/001035994_1-b8959504f48a66c79da40c4acb98b77c.png
Particularly curious is the lack of ® symbol in comparison from other form letters from that era.
It could have an innocent explanation.
http://cdn1.spotidoc.com/store/data/000353610_1-ba18908db49468a78f3cf6a0eb74ec17.png
Jump to: