Topic: Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data - page 10. (Read 29134 times)

Who was that you maintain, franky1?
==================================

https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-bowery-9780865

Diogenes Institute
Research Analyst
Diogenes Institute
September 2008 – Present  10 years 4 months
Sacramento, California
Worked with Diogenes Institute and DoE Energy Information Administration founder, Charles Sinclair Smith, on a comprehensive plan for energy independence and the environment. Mr. Bowery’s part of the plan emphasized conversion of all US electric utilities to produce food-grade CO2 and pay for the conversion by selling protein and lipids produced in desert southwest photobioreactors. Mr. Smith’s part of the plan emphasized converting the US rail system to an all-electric, high speed, system to replace long-haul truck and short haul air transport. Mr. Bowery analyzed the macro- economic viability of large scale deployment of a wide array of algae-related technologies.

Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge
Judging Committee
Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge
2006 – Present  12 years
Marcus Hutter's PhD student, Shane Legg, cofounded Deep Mind. Deep mind was acquired by Google for several hundred million dollars due, in part, to adopting the theoretic principle, AIXI, embodied in the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge. The establishment, in 2006, of the Prize, resulted from Bowery's history of proposals for prizes for achievement of objective criteria that would lead to technical breakthroughs, including one for compression. Matt Mahoney, manager of the Large Text Compression Benchmark, pointed Bowery to Hutter's AIXI theory, Bowery proposed the compression prize to Hutter and Hutter not only lent his name to the prize but endowed it. 4 years later Deep Mind was founded and 4 years after that, Google acquired Deep Mind. The Prize is still active but advances in computing and algorithms necessitate a much larger prize for further progress toward artificial intelligence arising from the mining of "big data".

to reveal another hole timestamp is digging himself and tripping into

the real bitcoin creator was not working on lights, optics and lasers in 2008
he was working on bitcoin since 2007

AGD said in #121:


Do you remember I said I was in Williston a few days ago, and I am thinking of holding seminars for oil companies and their workers on cryptos?
Here is a pic of me by the wave machine in The Ark:
https://postimg.cc/zVckP0py
Second row of pics, center, on official Williston page.  Note vertical silver pipe, right side top in both pics.
http://www.willistonparks.com/williston-arc


You are right. Thanks for posting the link to your thread which was my first post here, Phinnaeous Gage. "James A. Donald" was the first to respond to Satoshi Nakamoto, a day later.  "James A. Donald". coder of "Crypto Kong" is surely James A. ( for Allen) Bowery.

https://www.whois.com/whois/jim.com

jim.com Updated 1 second ago
Domain Information
Domain:jim.com
Registrar:Tucows Domains Inc.
Registered On:1995-02-24
Expires On:2020-02-25
Updated On:2017-10-12
Status:clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited
Name Servers:ns1.cyberultra.net
ns2.cyberultra.net

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/double-slit-4-18-2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1uFeiZJq1xxiYdfARhEF7R7XS_eVLiCAQss2dymjSeuwQmgOo1BRnYx-o
============================================================

ECHEQUE RE-DIRECTS TO JIM.COM.  ECHEQUE WAS FIRST REGISTERED JUST TWO MONTHS AFTER JIM.COM, I.E. IN APRIL 1995.
https://www.whois.com/whois/echeque.com

echeque.com Updated 1 second ago
Domain Information
Domain:echeque.com
Registrar:Tucows Domains Inc.
Registered On:1995-04-24
Expires On:2020-04-25
Updated On:2017-10-12
Status:clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited
Name Servers:ns1.cyberultra.net
ns2.cyberultra.net
============================================

James Bowery I've also been collaborating with this guy to, in my not-so-copious spare time, program a numeric model of neutron diffraction based on GUToCP.

EDITED INSERTION HERE BY DOUBLESPEND TIMESTAMP: folks does this look like Satoshi's Oct 31 2008 bitcoin presentation?  
https://postimg.cc/PPBRv3mW  

http://zhydrogen.com/.../2018/04/double-slit-4-18-2018.pdf


https://www.facebook.com/jabowery/posts/10215963193623424

James Bowery
April 18 ·
I'm starting to get into the science surrounding the GUToCP controversy because, not surprisingly to this cynic, none of the folks who should be doing due diligence in accord with their fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, are. Moreover, they're not about to respond to sound decision theoretic arguments that they could end up being personally sued by angry stockholders of companies like GE Capital, if GUToCP turns out to be valid. If I owned stock in any energy companies, or in companies heavily dependent on the particulars of energy generation and distribution, I'd find somewhere else to park those assets at least for the next year -- not because of my analysis, given below, of a key scientific controversy, but because the inability of key executives to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility is plain enough. I base this solely on their failure to invest the few thousand dollars it would take to discount the risk and cover their behinds. That's what it would cost to ask an engineer who was visiting Princeton University for some other reason, to take a long lunch and drive over to the Brilliant Light, Inc. laboratory a few minutes from Princeton. He'd have to have a reasonable infrared meter costing at most a few hundred dollars, take a reading of the electric meter on the side of the building, go inside, take an IR reading from the device they purportedly have running with a coefficient of performance of over 100, estimate the integrated energy emitted, go back outside and take another reading of the electric meter. This is so technically challenging, I suspect a 7th grade student would find it difficult. Perhaps they should replace guys like Jeff Immelt with an 8th grader.

This last week, yet another paper (via the story at the link below) was published about the anomalous ~3.5keV X-Ray astronomy "line" (although it is spread out more than one would expect of an emission line) that has been reported in several papers over the last several years. The signal is faint but it corresponds to areas suspected to contain high densities of dark matter. Early attempts to "debunk" this observation are now starting to give way to a confluence of different instruments, statistical methods and investigators seeing it. Early attempts to theoretically explain it as some sort of emission from dark matter tried the "axino" theory. As those attempts failed for one reason or another, a new attempt to explain dark matter as consisting of "sterile neutrinos" took the place of axinos. (For later reference, note that none of these theories explain why axinos or sterile neutrinos should be 95% of the mass of the universe. Remember that sentence for the end of this exposition.)

I saw lots of references to "the 3.5keV sterile neutrino" taking the place of the hypothesized axino. Trying to trace back where anyone got the idea that there should be a "sterile neutrino" with a mass of 3.5keV, I found the first occurrence of "3.5keV" in the literature associated with sterile neutrinos was a paper that was trying to place "constraints" on the mass of the hypothetical particle by looking at the emerging X-Ray astronomy data. Now, if you didn't bristle at the mention of the word "constraints" on a "hypothetical particle" based on emerging but noisy measurements, perhaps I should explain something about the philosophy of science:

Science is about predicting from observations. One key form this takes is "replication" as in "I predict anyone who follows my directions for an experiment will see the same thing I saw." But it also applies to novel experiments where if your theory is good, and your experimental method sound, you can be assured of the outcome of measurements like, for example, the mass of a particle.

What these guys are doing is revealed in this damning passage from one of the axino papers:

"Due to the large number of parameters at disposal in supersymmetric models, it is hard to exclude with certainty the axino scenario."

"The large numbers of parameters" means their model "predicts" very little about the mass of hypothesized particles. That's why when they make stuff up like "sterile neutrinos" they don't know what the mass is going to be but -- hey -- they need _something_ to explain disturbing data so they "hypothesize" something so vague that they can make it "fit" any observations that come along from the experimentalists.

This is known as "cheating".

But you know what? There is a theory that has been around since the early 1990s that not only "predicts" a form of "dark matter" that will produce a 3.5keV signature -- but it has no "parameters" -- only fundamental physical constants.

R. L. Mills The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, November 1995 Edition HydroCatalysis Power Corp. Malvern, PA Library of Congress Catalog Number 94-077780 Chp.22 ISBN number ISBN 0-9635171-1-2

Moreover, it predicts that this 3.5keV signature won't be a "line" but will be continuum radiation -- a spectral band -- with a 3.5keV cutoff which will look _sort of_ like a "line" but is actually a rapidly decaying peak at 3.5keV. Moreover (you're going to get tired of these "moreover"s) this 3.5keV is the result of a dark-matter-to-lower-energy-dark-matter conversion. Moreover, the higher energy form of dark matter is predicted to be the most ubiquitous form of dark matter -- and is therefore the most ubiquitous form of matter in the universe (DM being 95% of the mass of the universe). Moreover, its transition to the lower energy dark matter is catalyzed by the second most ubiquitous form of matter in the universe: hydrogen. Moreover the most ubiquitous form of matter in the universe is a lower energy state of the second most ubiquitous form of matter in the universe. In other words, dark matter can be thought of as the "ash" of hydrogen that goes through an energy loss that is catalyzed in the plasma atmospheres surrounding stars. Moreover, when catalyzed in stellar atmospheres, the energy emitted is exceedingly high "temperature", which explains why coronas are millions of degrees while the surface of the sun is only in the thousands.

https://gfycat.com/InfantileDefiniteFritillarybutterfly

In scandinavia the OP would be called a troll.
Efficient research points out that the "Satoshi" may be, by some probalility a man from Australia, who has died some years ago.
So who?

Dave Kleiman?
Hal Finney?

To tell the truth I am not interested in his data much as for me btc is much more important and everything that happens with coin. I don't know whom to believe concerning his details

His first post on the subject (and very first post) was in my thread ...

Oh really? I never said that. I am the one that even doubt you are Craig Cobb, remember? Video proof missing btw.
('ample demonstration of your ability to extract fact from a given set of obvious data')


Sir ,if you only could sign a message from that very Bitcoin address (which you can't), you can trust me, that I am able to verify that.
Some similarities in writing style especially among science people and even more when it comes to the same interests do mean close to zero.

You didn't answer my question:

Not a theory, Dim.  I know what happened, AGD Charlie Manson.  I was there.

Let's remind readers: you are the brilliant one who insisted over and over James Bowery and myself, doublespend timestamp, are one and the same person, as James and Satoshi.  That, in and of itself, AGD, is ample demonstration of your ability to extract fact from a given set of obvious data.  Writing styles hardly ever change-- very few people can easily mimic another style, especially in real time.

These facts about writing styles, and people's perceptions of same were not known to you.

Your theory is weak. You have provided no proof for any of your allegations and now you are trying to explain Bitcoin to a bunch of experts.

franky1, regardless if James did or did not create my address or his, (the latter with something lik hOmE ftp) mine was relatively easy to memorize, long term, the three simple elements: "1DUD", "sfc" (which I remembered as "san francisco city" and "VW".  I just went to the download link James told me for my version of Bitcoin Core. It might have been his personal home computer for all I know.  No matter.  Those three sequences are easily remembered, as wss the pos-Estonian New Year time frame...especially after months of talking voice to James about Tanomoshi and the entire conceptuals of e-money-- how it would work.

Duh, James or anybody else would have to have me send my address on Skype chat before he sent me the 10 bitcoins. This is complex or newsy?

Jamie Redman the bitcoin.com writer has one year old emails I sent to two different people citing the 10  bitcoins James sent to me in 2009.  I wonder, just for fun-- are there are other sends of exactly 10 bitcoins for 2009 which remain unspent as mine are?

I was following the thread, then simply clicked on the Twitter link provided, and contacted JAB out of the blue. He responded a few hours later, then wrote his first post in this thread a few hours after that.

again he did not create the address that you pretend contains funds you pretend to own
secondly the person that created vanity was not satoshi
thirdly the computational power needed to get an address with certain descriptors as laid out in the address you define as yours.. well ill make it simple for you

1F.......................... = seconds
1Franky................... = hours
1.................franky... = years
1..fra............ky........ = months

fourthy.. it would have had to have been you that made the address if you indeed were the recipient of the funds
for you to have not been using bitcoin for months to have generated such a personal address(which you claim it is). to have said to satoshi heres an address to send 10 btc to. shows both lack of basic knowledge. lack of bitcoin history. lack of timescale proof. and also. just obsurd notions that faming up someones life before bitcoin is proof of involvement in bitcoin. is just overwhelmingly short sighted agenda to garner fame.

See James' top tweet of 5 hours ago.  Satoshi Nakamoto's family has had a son born?
https://mobile.twitter.com/jabowery?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Congratulations!

Oh no no no NO Do not bring me into your wild little whirlwind of schizophrenia.
I am always who I say I am: and that is a little nobody whos opinion no one cares about and I am 100% fine with that.

franky1 said:



You indeed have an incisive mind.  James designed and launched the entire Bitcoin Core, but of course, as mathematical odds would have it, his first revealed address had "HOME ftp" (caps different) in Satoshi's address.  Clearly, you don't figure Satoshi is as bright as you, as he couldn't conjure up a partial vanity to amuse himself with his numbers-spinning binary "this not that, that not this" marvel ware.

squatter, JAB was tweeted to by a journalist.  Plus, I know from experience with him, he watches incoming IPs as if it's interesting reading.

JAB is hardly obscure.  Even a cursory glance at his scientific writings on stackexchange, his Linked In, and his 100,000 or so words on Majority Rights convince everyone with a Stanford Binet over 110 he is far less obscure, for hoof and mouth example, than your esteemed self.

https://vnnforum.com/video.php?do=viewdetails&videoid=5914

you trying to pretend you own funds of a address because it has significant meaning. is not proof.
you subtly implying that the address was created as a vanity, to have meaning to you and thus it must be yours because you have special personal social reasons that link you to that address..

but guess what.
that address is actually RANDOM. firstly satoshi didnt not send it to an address of significant meaning to you.

what occurs in bitcoin is the address is randomly created by a reciever and the receiver then tells the sender the address to send funds to.
not the other way round
as shown below.. you believed satoshi created the address specifically for you.

and before you begin pretending that suddenly you actually made that address to be specific to you..
vanity is not easy to make an address that has VW in it at that location of the address..
vanity was not even a thing back then

If you look at the timestamps between posts, it seems pretty obvious to me. There were elaborate -- seemingly pre-written -- responses that were posted far too quickly to suggest a genuine dialogue.

You really believe someone who knows this obscure/unknown person (jabowery) saw this thread and contacted him on Twitter? The odds of that happening are incredibly low.


To each his own, I guess. I found it tiresome. Now I'm curious to see him plug his documentary.

Aren't you the signifyin' poser?  Are you krishton too, Pilgrim?

From Estonia 2008, the earliest time of my contact with super-genius Satoshi Bowery:
https://vnnforum.com/video.php?do=viewdetails&videoid=2399


SPLC chosenites have June 2 date wrong.  For example, I watched Obama's Cairo speech with about 20 black and Arab Muslims in Finnish asylum in concrete highrise before being moved days later to a central Helsinki luxury hotel where I had a black African roomate for a day or two before being taken by a surfer-looking longhair cop and his male and female partners to Helsinki City Jail where the commander proffered hid hand, explaining I was there for Podblanc. I stayed about 3 weeks. I was in court with a female and two male judges where I explained all my scientific explosive vids were in fact hosted on You Tube by two mega-billionire Jewish men. My lawyer advised me, "shhhhh, shhhhh!"

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2009/08/13/seeking-nordic-refuge-us-neo-nazi-finds-reception-chilly-finland-estonian June 2, Cobb, 57, traveled to Helsinki, where he hoped to receive asylum from the Finnish government because of persecution based on religion (the racist World Church of the Creator), race (“indigenous White”), membership in white nationalist groups, and political opinion (“right wing secessionist-separatist and preservationist of our wonderful, extreme-technological-giving 8% White Precious Minority on the Teeming Dark Planet”).

You misinterpreted, in that the send after Hal Finney's (though from Satoshi's exact same wallet) came 2 hrs. and 32 min. after Hal's. The difference is, Hal was talking to Satoshi.  No evidence I have ever seen claimed Hal knew Satoshi's true identity...whereas in my case, I was on voice Skype to my friend James using Satoshi's system, Satoshi being the genius cad, as it were, who had unfortunately beaten James to the scientific blockchain bitcoin punch.

You see?  All these ten years, James knew and let it hang out there, his Satoshi wallet address to me of Jan. 12, 2009.  When I asked James-- to the best of my memory in 2011, 2012, and 2013-- to BUY (at market value) a few of his bitcoins, as I had missed out on the Day 1 mining (after he had mined, that is)  his response was " I don't have very many".  Right.  That's why he uses Segwit, and Armory cold storage and had software monitoring Mt. Gox 5 months before the mostmajor hack they ever suffered.

I can only conclude James bet I'd never read the blockchain, or if I did, I wouldn't recall my quite definitive and memorable address.  His final reasoning may have been-- being his fellow thought criminal with so much water under the bridge, I still wouldn't say anything, but mightcall him...so he could deny.