Pages:
Author

Topic: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper - page 36. (Read 25879 times)

copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
I also asked them how new mining farms are supposed to sync a new full node in the case that they will actually have full 1TB blocks: 1 TB per block = 144 TB per day = 1.08 PB per week.

It will literally become insanely expensive (if not impossible) to sync a full node from scratch (and continue to run one).
This addresses the point:

Moore's Law is cool but what happens in the case where the data exceeds the download speed of the nodes?
How about when the uncapped block sizes result in too much data for the central locations to store?
Oh... high transaction fees will prevent that, is that right? Is that not what the point of large blocks was? To prevent high tx fees?
legendary
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1989
฿uy ฿itcoin
I ask any BSV supporters to answer this question which was ignored in their main thread:

Burning curiosity: why tack on all the extra stuff onto the chain?

Is it supposed to be a use case or a monetary transfer protocol?
Before you ask about any false dichotomy, consider why merging the two would be better than having just two independent systems.

BeCaUsE cRaIg DeSiGnEd BiTcOiN tHaT wAy!

I also asked them how new mining farms are supposed to sync a new full node in the case that they will actually have full 1TB blocks: 1 TB per block = 144 TB per day = 1.08 PB per week.

It will literally become insanely expensive (if not impossible) to sync a full node from scratch (and continue to run one).
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
I ask any BSV supporters to answer this question which was ignored in their main thread:

Burning curiosity: why tack on all the extra stuff onto the chain?

Is it supposed to be a use case or a monetary transfer protocol?
Before you ask about any false dichotomy, consider why merging the two would be better than having just two independent systems.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
This is going to be great. I have a PACER account so I'll link all paid docs here (from now on).

Please do. I appreciate a good comedy script.

Don't sweat it. He's got the Tulip Trust to look forward to in a few short weeks, right?

If that happens I will literally eat a crow. Or, something close to it.

I will eat McAfee's dick.
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
This is going to be great. I have a PACER account so I'll link all paid docs here (from now on).

Please do. I appreciate a good comedy script.

Don't sweat it. He's got the Tulip Trust to look forward to in a few short weeks, right?

If that happens I will literally eat a crow. Or, something close to it.
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3015
Welt Am Draht
Don't sweat it. He's got the Tulip Trust to look forward to in a few short weeks, right?

Then we're all going to be reduced to cowed silence while he personally drives from door to door and forces us to inhale his red socks.
legendary
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1989
฿uy ฿itcoin
This is going to be great. I have a PACER account so I'll link all paid docs here (from now on).
full member
Activity: 626
Merit: 234
Theymos, help please, close this troll's topic.

BSV - is not scam
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
A few weeks ago I mentioned that I wondered what the outcome of the settlement being made between Wright and Kleiman would be. Whatever it was, Wright just pulled out of it, now saying its because he doesn't have the money for the settlement. (Duh).

Quote
In reliance on these efforts and what seemed to be steady progress toward global resolution, Plaintiffs stopped active litigation, focused on settlement, and joined both of Craig’s motions to extend the case deadlines by 30 days (ECF No. 284 and 287). The Court granted the first motion, but held the existing March 30, 2020 trial date; it all but denied the second motion, pushing off only the deadline for Plaintiffs to move for attorneys’ fees and Defendant to appeal this Court’s sanctions order (See ECF No. 286 and 289).

On October 30, without any advance notice, Plaintiffs were informed Craig could no longer finance the settlement and was “breaking” the non-binding settlement agreement.

To that end, Plaintiffs began shifting back into preparing for trial (with much lost time).

So now the Plaintiffs have to go back to square one (or square 2, or 3) with the case going back to trial mode. It would appear Craig's plan is to keep pulling these time-wasting maneuvers indefinitely... I'm sure the judge won't be willing to overlook his stalling tactics for too long.

The next event would have been scheduled for Nov. 8th when the CFO of one of Craig's companies said they could give a deposition. Of course the defense didn't consent to it and said they would need more time to figure out if they ever would...  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
Theymos, help please, close this troll's topic.

BSV - is not scam

...

*Satire*
Please help! Satoshi! Close this troll's topic.

BSV - is scam

*More Satire*
Uganda knuckles vs Ugandan knuckles
- https://youtu.be/dep1MrobOq4

BCT mods still deleting on topic posts (if this does not help highlight exactly why BSV 'team members' are fake, I don't know what does) ...

Do not try to censor me.

Is the BSV forum account showing a SegWit address on it's signature?



Maybe it's multi-sig. I didn't bother to look.

We have more pressing issues to consider I think ! TBH I'm just quoting to keep the thread roll running ...

Look at these lies ...


...

Easily debunked ...

The above info graphic presents a completely false narrative of the actual chain of events.

Below is the true chain of events.

Original Bitcoin (BTC) began with the Genesis block at block 0 in 2009. BCH and BSV did not exist at this point in time.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Bitcoin Cash (BCH): Forked (from BTC) at block (height) 478558, on 1 August 2017, for each Bitcoin (BTC), an owner got 1 Bitcoin Cash (BCH)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash

BSV did not exist at this point in time.

Bitcoin SV (BSV): Forked (from BCH) at block (height) 556766, on 15 November 2018, for each Bitcoin Cash (BCH), an owner got 1 Bitcoin SV (BSV).

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash#2018_split_to_create_Bitcoin_SV

Historical transactions are the same and are present on each chain up to the point of the respective fork(s).

Each fork continues on its own chain.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bitcoin_forks

CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.

#CraigIsNotSatoshi

Again, BSV is a copy of a copy of original Bitcoin (BTC) which was forked at BCH block height #556767. It's in the BSV 'source code' repo. here:

- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE

Perhaps someone could kindly produce a correct info graphic to easily debunk this ?

...

BSV self-moderated thread deleting posts ...

The lengths people on this thread to defame people in the BSV community really shows fear. Very bullish on BSV, transaction volume now exceeding BTC on a daily basis!!!!

Facts don’t lie..

Sv.coin.dance

Bsv more profitable to mine and transact. Fact.
Fear is real, activity in thread in recent time proves that.
No such thing as bad publicity.

Wrong ! No fear here whatsoever.

Simply presenting hard facts to prove that CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.

This is the response we are undertaking in regards to BSV continually claiming to be original Bitcoin (BTC).

CSW has provided no proof to the community here or elsewhere, hard evidence exists to the contrary.

The  #faketoshi  fraud  TIMELINE
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/mylegacykit.html
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/ponsdeserres.html
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/jimmy007forsure.html

SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-bitcoin-sv-bsv-fake-team-member-and-plagiarized-white-paper-5149062

This will continue until you recognize and acknowledge the above. Look at the despicable actions of the people you are supporting.

By supporting BSV you are complicit in the attempt to 'hijack' the original Bitcoin (BTC) project, are you not?

Mate you’ve wasted hours with the same character arguments against Craig that have no relevance to bitcoin Sv. Look at your posts, you’re clearly heavily invested in making sure bitcoin Sv does not succeed. You need better arguments. You are scared.

Not your mate. Try actually reading and digesting the information and answering the question ...

Why am I scared ? Are you threatening me ?

...

BSV self-moderated thread deleting posts (again) ...


Mate you’ve wasted hours with the same character arguments against Craig that have no relevance to bitcoin Sv. Look at your posts, you’re clearly heavily invested in making sure bitcoin Sv does not succeed. You need better arguments. You are scared.



My guess is that as bitcointalk user 30. One of the first bitcoin exchange operators and someone who actually spoke to the real Satoshi Nakamoto when bitcoin was in its very early stages that BitcoinFX is in a unique position to judge someone claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Craig has made lots of claims about BSV and about Bitcoin. His character and overall conduct is very relevant to the discussion.

It is always called FUD right up until things go wrong. Then it becomes known as "prior warnings".


Proof of what?

Bought an old account?

Did he sign?

This is high quality nonsens

But good all see it for free

 Grin

...snip...


Yes I have signed actually and I'm the originator of my own account.

Verifying my (old) zero balance wallet address for blockchain research etc.,
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/verifying-my-old-zero-balance-wallet-address-for-blockchain-research-etc-4630066

ALL coins were spent long ago for anyone who is reading this
- in fact some of you may have a few of them in your wallets!

Verifying my (old) zero balance wallet address for forum account recovery etc.,

1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp

Code:
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am not Satoshi Nakamoto. Are you?
42/ is the answer.
Be seeing you at The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
0.00000000 - BitcoinFX - bitcointalk.org - July 9th, 2018
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp
HMoTNpmqieWmcIvF/aMTCZlLqAuYnrWuQJk45S0pXK4pFOAB/j2WBTkA5KEGSpJQTclPL3ehaTSdPpV9Ivq+lC0=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

https://brainwalletx.github.io/#verify?vrAddr=1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp&vrMsg=I%20am%20not%20Satoshi%20Nakamoto.%20Are%20you%3F%0A42%2F%20is%20the%20answer.%0ABe%20seeing%20you%20at%20The%20Restaurant%20at%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Universe%3F%0A0.00000000%20-%20BitcoinFX%20-%20bitcointalk.org%20-%20July%209th%2C%202018&vrSig=HMoTNpmqieWmcIvF%2FaMTCZlLqAuYnrWuQJk45S0pXK4pFOAB%2Fj2WBTkA5KEGSpJQTclPL3ehaTSdPpV9Ivq%2BlC0%3D

...snip...


Now ask yourself why can't CSW sign any old wallets or even produce any keys or valid evidence or access any original Satoshi accounts.

I'll tell you why ...

CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.

Try actually reading and digesting the information presented. You might actually learn something.

CSW cannot even answer basic questions about real Bitcoin history.

Roll Eyes

...

STORMZY - KNOW ME FROM
- https://youtu.be/PxbzujA69DA *NSFW*
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
#HappyHalloween


Because big blocks are more profitable?

And there you have it. They don't care about cryto currency, they're only in it for profit. After having watched the video the other day of Craig, I was left with the feeling that he is exactly the same way. All he seems to care about is getting in bed with the banks, corporations and the like just so he can get rich and nothing more.

Indeed.

You BSV folks actually believe this guy is Satoshi Nakamoto ... This guy ...  Cheesy

"We did warn you...HE'S HERE! 😱😧🎃

#HappyHalloween #Halloween19 #BSV #BitcoinSV #PumpkinManCraig"


- https://youtu.be/gHo79k6rv3M

- https://twitter.com/RealCoinGeek/status/1189845193933180936

That is scarily pathetic.

CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.

...

"This is tooo funny, I set this reminder a year ago when $BSV fork was happening.  CSW said on several occasions he was going to rekt all privacy coins by releasing his priv breaking info🤦‍♂️ , add this to the long list of groundbreaking tech/data "soon to be released"...  Snooze!"



- https://twitter.com/SirLamboMoon/status/1189892866153361408

Cheesy

...

"Craig Wright - $BTC & $LTC dead by November 15, 2019

Who remembers Craig's claim that he would reveal something something SegWit something, Bitcoin killed?

There you go. 50, 49, 48, ... 🍿🍿🍿"




- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1177727724649156608

Roll Eyes

...

"Now that I'm on it anyway: how about the November 2018 BCH hashwar dump-of-BTC-threat, combined with a Satoshi stash dump in 2019! Wow! 😂"



- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1178044481679056901

...

"Next. That same month, on November 3, 2018, Craig made the "2 years of no trade. Bitcoin will die" threat to Roger Ver.

I think he's still busy figuring out how that "no trade" actually works, because ever since, it was BSV being delisted from several major exchanges! 🤦‍♂️"




- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1178053308822544389

Lips sealed
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
Is the BSV forum account showing a SegWit address on it's signature?



Maybe it's multi-sig. I didn't bother to look.
legendary
Activity: 3276
Merit: 2442
Theymos! Please help! Close this troll's topic.

Nutildah - is scam. Bitcoin SV - is not scam. Wake up

If you think nutildah is scam, gather you evidences and create a topic about it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

Bsv is scam and anyone who supports this shit is as guilty as the main funders/creators (csw & ayre) of this shitcoin.

Also stop asking for help from theymos you look more retarded than you already are.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF

The most important and relevant bit ...

... "Background

The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society.

Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas. It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. " ...

- http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/

...

- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flaunter

Cheesy

...

The original Bitcoin whitepaper has no copyright or any form of licensing whatsoever.
- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

It isn't even copyleft. It is literally copy left.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

"@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED"

...

Only Signed and Verified will do i.e. Cryptographically assured (as above).

Cool

Copyright is automatic. It does not have to be displayed or enforced.

However - there was a conscious choice by Satoshi Nakamoto to publish it on the cypherpunks mailing list.

This makes it subject to the CPL of the mailing list - which makes it public domain.
Satoshi received consideration in return (the ability to distribute the publication) so (in my opinion) it is a legally binding contract.


Indeed this is one for the lawyers to argue over. Are we assuming Satoshi was an American based in America here, for example ...

3 Commonly Misunderstood U.S. Copyright Concepts
- https://www.copyrightlaws.com/u-s-copyright-law-misinformation/

International copyright treaties
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_treaties

Universal Copyright Convention
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention

Public domain
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Again, I believe that it is a valid legal argument that only the proven originator can enforce.

This also goes a long way in explaining CSW's claims and actions as a 'bad actor' and impostor here.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1926
฿ear ride on the rainbow slide

The most important and relevant bit ...

... "Background

The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society.

Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas. It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. " ...

- http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/

...

- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flaunter

Cheesy

...

The original Bitcoin whitepaper has no copyright or any form of licensing whatsoever.
- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

It isn't even copyleft. It is literally copy left.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

"@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED"

...

Only Signed and Verified will do i.e. Cryptographically assured (as above).

Cool

Copyright is automatic. It does not have to be displayed or enforced.

However - there was a conscious choice by Satoshi Nakamoto to publish it on the cypherpunks mailing list.

This makes it subject to the CPL of the mailing list - which makes it public domain.
Satoshi received consideration in return (the ability to distribute the publication) so (in my opinion) it is a legally binding contract.
full member
Activity: 626
Merit: 234
Please help! Theymos! Close this troll's topic.

BSV - is not scam
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
*Satire*
Please help! Satoshi! Close this troll's topic.

BSV - is scam

*More Satire*
Uganda knuckles vs Ugandan knuckles
- https://youtu.be/dep1MrobOq4
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
This is an interesting discussion (see below)  regarding whether the original whitepaper is open source or whether copyright applies.

The release of the whitepaper was by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list.  
The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/


How convenient for the next public display of ignorance to come so quickly. Copyright is established the instant a work is affixed in tangible form. That copyright exists fully independent if any registration thereof. Absent any explicit delegation of rights to the public at large by its creator, the Bitcoin white paper is not public domain.

The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/

So that is still for the jury to decide.

Quote
The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated work or any derived or modified work in any manner they choose. Works distributed under the CPL are in the Public Domain.


Cypherpunks of which Satoshi Nakamoto (and later CSW) were members of clearly state:

Quote
The enforcement of IP law and anonymity are in direct conflict. To fully enforce IP laws, anonymity would have to be outlawed. Cypherpunks believe this would be a bad thing, because control of information imparts power, and anonymity gives individuals control over disclosure of information about themselves and their actions.

So there are two scenarios:

CSW is not Satoshi Nakamoto in which case he is presenting fraudulent documents and attempting to commit a fraud.

CSW is Satoshi Nakamoto and breached the moral principles of the group of people that directly assisted him with the creation of bitcoin.
Used their knowledge, skills and time in the creation of something that he later would try to claim IP rights to contrary to the groups goals. Resulting in a feeling of huge betrayal.

Your choice. Which do you pick ?

The most important and relevant bit ...

... "Background

The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society.

Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas. It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. " ...


- http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/

...

- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flaunter

Cheesy

...

The original Bitcoin whitepaper has no copyright or any form of licensing whatsoever.

- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

It isn't even copyleft. It is literally copy left.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

"@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED"

...

Only Signed and Verified will do i.e. Cryptographically assured (as above).

Cool

Yes Satoshi Nakamoto was a clever bast*rd indeed.

CSW's and nChain's patents are likely Prior Art i.e. worthless and unenforceable without said cryptographically assured proof.

Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1926
฿ear ride on the rainbow slide
This is an interesting discussion (see below)  regarding whether the original whitepaper is open source or whether copyright applies.

The release of the whitepaper was by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list.  
The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/


How convenient for the next public display of ignorance to come so quickly. Copyright is established the instant a work is affixed in tangible form. That copyright exists fully independent if any registration thereof. Absent any explicit delegation of rights to the public at large by its creator, the Bitcoin white paper is not public domain.

The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/

So that is still for the jury to decide.

Quote
The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated work or any derived or modified work in any manner they choose. Works distributed under the CPL are in the Public Domain.


Cypherpunks of which Satoshi Nakamoto (and later CSW) were members of clearly state:

Quote
The enforcement of IP law and anonymity are in direct conflict. To fully enforce IP laws, anonymity would have to be outlawed. Cypherpunks believe this would be a bad thing, because control of information imparts power, and anonymity gives individuals control over disclosure of information about themselves and their actions.

So there are two scenarios:

CSW is not Satoshi Nakamoto in which case he is presenting fraudulent documents and attempting to commit a fraud.

CSW is Satoshi Nakamoto and breached the moral principles of the group of people that directly assisted him with the creation of bitcoin.
Used their knowledge, skills and time in the creation of something that he later would try to claim IP rights to contrary to the groups goals. Resulting in a feeling of exploitation and huge betrayal.

Your choice. Which do you pick ?
Pages:
Jump to: