Topic: Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam] - page 3. (Read 4391 times)

A Beautiful Tweet

Quote from: BitcoinFX on February 24, 2020, 01:16:57 PM

"Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against ID Theft

- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/project-anastasia-bitcoiners-against-identity-theft-re-craig-wright-scam-5215128

Any ID claiming to be #satoshi #nakamoto must put up a publicly verifiable signed message or shut up!

This is how identity works in #Bitcoin =#BTC

#SNTrustChain #ProjectAnastasiaBTC #LNTrustChain3"

- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1231979635589701633

Excellent, thank you.  That’s how it’s done, folks!

Quote from: nullius on February 11, 2020, 12:44:32 PM

I did not make Project Anastasia for the Bitcoin Forum only.  I made it as a message to be built on Satoshi’s own forum, and spread by a cadre of Bitcoiners to every other venue of discussion.

We each have our strengths and weaknesses.  I recently tried to set up a Twitter account, for the exact purpose of Bitcoin advocacy.  Couldn’t figure out how to use it. ;-)  I may try again, sometime...  But regardless of what I do, if you are already on Twitter and similar sites, I encourage you to spread the word!

---

An Ugly Tweet

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 25, 2020, 01:04:19 AM

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

Ugh.  Thanks a lot.

Twitter now totally requires Javascript; so in case anybody wants to see it without kowtowing to that, this is what we’re dealing with:

Quote from: nullius on February 17, 2020, 06:22:21 PM

Quote from: nutildah on February 18, 2020, 09:55:54 AM

Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?

This is not a matter of “opinion”.  (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.)  Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact.  Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?”

So no, he shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.

Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored.  That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.

Quote from: nullius on February 17, 2020, 06:22:21 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 16, 2020, 08:06:46 PM

...he exploits the fact that people are usually unprepared to deal with such an audacious liar.  ... the sort of person who will go literally red faced screaming at you that NO, IN FACT THE SKY IS GREEN NOT BLUE THE SKY IS GREEN.  When faced with behaviour like that some people just start wondering if maybe its legit because they'd personally never act that way unless they were telling the truth and were absolutely sure of it.

Damn.  You made me look outside at the sky, just to double-check!  And then, I started wondering if maybe, just maybe, I am colourblind—protanopia often does cause difficulty distinguishing green from blue!—or perchance, I went slightly insane, and I confused the meanings of basic English words blue and green in some Twilight Zone style psychosis...

I encourage readers of this thread to learn more about Blackhat Mindhacking 101: Exploiting Wetware Insecurity.  That is what we are dealing with here.

---

Quod Vide

Quote from: nutildah on February 25, 2020, 01:51:28 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 25, 2020, 01:04:19 AM

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.

Of course, I don’t speak for gmaxwell; and I dislike quoting myself from just the last page of this same thread.  But in case you didn’t see it, he already addressed that question [pre-posting edit: and whilst I was previewing and adding a reply to AGD below, he addressed this again here]:

Quote from: nullius on February 17, 2020, 04:50:26 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 16, 2020, 08:06:46 PM

And yet, as we are today Gavin has still never fully retracted his endorsement. He left it at an 'I'm not sure what happened, maybe I was fooled. It doesn't matter anyways'-- something which wright's promoters continues to use to promote wright's legitimacy.

Probably the most significant thing I can say on this subject is that *none* of the core-devs upon hearing Gavin endorsed the guy thought this was at all evidence of the claims-- even before seeing the publication of the obviously faked signature.  The idea that Gavin was hacked, was being coerced, was being paid off, was a scammed idiot, or was attempting a desperate attempt at taking over Bitcoin after he was unable to convince people through the merit of his arguments were all considered serious possibilities. We discussed the possibility that wright got his hands on of an early block private key that was mined by someone other than satoshi, and was planning on exploiting the ambiguity about who mined what-- and that Gavin fell for that because of one of the might have fallen for it due to the aforementioned reasons. The only people that thought his endorsement was persuasive were people that hadn't worked with him on technical matters. The people who would know best how to weigh the evidence of that endorsement didn't find it remotely persuasive. And in the aftermath, when Wright's public signature turned out to be fake Gavin's response wasn't to adopt complete transparency and help take out and protect the Bitcoin community from the guy that had supposedly conned him. Take that for what you will.

That was posted on a thread where I replied to another part of his post, and your reply to me was this:

Quote from: nullius on February 18, 2020, 01:31:39 PM

Quote from: nutildah on February 17, 2020, 11:01:41 PM

Quote from: nullius on February 17, 2020, 06:22:21 PM

Gavin has done massive actual harm:  Bitcoin Foundation, XT, Faketoshi “verification”, Btrash shilling...  You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?

If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.

Eh...

http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-22_Sat_06.05h/976210.html

Quote from: nullius on February 12, 2020, 06:39:32 PM

In his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things.  It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.'
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.

I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back.

Was that before or after this?

Quote from: nullius on February 14, 2020, 07:58:09 PM

Quote from: nullius on February 14, 2020, 04:40:45 PM

Control of a forum account is not cryptographic evidence of identity.  Control of an e-mail address is also not cryptographic evidence of identity.  With my large boldface supplied:

Topic: [email protected] is compromised

Quote from: theymos on September 08, 2014, 05:06:34 PM

Today I received an email from [email protected] (Satoshi's old email address), the contents of which make me almost certain that the email account is compromised. The email was not spoofed in any way. It seems very likely that either Satoshi's email account in particular or gmx.com in general was compromised, and the email account is now under the control of someone else. Perhaps [email protected] expired and then someone else registered it.

Don't trust any email sent from [email protected] unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)

I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on p2pfoundation.ning.com. (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another p2pfoundation.ning.com post.)

* nullius asks, “But what is Satoshi’s PGP key fingerprint?  If I download that key from your link, how do I know it is the same key that Satoshi used before?”

Quote from: theymos on September 08, 2014, 05:29:04 PM

The email said:

Quote from: [email protected]

Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.

Not exactly Satoshi's normal style.

That is from something that I recently posted in the Beginners & Help forum:  A hands-on lesson on why you should check PGP fingerprints!  I encourage others to read it, and to learn how to verify that you have the right key.

Quote from: nullius on February 14, 2020, 07:58:09 PM

This was created today.  It could have said anything that I wanted it to:

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

Signed,

Satoshi Nakamoto 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQS5YZTT/ZVbiFIrBW8228A4i3SciwUCXkcnOQAKCRA228A4i3Sc
ixUGAJwJP2WaRtRRQoH2oRuib6SxiitnpACfdpOP4PzmLqAOJgM5Ly9HYNzu8lI=
=HmWH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Verify it!

[...the fake key, how I made it, etc...]

Always make sure that you have the right key.  Check PGP fingerprints!

---

My thanks to others for the interesting discussion of this important issue.

Both dishonest (how would he expect anyone to fall for this) and honest (how would he fall for it) really don't make a ton of sense in my view.

It's not that I view him as extremely honest-- I recently ran into some evidence that convinces me that Gavin was being wilfully dishonest when it came to the block size drama--  but rather it's too stupid a lie to play along with,  and it's not that I think he's totally immune to smoke and mirrors (I think even far more capable people are not immune) but I have not encountered anyone else who knew almost anything about the technology and wasn't explicitly on Wright's payroll that expressed a public belief in it for more than a second.  At least to technical experts (and I think many other people) wright is just that transparently a fraud.

Unfortunately, we know relatively little about the scope and progression of his interactions with Wright, because other than detailing a bit about the proof ceremony (e.g. that it was via a computer provided by wright) he pretty much clammed up and stopped answering questions.

So... Sorry, I can't explain the inexplicable. I wish I could.

Some people say that it's not a big deal that he hasn't issued a clear and emphatic retraction, or shared publicly his electronic communications with wright which he claimed convinced him before they met. I might even buy an argument that it was all just too much for him and he can't take dealing with it if he'd disappeared from the public light entirely-- rather than showing up periodically to toss shade at bitcoin and promote competitors. ... but he hasn't and it's really easy to find real people who are being exploited by Wright that cite Gavin's endorsement as a primary justification.

I'm fairly confident that both of them communicating with "Satoshi" (not satoshi) after the account was compromised. -- both because the account was leaking messages it got from them to others, e.g. about mike and gavin talking about planning to fork bitcoin long before they did anything public... and also because they claimed to have heard from satoshi long after it would have been consistent with other evidence.  But I don't now what, if any, roll this played in setting up the wright circus. 

In his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things.  It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.'
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.

I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back.

Maybe he isn't accusing Gavin of being outright dishonest. Gavin's ambivalence is being touted in that tweet(and countless other places) as "proof" that CSW is Satoshi. The sheer damage potential of such misinformation closes any case to give him the benefit of doubt.
Gavin is not being "morally neutral" when he chooses not to call CSWs bluff but rather take the chance of being labeled by history as Satoshi's first apostle or something.

The idea is good and extremely useful, but only in the case of Romanova, a DNA test was possible to confirm the identity, but how to confirm the identity of Satoshi?
Suppose that some kind of injury happened, and the person who is him has lost his memory, how can he prove that he is Satoshi?

I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.

Hahaha that term. That would suggest some sort of knowledge of Bitcoin technology".

Plus I believe Gavin Andresen wouldn't go public if he had no selfish motivations, and if he actually believed Craig Wright to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

The similarities are there:

Fake Anastasia claims were made before DNA. DNA ultimately proved it to be a lie.

Fake Satoshi claims were made before chain analysis. Chain analysis ultimately will prove the lie.

One thing I have to say here is that we don't know real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto,
so in fact we can say that Craig Wrong created new fake identity, and community named him Faketoshi.

In case of Anastasia we knew her identity, and that is not the case here.
Craig Wrong is still a thief and a liar,  don't get me 'Wrong'

"Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against ID Theft

- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/project-anastasia-bitcoiners-against-identity-theft-re-craig-wright-scam-5215128

Any ID claiming to be #satoshi #nakamoto must put up a publicly verifiable signed message or shut up!

This is how identity works in #Bitcoin =#BTC

#SNTrustChain #ProjectAnastasiaBTC #LNTrustChain3"

- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1231979635589701633

Hvala, Pmalek!  In Projekat Anastazija: Bitcoineri Protiv Krađe Identiteta, the essence of Wright’s wrong is now condemned from Croatia:


(Thanks also to Rikafip for Bitcoin: Društveni Fenomen.)

Teşekkürler, mindrust!  Craig Wright’s scam is now correctly identified in the Turkish language as identity theft against Bitcoin’s founder:

i have read this topic from our local section since it was translated and thats is why i come to research about this case.
and really got interested because for how many century the pretender got to live with the life of the victim Anastasia.
what i do Hope is we wont get that Long to prove that Craig S.Wright is a fake Satoshi even without finding the true Satoshi for the answer.

Everything must be doubted otherwise proven true with sufficient evidence. Impostors should be spotted and called out because if not, they might be more destruction resulted because of their scheme. In this era of modern technology, everyone must be keen of the information they are being bombarded with and always do research regarding the legitimacy of each data in order to prevent chaos of fake information.

“Motion to compel people to apologise to me”?

One of Last of the V8s’ links eventually somehow led me to an exemplary demonstration of Faketoshi’s legal acumen.  Red boldface is mine; ordinary boldface and italics are as in the original fakery (so to speak):

https://web.archive.org/web/20190604133326/https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/satoshi-and-science/

Quote from: nullius on February 05, 2020, 12:37:28 PM

Lies, defamation, and hate crime are not covered under free speech.

Putting aside my free speech principles against “hate” laws, just how does Faketoshi suppose himself to be a victim of a “hate crime”?  Is the class of Satoshi Imposters a protected group?  Perhaps a race or religion?  What about people who denied others’ suspicions that they were Satoshi?  Did Hal Finney commit a hate crime by denying his own Satoshihood?

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 16, 2020, 08:06:46 PM

And yet, as we are today Gavin has still never fully retracted his endorsement. He left it at an 'I'm not sure what happened, maybe I was fooled. It doesn't matter anyways'-- something which wright's promoters continues to use to promote wright's legitimacy.

Probably the most significant thing I can say on this subject is that *none* of the core-devs upon hearing Gavin endorsed the guy thought this was at all evidence of the claims-- even before seeing the publication of the obviously faked signature.  The idea that Gavin was hacked, was being coerced, was being paid off, was a scammed idiot, or was attempting a desperate attempt at taking over Bitcoin after he was unable to convince people through the merit of his arguments were all considered serious possibilities. We discussed the possibility that wright got his hands on of an early block private key that was mined by someone other than satoshi, and was planning on exploiting the ambiguity about who mined what-- and that Gavin fell for that because of one of the might have fallen for it due to the aforementioned reasons. The only people that thought his endorsement was persuasive were people that hadn't worked with him on technical matters. The people who would know best how to weigh the evidence of that endorsement didn't find it remotely persuasive. And in the aftermath, when Wright's public signature turned out to be fake Gavin's response wasn't to adopt complete transparency and help take out and protect the Bitcoin community from the guy that had supposedly conned him. Take that for what you will.

---

[I will be replying on that thread to something else that gmaxwell said there.  For the benefit of those following this thread and not that one, I will edit this space with a cross-reference and a brief quotation of my reply.]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2003/1011.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=%22demorgan%20information%22
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2005/368.html?context=1;query=wright%20;mask_path=+au/cases/nsw/NSWCA

PARTIES:
Michael Ryan and  DeMorgan Information  Security Systems Pty Limited
v
Craig Wright and Lynn Wright (2003-2005 Before bitcoin)

Craig claims he didn't send the email - it is a forgery by others.







Result = Wright held in contempt of court.


Australian Tax office investigation of Wright group of companies tax affairs.

Questionable evidence presented


How the Australian Tax office described it:




Liquidators report: https://www.inlineadvisory.com/app/uploads/D14-140526-Hotwire439AReport-BFK.pdf (Link does not have a valid security cert)

Result = Wright controlled company ordered to pay & put into liquidation by the ATO.
https://insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au/browsesearch-notices/notice-details/HOTWIRE-PREEMPTIVE-INTELLIGENCE-PTY-LTD-164068348/29dbb973-0a9a-4e8a-87b1-2acef61656fe
$1.7 million penalty imposed.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/revealed-the-ato-hit-suspected-bitcoin-creator-craig-steven-wrights-company-with-a-1-7-million-penalty-2015-12


Wright v W&K Research - New South Wales Supreme Court
Questionable evidence presented
Questionable representation by W&K

Explained here
Result = Two orders against W&K for approx $28 million each (Wright was a shareholder of W&K Research together with the late Dave Kleiman)


Kleiman v Wright

Craig claims he didn't send those emails they are a forgery by others.

If you are interested in the Gavin/CIA rabbit hole, you can get into some of my old topics:

Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12161977


Tell me why Satoshi Nakamoto didn't spend a Satoshi from his 1 Mio BTC

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tell-me-why-satoshi-nakamoto-didnt-spend-a-satoshi-from-his-1-mio-btc-1382380

Craig W. only claims to be Satoshi, because he knows the real Satoshi is dead?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/craig-w-only-claims-to-be-satoshi-because-he-knows-the-real-satoshi-is-dead-2112829

Another interesting discovery:
https://svskull.club/files/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.9.1.pdf

In 2013 CSW filed a statement of claim in the Supreme Court of NSW.

In that claim he claimed $28 million from W&K Defense research (Kleiman was the director) for research.

The company had been wound up by that time and it was "revived" by Uygen Nguyen

An officer of that company "J Wilson" then agreed on behalf of W&K Defense research to a settlement order.

It is interesting to note that the "contract" to the the department of homeland security was never awarded and Craig was notified of this in 2011.



















Source: https://svskull.club/files/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.9.1.pdf

Craig Wright is a “confidence man” and career scammer.  It is not exactly news that experienced scammers are indeed “fantastic actors” who realistically simulate emotions they do not feel.  File that part under, “Do I need to explain this like you are literally five years old?” :-/

Whereas the connected clause, “...who knows an awful lot about cryptography” demands another either-or:  Either Gavin Andresen knows an awful negligibly, infinitesimally little about cryptography, or he had an ulterior motive for boosting Craig Wright’s perpetration of grand-scale identity theft with authoritative “Bitcoin Chief Scientist” expert praise that was as fake as Wright’s Satoshihood.

The Gavin Question:  Stupidity or malice?

The proposition of malicious ulterior motives must invoke the ancient question, Cui bono?

Subject: Gavin will visit the CIA

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 27, 2011, 03:00:26 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.

Subject: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on January 12, 2014, 06:12:24 PM

I've accepted an invitation to do a question and answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, DC on Thursday, February 6, 2014.

I've been told anything related to the Council on Foreign Relations tickle's peoples Grand Conspiracy buttons, so I thought it would be best to be open about exactly what will happen. I hope it doesn't spark as long a thread as my visit to the CIA, but Bitcoin is a lot bigger than when I visited the CIA...

(...etc...)

When somebody is a guest of such “interesting” entities as the CIA and CFR—I mean here, when he actually chums up with them, and that is not an “space aliens told me that he might secretly communicate with them” sort of speculation—and then, he in fact proceeds to undermine Bitcoin in every way he can (with his boost of CSW being far from the only such misdeed), that preëmptive bashing of “conspiracy theories” reads as if he doth protest too much, methinks.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120712200425/http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

Quote from: nullius on December 11, 2017, 09:19:45 AM

Bitcoin was never designed to help an anonymous money-transfer system...

I do not like Wikileaks, and I have never been a fan of Assange’s methods....

Any blockchain is able to be controlled and made to work within the legal frameworks of where it exists. It does not stop government taxing, and it does not bring down banks. It was never designed for such a purpose.

A blockchain is... incredibly simple to trace when the parties to a transaction have breached the law, and it allows a complete audit trail to exist. The past is something people do not understand, and few have learnt. In the 90s, a far more anonymous electronic cash system was developed, and since then, many others have been created.

DigiCash was founded in 1989. Unlike Bitcoin, DigiCash was based on an anonymous model. The system incorporated the transfer of blinded transactions that used DigiCash as a settlement system. Bitcoin uses an open pseudonymous model...

Chaumian eCash can be implemented inside Bitcoin script. I know it well; I have patented it, and will in time realise how it can be achieved. The issue here is that the main issue with eCash was that it used an anonymous currency. Bitcoin does not face such an issue and the regulatory issues that follow...

Bitcoin is an immutable ledger... Bitcoin is a permanent and an unalterable evidence trail. I was not afraid of Gavin and when he met with the CIA. Bitcoin is an immutable data store, that is something that honest government desires.

I needed to fix what I allowed [sic]...

I was embittered for many years.... [A brief swipe at Timothy C. May...]

I have worked in digital forensics a long time prior to creating Bitcoin. I only ever worked for the prosecution....

There is no form of PoW or PoS or any hybrid system that cannot be regulated and monitored, and the most beautiful part of what I am releasing (and have completed) is that the more you try to make something anonymous (rather than pseudonymous), the more it can be controlled. The more you seek to be like Zcash or some other crime coin, the more privacy you give up.

Lightning—all about losing data

The economy is all about information. Bitcoin was a means to take data and add value, it is an informational commodity; that is how it obtains value.

In a perverse twisting of this, Lightning was created...

The creation of off-chain channels that allow information to be deleted [sic]...

It is why the Core team have capped Bitcoin at 1.0 MB and refuse to allow it to scale. It is why they added SegWit and other completely ignorant and insecure changes that have been discarded when I spoke to some of the same people a decade ago.

Let’s see this again:

Subject: Gavin will visit the CIA

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 27, 2011, 03:00:26 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.

Subject: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on January 12, 2014, 06:12:24 PM

I've accepted an invitation to do a question and answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, DC on Thursday, February 6, 2014.

Quote from: nullius on January 06, 2020, 08:40:16 AM

The draft of one of my not-yet-published essays opens with the observation that Bitcoin has a fatal flaw; and I continue with some personal discussion of why I’m not “Bitcoin rich”:  I spent years casually watching Bitcoin as an intellectual curiosity, whilst assiduously avoiding use of an append-only global public ledger—an idea which frankly horrified me.  (My proposed solution is Lightning.  By the way, observe who hates Lightning and the Layer-1 technologies that enable it.)  BSV agrees with me, after a fashion:

Quote from: ?? on ??

Bitcoin destroys anonymity in all its forms. [...] The path forward is already set in stone. [...] When you understand Bitcoin, when you understand a sound system of money that acts to allow exchange privately but with an immutable evidence trail, you will start to understand why I created Bitcoin.

Orwellian word-twisting and imposter-claims aside, the quoted portion is correct:  Bitcoin, as originally designed, is an anti-privacy technology.  I saw that years ago.  That’s why I am poor.  I am not revealing non-public information by pointing out that “nullius” appeared on the Zcash project forum before appearing here.  The Zerocoin paper caught my attention in 2013, and I am too patient for my own good.  I am not advocating Zcash here—to the contrary!  Lightning makes “privacy coins” obsolete.

The biggest incentive that I can think of to keep Bitcoin’s design “set in stone” is to retain its anti-privacy characteristics.  BSV openly, explicitly declares that this is its agenda!  WAR IS PEACE.  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.  FINANCIAL SURVEILLANCE IS PRIVACY.

Wake up, people!  This is not about Craig Wright.  This is much bigger than a scam to grab money (though Wright is no doubt enjoying that ancillary benefit for himself).  It is a strategy to impose KYC-GovCoin by the backdoor....

N.b. that Occam plus all available evidence show that Satoshi just made an awful mistake in his belief that “pseudonymous” transactions would provide sufficient privacy.  Satoshi was a genius working on an extremely difficult unsolved problem:  Trustless, Byzantine fault-tolerant transaction ordering.  Well, that is a technical description; the colloquial explanation is that Satoshi wanted a way to make people who distrust each other all agree on one financial ledger, without any central authority to resolve disputes.

Satoshi was mortal.  He was a genius, but he was not a god.  He solved one problem that had crippled previous digital monetary systems, and thereby inadvertently introduced a problem which is actually much easier to solve.  From a technical perspective, it is understandable that he failed to foresee how powerful blockchain analysis would become.  (I foresaw it; but I am not Satoshi.)

Lightning is the solution,^* for exactly the reason that Craig Wright hates it!  Lightning is a network of private ledgers which are all synchronized by a global public ledger.  The private Lightning ledgers hold your private bank statements, by rough analogy—the global public ledger shows only the opening and closing of the private ledgers.  Do you want to avoid publishing your bank statements on the public ledger?  Move to Lightning!

Lightning is the next step in perfecting Satoshi’s true vision of freedom.

(* And n.b. that I cut my teeth on what Craig Wright calls a “crime coin” (!), as quoted above.  I lost much of my money in Zcash—and knowingly so, painful though that has been:  To me, privacy is more valuable than money.  I am pleased to be able to move on to Lightning, which has better privacy, and is Bitcoin.  Moreover, other strong privacy solutions for Bitcoin are also in development.)

---

Gavin’s Overall Pattern of Supporting Fork Attacks

In 2015, only about nine months before he boosted the Faketoshi (the forker and fork-forker extraordinaire), Gavin Andresen knifed the rest of Core in the back, and joined surveillance and financial censorship fan Mike Hearn in an early prototype of a fork-attack against Bitcoin:  “Bitcoin XT”.

This post is already too long; and my eyes are blurry after searching for links and quotes for this post and others.  Would somebody else please help concisely to debrief readers on the history here, and its relevance?  For now, I will simply excerpt a 19 August 2015 IEEE Spectrum interview with Dr. Adam Back, the inventor of the Hashcash which Satoshi used as the basis for Bitcoin mining (as cited in the original Bitcoin paper):

https://web.archive.org/web/20150820000929/http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup

Quote

[Dr. Adam] Back: Gavin [Andresen] naively thinks he'll do the coup, force the issue, and then invite people to participate in the coup. However, Mike [Hearn] states on the BitcoinXT website that he is the final decision maker (or benevolent dictator as he puts it). So, its clearly intended to change the decision making process. And Mike has not been without bias and controversy.

It seems quite unlikely from indications I see that any of the core people who maintain Bitcoin's security will participate in BitcoinXT.  It is therefore not clear that BitcoinXT will have the resources or expertise to maintain it's safety and security.

Quelle surprise that after he supported Bitcoin XT and then boosted Faketoshi, Gavin then supported Btrash; e.g.:

@gavinandresen tweet (archive):

Quote from: Gavin Andresen (Twitter, 2017-11-11)

Bitcoin Cash is what I started working on in 2010: a store of value AND means of exchange.

So, how’s this shaping up?

• April 2011: Gavin visits the CIA.
• January 2014: Gavin visits the CFR.
• August 2015: Gavin joins the first fork-attack against Bitcoin, “Bitcoin XT”.
• May 2016: Gavin publicly endorses Faketoshi’s technical claim to have “verified” a Satoshi signature—a claim that is later used to promote the BCH fork-attack, and is the sole basis of the BSV fork-attack plus Nchain frivolous legal attacks.
• Late 2017: Gavin supports BCH fork-attack on Bitcoin.

That’s a summary, and I am tired.  Others should feel free to fill that out a bit (but please keep it to the major points, not minor details).

N.b. that Gavin’s more recent equivocation over Faketoshi does not alter the fact that he gave him a critical boost at a critical moment; and he does not seem terribly eager to try to stop the monster which he himself gave life.

---

For relative brevity, I will leave aside for now the question of how Gavin’s behaviour with the odious “Bitcoin Foundation” fits the foregoing argument.  Anyone else care to take that up?  If so, please keep it brief and relevant to the topic of showing how Gavin’s boost of Faketoshi was only a part of his consistent attempts to undermine Bitcoin.  If you really want to get into it, create a new thread focused on that topic—quote excerpts and link to it here.

---

The Same Standard Applies to Me

Let’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture.  And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.

Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:

Quote

achow101

2018-02-13

Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics.

If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities:  Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.

What would Occam say about that?  —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?

---

Despite the strength of the foregoing argument, I need not hereby positively conclude the question whether Gavin acted from stupidity or malice.  For it is unnecessary to reach a conclusion either way:  Those are indeed the only options, and either one damns Gavin.

Wherefore I conclude:  Perennial fork-attacker Gavin Andresen is jointly responsible for having essentially created the Faketoshi scam, which would have fallen flat as a clown act if the so-called “Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist” had not wrongfully supported Craig Wright’s grand-scale identity theft against Satoshi Nakamoto.  Mr Andresen is untrustworthy.