Topic: Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam] - page 2. (Read 4450 times)

Here's another one about Gavin Andresen. He was probably already corrupted by some people around him during the says of the Bitcoin Foundation, and continued to go with the big blocker after the foundation disbanded.

Plus Satoshi must have concluded from "the creation", that if Bitcoin "became big", he might need those keys from the first 100 blocks, for validation/verification, and as security for his real identity. HE WOULD NEVER LOSE THOSE KEYS.

To convince someone like theymos would require signing a message with the PGP key and signing a bitcoin message using any of the keys within the first 100 blocks including the genesis block and the one with the transaction to Hal Finney.

Plus something they would know since they were both early users of the forum.

If he doesn't want to sign a message, at least send some of the early blocks to the forum treasury.

Because maybe he doesn't want it to be used against him, when the time for hatching his "fork and control" plans for Bitcoin is started. It will not stay a secret forever.

Satoshis PGP is known and signing with the genesis block means they are Satoshi or have access to Satoshis most private data.

So the best proof is:
Sign a PGP message
Sign a Genesis block message

A lower standard of proof would be:
Sign an from an address that mined an early block.
Convince Theymos to give your bitcointalk account back.

Signing may not give conclusive proof of being Satoshi but signing means that there is a high likelihood that they are Satoshi.
There are not many hackers capable of such feat.

Not signing means that there is a high likelihood that they are NOT Satoshi. It means there is NO proof.
It means that they are as likely as the rest of the worlds population of being Satoshi.

http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5391/53910998.html

No, this topic’s creator wants to protect a productive discussion from being derailed into an offtopic flamewar by a notorious troll who somehow always twists others’ wrongdoing into an attack on Core.  It is a highly effective smear tactic:  Correctly call out bad people who do bad things, and in the same breath, add false equivalencies and sinister insinuations to condemn exactly the people who are doing the most to stop them.  E.g.:


...ninja-edited to:

(No, he didn’t try to present any false appearance; and it is clear that you are here more to troll Greg Maxwell than to talk about Faketoshi.)

...or, ad nauseam over the course of years:

Quote from: franky1 on July 29, 2018, 08:24:47 PM

ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror

Quote from: franky1 on November 15, 2018, 11:21:54 AM

the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo..

Yeah, right:  Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash.  A perfect “mirror”, that!

(Two decades ago, I was eager to use Dr. Back’s Hashcash as a means of stopping spam (although I knew that it was no “FUSSP” panacea—nothing is).  Satoshi delivered a stroke of brilliance, re-applying the same idea together with others, plus new innovations, in a totally different problem domain to make a Byzantine agreement for preventing double-spends without a central authority.  That is why Satoshi invented Bitcoin, I didn’t—and I never saw Dr. Back claim to have invented Bitcoin, either.  Most work builds on prior work; and if I had one of my creations used by another as a keystone in a greater edifice, then I would take bragging rights, too!)

---

Quote from: ?? on ??

if your just going to delete my post. also delete doomads post that is even less ontopic

DooMAD correctly predicted my response.  I will thus duly file your moderation advice in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️

Now, I have briefly deconstructed what you do, so that readers of this thread will know why I am deleting your posts—and why I intend henceforth to delete your posts without further comment.  I have also carefully archived your drivel, just in case anybody actually wants to read it.

Complaints > /dev/null

While understandably there is a difference between can not and won't, in this case, it is quite clear that he won't, because he can not. Sign a message, that is.

CSW is not Satoshi.

Only the real Satoshi can sign (or whoever he gives the keys to), so until and unless anyone else does it, no one else can claim to be Satoshi.

If, for whatever reason, the real Satoshi had a boating accident and dropped all his private keys ang GPG keys at the bottom of the challenger deep in the marianas trench, then that identity is 7 miles underwater and belongs to no one.

Not your keys, not your identity.

Why Gavin posted about this CIA invitation anyway? He pretty much knew (and wrote) about the risk of being in the center of conspiracy theories. He could have kept it secret and noone would ever know about it.

That is fine, but comparison with Anastasia is not good in this case, and that is my opinion.
I don't have to agree with everything I read on bitcointalk forum

Faketoshi created new identity as nobody knows Satoshi identity.

I think that this is the key point:as for Gavin Andresen—one worth repeating anywhere that his lukewarm semi-“retraction” is brought out (usually followed by a plea to please stop talking about this, for it is embarrassing to Gavin):


As to Craig Wright, of course, the only question worth addressing is the threshold question of a verifiable signed message from Satoshi.  Gavin’s significance here is that he abused his reputation falsely to boost Faketoshi over that threshold—then later, much equivocated.  He has never come clean about the whole affair—and at this point, after nearly four years of massive, ongoing actual damage caused by his false “verification”, it is long past too late for him, in my opinion.

---

Moderation note: franky1

Quote from: DooMAD on February 25, 2020, 06:31:00 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

*drivel*

Don't think for one second that you can come into a topic like this to twist the narrative.  You will be crucified.  I suggest you go find another topic to troll.

You are one of the ones who got scammed and you are keeping the false narrative alive.

Indeed.  For reference:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53908498.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53908793.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53909145.html

---

An Unnecessary Condition

Quote from: dkbit98 on February 25, 2020, 08:42:10 AM

You need to know someones identity to say that stated identity is stolen or not.

Not so.  It is not necessary to identify Satoshi to prove by clear and convincing evidence, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, that a given individual is not Satoshi—and moreover, that false claims of Satoshihood are just that.

I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.  I don’t need to identify Satoshi to reach that certainty.

True, his claims are fake and I agree,
but I ask simple question:
- How can you know exact identity of Satoshi Nakamoto?

You need to know someones identity to say that stated identity is stolen or not.

DNA proves corpse of Anastasia was found
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-mar-11-sci-romanov11-story.html

Fake Anastasia claims proven false by DNA
http://www.legacy.com/news/explore-history/article/anna-anderson-the-great-imposter


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

Of “What” and “Why”

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 25, 2020, 03:41:55 AM

Quote from: AGD on February 25, 2020, 03:35:14 AM

Somebody at the 3 letters must have been called out Bitcoin as a national security threat.

This sort of explanation fails occams' razor. Not as badly as some things that many people believe, but you don't need to go there. All sorts of perfectly ordinary explanations work fine.

I think the big danger there is when people get obsessed with knowing “THE TRUTH” about some real or imagined secret, and then they wind up chasing phantoms made of their own confirmation biases.

The most important facts about Gavin Andresen are that he abused his reputation to give Faketoshi instant credibility in the mass media, and also that he supported XT and BCH fork attacks on Bitcoin (and also that he mishandled the “Bitcoin Foundation”, and also...).  These are easily verifiable facts—verifiable without fine parsing of minute details.  It is unnecessary to know why he did it, to assess the damage of what he did.  The “why” is an interesting question in its own right—but the “what” is the important part, and there are no questions there.

---

A Small Datum

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 25, 2020, 03:41:55 AM

If you believe the dates provided by hearn. I saw no indication of that until many years after its claimed date.

I just noticed a small datum to add to the balance of probabilities, with an eye toward some oddly effective heuristic about happenstance and coincidence.

Quote from: AGD on February 25, 2020, 03:35:14 AM

It was way before that. About 4 month after satoshis last forum post

https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 27, 2011, 02:00:26 PM

I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories:  I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community.

If Satoshi actually sent that e-mail, then its timing would raise the question of whether he knew about Gavin’s upcoming announcement.  (I would presume not; but that would mean considerable active deception by Gavin.)  Whereas if Satoshi did not send that e-mail, then the timing would be an awfully big coincidence if it were produced on its alleged date—and an even bigger coincidence, if Hearn cooked it up later and backdated it.

I think that’s interesting for those delving into the details and potential “whys”—however, this thread is more about the “what”.  I request that the discussion be kept more focused there.

Identity of a person is NOT based only on DNA.
It is construct of many things that are connected to life of specific person.

We know almost nothing about life of Satoshi Nakamoto.
A lot more things are known about life of Anastasia.

That one day Bitcoin will be called a national security threat lies in the principles of the Bitcoin code. It was created to be a competitor to government issued money and therefore poses a risk to it. It is not even important if, at the time the CIA invited Gavin, the threat to the Dollar has been already discussed (which I strongly believe esp. after the Wikileaks issue), but if Bitcoin can stand against any countermeasures governments will be firing sooner or later. I guess we have to wait for the answer, until countries begin to coorporate on this issue.


To me there are several reasons why Bitcoin is valuable and I think that both you stated are legit. Bitcoin seems to be successful standing against these. I see the attempts to overide in these forking attempts by Gavin, Hearn, Ver and CSW, which by now have been more or less unsucessful. And regulations by now seem to only affect centralized exchanges and mixers, but not Bitcoin itself.

Another value of Bitcoin comes from its potencial inconfiscatability. It is the first time in history, that people are able to refuse to give up their savings.

There are many more valuable sides of Bitcoin, like decentralisation, open source, worldwide P2P transactions without a middle man.


I agree with you here. No proof, that these emails were actually from early 2011. Assuming that satoshis GMX account was under control of the 3 letters, it could have happened anyway or they also could have been backdated. There were enough reasons for both.

Edit: The satoshi quote from the Hearn emails makes it easy to me to believe, that this was not the original satoshi.

The absolute nerve of it.  You've got some balls on you, I'll give you that.  

Don't think for one second that you can come into a topic like this to twist the narrative.  You will be crucified.  I suggest you go find another topic to troll.

You are one of the ones who got scammed and you are keeping the false narrative alive.

But is there a more recent quote?  The impression I get is that Gavin doesn't seem amenable to talking about the matter now.  As others have already said, it would be ideal if Gavin removed any ambiguity and came out firmly against Faketoshi.  For reasons that only he can know, he hasn't chosen to do that.  That's the part we're finding inexcusable.  Because all the time there's ambiguity, Faketoshi gains an audience, people listen to what he has to say and start to use his bullshit arguments as if they were truth.  I can see how you, of all people, might be oblivious to the danger there.  


//EDIT:

As franky1's subsequent posts are likely to be deleted, I'll add my response to this post to avoid cluttering the thread:


You pay lip-service to calling Faketoshi a scammer, but you continue to use his so-called arguments to attack Bitcoin.  You could call Trump a misogynist, but if you then extolled the virtues of "grabbing them by the pussy", I would still think you were influenced by him and were just as shitty a person as he is.  You have absolutely been scammed because you genuinely believe what Faketoshi says and try to convince others of the same.  Are you familiar with the phrase "useful idiot"?  Here's a quote from wikipedia to help you out:


That's you.

Because it's extremely weak.  It's not too dissimilar from the language roger ver used ("it's not important, he should have his privacy") when he was in full on belief mode, and paling around with Wright.   It sounds agnostic.  How common are 'master scammers'?
 
This was probably not his intent, but it's the effect. It's just too uncommon for people to be that mealy-mouthed unless they're trying to hedge, and trying to hedge is in fact a really strong signal.

Consider, if instead the situation were that virtually every bitcoin tech expert (eliminating the potentially for personal corruption, and mitigating individual virtually) were saying that kind of "well maybe but it's not important"--  I think if I were a non-tech expert I'd view that as a farly strong signal that at a minimum the possibility hasn't been contradicted.

... and yet it has been.   The big lie about Wright isn't about him being Satoshi it's that his claims of being Satoshi have even the slightest air of credibility.  Once a vicitims accepts that false position, start ignoring the good info and start swallowing the firehose of bad info and down the rabbit hole they go.

This sort of explanation fails occams' razor. Not as badly as some things that many people believe, but you don't need to go there. All sorts of perfectly ordinary explanations work fine.

There are a number of early Bitcoiners (and Bitcoin businesses) who view the whole decentralization thing as a regulatory dodge and childish security theatre. They believe things like in the long run Bitcoin would be regulated by as 'serious organization' like the ITU (lol) and that mining would go away or be relegated to a secondary role.  That Bitcoin's purpose is basically just a launching pad to create a big trustworthy centralized asset to unify the money of the world.  I've heard more than a few say these things explicitly.  

From that perspective, anything that stood in the way of the hockey-stick projections on transaction volume was a strike against that vision of success.  From there, most other things follow logically.

So essentially,  the question is why is bitcoin valuable in the first place?  Is it for the reasons Satoshi gave explicitly?-- money that can't be overridden by political whim, even if well motivated?  Or is it because of some real politik regulatory dodge reason? If you believe the latter then cranking growth as fast as possible at any and all cost while cozying up to spooks sounds like a reasonable strategy.  This alternative view even comes pre-made with a ready explanation you can use to dismiss people who disagree with you-- they're childish and don't understand how the world works.

If you believe the dates provided by Hearn. I saw no indication of that until many years after its claimed date. Especially if you're going to believe that there is some conspiracy of state actors to take out Bitcoin you probably should be pretty skeptical of any instances of "hey guies! I tots got dis email 5 years ago and didn't mention it till now!".

To me it's pretty much clear, that this is all linked to the Wikileaks story and Gavins visit to the CIA. Satoshi knew what was up to come after Wikileaks accepted Bitcoin payments.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.29280


Somebody at the 3 letters must have been called out Bitcoin as a national security threat. This would probably lead to meetings, where countermeasures are being discussed. Taking over an email account is not a big deal for them. Deanonymizing people is also easy. They also have a long history of 'convincing' people to play their game.

The fact, that the real satoshi could anytime cross these plans by appearing and using a valid PGP signature, makes me think, they have silenced him somehow.




It was way before that. About 4 month after satoshis last forum post

https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET

Thanks for the reply, it is appreciated. Perhaps there's an element that Gavin wanted Wright to be Satoshi that clouded his judgment. I would just hope that people who consider taking Gavin's assessment into account also consider the rest of his final words on the topic (I know I've posted this a couple times already but its worth repeating):


What's clear is that either way he was telling people to ignore Craig, yet a lot of BSVites just didn't seem to get that portion of the message, for whatever reason...