https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1311272694554546176
Topic: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper - page 5. (Read 25829 times)
September 30, 2020, 08:34:00 AM
Our Craig's 100% record remains intact despite attempt after attempt to dethrone it. It might be the wrong direction he originally desired but it's still noteworthy.
https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1311272694554546176
https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1311272694554546176
September 10, 2020, 12:27:06 PM
Referenced for legal pursuit (in case of deletion);
1. Are you talking about me or to me ?
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.188
2. ...
3. ...
...
BSV is NOT a viable protocol.
Big blocks are a scaling problem NOT a scaling solution.
The BSV blockchain will become increasingly bloated with pointless and useless data ...
If / when utility ever increases (and transaction fees will then be higher) the BSV blockchain will become increasingly centralized and infeasible to synchronize or utilize, especially for micro-transactions, which could become impossible (without a layered solution).
So called BSV developers are literally building castles in someone else's sandbox.
Craig Wright has failed to provide any proof that he was/is satoshi and/or that he had anything whatsoever to do with creating Bitcoin.
He as presented otherwise ...
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html
BSV is a fork of BCH which is a fork of original Bitcoin BTC.
The fact that BSV is a fork and not the original Bitcoin is contained within your license agreement ...
- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE
... "The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" ...
Bitcoin remains BTC at https://bitcoin.org
- https://web.archive.org/web/20090303195936/http://bitcoin.org/
Satoshi didn't want Bitcoin forks ...
...
"Another reason why BSV will sink into oblivion. Their low quality patents (mostly hold by nChain, a Calvin Ayre controlled vehicle) have now become totally worthless & unsellable."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1304095691459964929
Notice to the legendary armyTrolls.
Hello little one, I see you've come back to spit out your venom with your multiple nicknames (yes, you've been betrayed by technology). Don't think you are masked just because you live on a boat (belonging to your uncle) docked in south east asia with a masked flag. You must miss your aunt's room....
Note, the BSV protocol is viable. Talented teams and volunteers like us are building and giving out new application features almost every week or so so that everyone can explore and live their own experiences in the BitcoinSV ecosystem.
I've been looking at your history and I notice that you are a sick man who is very used to denigrating and spitting on people's work. So at your stage nothing can be done to give you a reasonable purpose.
What are you doing to help? Do you create value, jobs, or help with technological outreach? My big finger tells me that your answer will be very much oriented towards: NOTHING of all this.
Note that BSV has been deployed for almost 2 years. There is no scam here and there has never been one.
The scam is your defamatory words and repeated accusations. You've been doing this for over 5 years now according to your history, so this is well before the creation of BSV, which you are particularly targeting. In the end you don't even realize that you are wasting your own time.
We will continue me and my developer friends to support BSV and other innovative projects in spite of your pathetic perpetual attacks to denigrate the advances made and to come.
You want troll war, ok go ahead... This is not our fight. Readers will make the difference anyway. Keep on judging people, keep on being relentless, keep on denigrating as it seems to make you enjoy it. By the way, I invite you not to waste too much time here and elsewhere because if you keep on not taking care of your asian girlfriend someone else will do it for you and she will leave you hanging on her arm so you might lose something precious (or she will open her eyes...).
Whether you like it or not it is so, we support Craig, Calvin, BSV, Ryan, Steeve, Dan, ......... and all those who gravitate towards building a usefulness.
Be assured that time is against you and your actions.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Nico
Hello little one, I see you've come back to spit out your venom with your multiple nicknames (yes, you've been betrayed by technology). Don't think you are masked just because you live on a boat (belonging to your uncle) docked in south east asia with a masked flag. You must miss your aunt's room....
Note, the BSV protocol is viable. Talented teams and volunteers like us are building and giving out new application features almost every week or so so that everyone can explore and live their own experiences in the BitcoinSV ecosystem.
I've been looking at your history and I notice that you are a sick man who is very used to denigrating and spitting on people's work. So at your stage nothing can be done to give you a reasonable purpose.
What are you doing to help? Do you create value, jobs, or help with technological outreach? My big finger tells me that your answer will be very much oriented towards: NOTHING of all this.
Note that BSV has been deployed for almost 2 years. There is no scam here and there has never been one.
The scam is your defamatory words and repeated accusations. You've been doing this for over 5 years now according to your history, so this is well before the creation of BSV, which you are particularly targeting. In the end you don't even realize that you are wasting your own time.
We will continue me and my developer friends to support BSV and other innovative projects in spite of your pathetic perpetual attacks to denigrate the advances made and to come.
You want troll war, ok go ahead... This is not our fight. Readers will make the difference anyway. Keep on judging people, keep on being relentless, keep on denigrating as it seems to make you enjoy it. By the way, I invite you not to waste too much time here and elsewhere because if you keep on not taking care of your asian girlfriend someone else will do it for you and she will leave you hanging on her arm so you might lose something precious (or she will open her eyes...).
Whether you like it or not it is so, we support Craig, Calvin, BSV, Ryan, Steeve, Dan, ......... and all those who gravitate towards building a usefulness.
Be assured that time is against you and your actions.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Nico
1. Are you talking about me or to me ?
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.188
2. ...
3. ...
...
BSV is NOT a viable protocol.
Big blocks are a scaling problem NOT a scaling solution.
The BSV blockchain will become increasingly bloated with pointless and useless data ...
If / when utility ever increases (and transaction fees will then be higher) the BSV blockchain will become increasingly centralized and infeasible to synchronize or utilize, especially for micro-transactions, which could become impossible (without a layered solution).
...snip...
... Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
...snip...
... Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
...snip...
So called BSV developers are literally building castles in someone else's sandbox.
Craig Wright has failed to provide any proof that he was/is satoshi and/or that he had anything whatsoever to do with creating Bitcoin.
He as presented otherwise ...
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html
BSV is a fork of BCH which is a fork of original Bitcoin BTC.
The fact that BSV is a fork and not the original Bitcoin is contained within your license agreement ...
- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE
... "The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" ...
Bitcoin remains BTC at https://bitcoin.org
- https://web.archive.org/web/20090303195936/http://bitcoin.org/
Satoshi didn't want Bitcoin forks ...
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
...
"Another reason why BSV will sink into oblivion. Their low quality patents (mostly hold by nChain, a Calvin Ayre controlled vehicle) have now become totally worthless & unsellable."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1304095691459964929
July 04, 2020, 05:18:24 AM
This is how CSW should proved that he is Satoshi,
Charlie Lee signing into Litecoin Genesis block, proving that he is the creator.
https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017
Charlie Lee signing into Litecoin Genesis block, proving that he is the creator.
https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017
June 28, 2020, 07:57:16 AM
Wonder whos dumping this shitcoin . Faketoshi perhaps?
June 26, 2020, 07:27:43 AM
***snip the cr@p***
Sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest statements I've read on BCT, & I've read a few.
Note to self: Don't look for news @BitcoinNewsMagazine.
June 23, 2020, 06:57:27 AM
Who is trying to hold down bitcoin price?
What makes you think that is even a thing? Given the sketchy nature of the Tether money-printing machine, coupled with near-incessant wash-trading across multiple exchanges, absent any major institutional rush for bitcoin there's little reason to believe its price is being suppressed and every reason to suspect it may be somewhat inflated.
Do Calvin Ayre and CSW hold enough bitcoin
So far the only BTC Craig claims to own are in wallets controlled by other people who have cryptographically called out his bullshit, or contain stolen coins. This is a guy who has supposedly conducted multi-million-dollar business deals through trading in privkeys or letters of assignment to bitcoin which never move.
His whole shtick has been to declare ownership of things he has no proof of ever owning and trying to con the ATO out of millions of dollars in rebates for claimed R&D costs he can't prove he ever actually funded.
June 22, 2020, 03:19:17 PM
Do Calvin Ayre and CSW hold enough bitcoin in reserve that they are able to manipulate the market to this extent?
What?! Do you seriously think that?....
Is that gonna be a BitcoinNewsMagazine headline.....LOL
June 22, 2020, 01:53:06 PM
Over the past 9 months we have broken through $10,000 briefly but that has always been followed up by a significant decline. Who is trying to hold down bitcoin price? Do Calvin Ayre and CSW hold enough bitcoin in reserve that they are able to manipulate the market to this extent? If so one wonders when they will run out of bitcoin to sell.
June 21, 2020, 11:22:33 AM
I read through the Gavin Andresen deposition (well, skimmed through it as there is 400+ pages) and found some highlights to share. You can read them for yourself here (part 1, part 2) if you want. I suggest looking for his bulkier responses as some of it does contain insights into the history of the development of Bitcoin that perhaps were previously unknown.
In all, I was kind of disheartened that he still chooses to believe it is more likely than not that Craig actually signed a message from the famous block which sent a tx to Hal Finney, but at the same time he admits he thinks Craig was dishonest with him when he made his blog post that was supposed to prove to the world that he was Satoshi, by producing a b.s. signature that was quickly debunked as meaningless.
I can't reconcile how Gavin can think Craig is untruthful while at the same time clinging to his assertion that he "probably" signed the message using the private key from that block. Most likely he just doesn't want to have to admit he was wrong. We all know how he feels about BTC these days, and its a double-blow to have to admit that one of BTC's (supposed but not really) rivals is led by a fraud. I don't think he has any money in the game or that he is somehow "on the side" of Calvin and Craig -- most likely its simply a matter of protecting his ego.
page 25
page 26
page 46
page 88
page 131
page 157
What's probably more interesting is Craig's deposition from March 18th released in the same set of documents (on June 19th). Craig is clearly on the defensive here, being very argumentative and rude with the plaintiff's counsel. Here are some of my favorite highlights:
page 13
page 19
page 32
page 56
------
I only got up to about page 100 on that one but I'll add more later, have to take a break...
In all, I was kind of disheartened that he still chooses to believe it is more likely than not that Craig actually signed a message from the famous block which sent a tx to Hal Finney, but at the same time he admits he thinks Craig was dishonest with him when he made his blog post that was supposed to prove to the world that he was Satoshi, by producing a b.s. signature that was quickly debunked as meaningless.
I can't reconcile how Gavin can think Craig is untruthful while at the same time clinging to his assertion that he "probably" signed the message using the private key from that block. Most likely he just doesn't want to have to admit he was wrong. We all know how he feels about BTC these days, and its a double-blow to have to admit that one of BTC's (supposed but not really) rivals is led by a fraud. I don't think he has any money in the game or that he is somehow "on the side" of Calvin and Craig -- most likely its simply a matter of protecting his ego.
page 25
Quote
Q Sitting here today, do you believe you had communications with Satoshi Nakamoto after this email? (ed: regarding Satoshi's last email to Gavin sent in April 2011)
A No.
A No.
page 26
Quote
Q Why did you stop being the lead core developer at Bitcoin?
A Several reasons. The most immediate reason was I believed that, for Bitcoin to grow, there needed to be more than one implementation; there needed -- needed to be more than one software that people were using.
And so I had taken on the role of chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, and I wanted that role to be not working on one particular implementation of Bitcoin, not one particular open-source software project, but to be kind of bigger picture and try to encourage other implementations of the Bitcoin protocol and to think about kind of bigger issues facing Bitcoin.
A Several reasons. The most immediate reason was I believed that, for Bitcoin to grow, there needed to be more than one implementation; there needed -- needed to be more than one software that people were using.
And so I had taken on the role of chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, and I wanted that role to be not working on one particular implementation of Bitcoin, not one particular open-source software project, but to be kind of bigger picture and try to encourage other implementations of the Bitcoin protocol and to think about kind of bigger issues facing Bitcoin.
page 46
Quote
I have my doubts on -- I have many, many doubts in my head about what parts of -- what things Craig told me are true and what are not true.
page 88
Quote
...I did not expect the private proving session to have as much weight as it did. So there were certainly, you know, pos -- there are places in the private proving session where I could have been fooled, where somebody could have switched out the software that was being used or, perhaps, the laptop that was delivered was not a brand-new laptop, and it had been tampered with in some way. I was also jet lagged.
And, again, I was not in the head space of this is going to prove to the world that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. I was in the head space of, you know, this will prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. And my doubts arise because the proof that was presented to me is very different from the pseudo proof that was later presented to the world.
And, again, I was not in the head space of this is going to prove to the world that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. I was in the head space of, you know, this will prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. And my doubts arise because the proof that was presented to me is very different from the pseudo proof that was later presented to the world.
page 131
Quote
So the blog post that Craig released was not at all what I expected him to release. I expected him to release a very simple, you know, I am Satoshi, here is some -- here is a simple message signed with an early key from an early block.
Instead, he released a very wacky supposed proof that actually wasn't a proof of anything but was incredibly technical and hard to follow, and I was as surprised as anybody to see that. And it -- it took, I don't know, a few hours, a day, for somebody to -- to figure out what all that technical gobbledygook actually meant and to show that it wasn't actually a proof of anything.
Q So he didn't even almost prove he was Satoshi?
A Correct. Anybody could have produced that gobbledygook proof.
Q Why didn't he release a simple signed message?
A I don't know.
Instead, he released a very wacky supposed proof that actually wasn't a proof of anything but was incredibly technical and hard to follow, and I was as surprised as anybody to see that. And it -- it took, I don't know, a few hours, a day, for somebody to -- to figure out what all that technical gobbledygook actually meant and to show that it wasn't actually a proof of anything.
Q So he didn't even almost prove he was Satoshi?
A Correct. Anybody could have produced that gobbledygook proof.
Q Why didn't he release a simple signed message?
A I don't know.
page 157
Quote
Q You said that he -- he led you to believe he wanted one thing from you, and really you thought he really wanted something else.
A I suspect -- yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, I -- I thought that my piece would be part of a larger whole of him proving beyond a reasonable doubt to the world that he was Satoshi Nakamoto. And I thought that that's what he wanted from me. And then he did not complete the rest of the puzzle, and so that makes me wonder, is that really what he wanted from me, or did he have some other ulterior motive for flying me to London and -- and doing this -- the proof session? And I don't know what that other motive would be.
A I suspect -- yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, I -- I thought that my piece would be part of a larger whole of him proving beyond a reasonable doubt to the world that he was Satoshi Nakamoto. And I thought that that's what he wanted from me. And then he did not complete the rest of the puzzle, and so that makes me wonder, is that really what he wanted from me, or did he have some other ulterior motive for flying me to London and -- and doing this -- the proof session? And I don't know what that other motive would be.
What's probably more interesting is Craig's deposition from March 18th released in the same set of documents (on June 19th). Craig is clearly on the defensive here, being very argumentative and rude with the plaintiff's counsel. Here are some of my favorite highlights:
page 13
Quote
I answered the question. If your comprehension is not adequate to understand it, I apologise. My question has been answered.
page 19
Quote
Q. Did you and Dave Kleiman work on a number of patents together?
A. Mr. Kleiman has never worked on any patent in his life, to my knowledge. He has not filed a patent, he has not written a patent, he 1 has not been involved in the research that has led to a patent, he has not filed a paper academically leading to a patent. I have filed around -- at the moment I believe it is just over 1,000 patents. In the pipeline we have 1,600 papers and by the end of the current backlog of research we will have around 6,000 patents, placing me at approximately 500% of the total life work of Thomas Edison.
Q. I did not ask you where you placed in the total life work of Tom Edison. I simply asked whether you and Dave Kleiman worked on a number of patents together. That's yes or no question. Please try to answer the question I'm asking you.
...
Q. Dr. Wright did you tell the ATO that you and Dave Kleiman worked on a number of patents together?
...
A. I just answered that question. I do not really care if you like the fact that I didn't use yes or no. I answered the question. If your comprehension of that question is inadequate, too bad.
A. Mr. Kleiman has never worked on any patent in his life, to my knowledge. He has not filed a patent, he has not written a patent, he 1 has not been involved in the research that has led to a patent, he has not filed a paper academically leading to a patent. I have filed around -- at the moment I believe it is just over 1,000 patents. In the pipeline we have 1,600 papers and by the end of the current backlog of research we will have around 6,000 patents, placing me at approximately 500% of the total life work of Thomas Edison.
Q. I did not ask you where you placed in the total life work of Tom Edison. I simply asked whether you and Dave Kleiman worked on a number of patents together. That's yes or no question. Please try to answer the question I'm asking you.
...
Q. Dr. Wright did you tell the ATO that you and Dave Kleiman worked on a number of patents together?
...
A. I just answered that question. I do not really care if you like the fact that I didn't use yes or no. I answered the question. If your comprehension of that question is inadequate, too bad.
page 32
Quote
My understanding is that Mr. Kleiman did not do any work on W&K software. Subsequent to 2013, after his death, which I did not realise at the time, if Mr. Kleiman -- the current Ira -- want to have all out, is that any monies that I had given David Kleiman to basically build software ended up basically going into Silk Road and other sources to supply a drug habit that Mr. Kleiman hid from certain people but not everyone. So zero software was developed in W&K, but if you want to destroy David Kleiman's reputation and drag him through this then that is your choice.
page 56
Quote
Q. Does nChain have ability to control this litigation with respect to the intellectual property?
...
A. No. nChain is not involved in any way in this litigation. I know that the people funding Mr. Kleiman at the moment, including Tether and Kraken, seek to shut me down because their whole existence in their Ponzi requires that I be seen as a fraud, but quite simply nChain has no, and I mean no -- I will reiterate that no -- involvement in this case whatsoever. No funding, no anything.
...
A. No. nChain is not involved in any way in this litigation. I know that the people funding Mr. Kleiman at the moment, including Tether and Kraken, seek to shut me down because their whole existence in their Ponzi requires that I be seen as a fraud, but quite simply nChain has no, and I mean no -- I will reiterate that no -- involvement in this case whatsoever. No funding, no anything.
------
I only got up to about page 100 on that one but I'll add more later, have to take a break...
June 16, 2020, 10:42:20 AM
LOL. Diehard Faketoshi supporters in their last throes of denial.
"The more evidence of fraud, the further the BSVers will retreat into batshit conspiracies. Unless mentally ill, this is dishonest scamming."
- https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/1272793280657321985
June 15, 2020, 10:40:47 AM
^ muppet ..
Unattributed "name calling" = the lowest of the low.
The descent of BSV into crypto-anarchy is going to be spectacular ...
The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.
The majority and official version is BTC. Bitcoin = BTC.
...
The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
were there not two versions of the client early one? the official of course but also a second one written from scratch independently updated to be protocol level compatible by someone else. satoshi could ignore it so no extra work for him. as a second client can be useful in case a bug takes out one version. but core has been amazingly robust though.
but maybe im thinking ethereum.. i know that one had a couple.
The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,)
BSV and BCH are the minority forks, clearly also defined by origin, history, market capitalization and the user base.
Unique chain forks i.e. (altcoins from a unique genesis block and with a unique timechain) are not the type of forks satoshi was referring to here.
BTC is both the original and the majority chain i.e. BTC is Bitcoin.
BCH and BSV are effectively financial derivative (copies) of BTC up to and including a certain block height ...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)
- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE
Code:
"... 2 - The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof,
can only be used on the Bitcoin SV blockchains. The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" and
the test blockchains that are supported by the un-modified Software. ..."
Again, the real satoshi clearly described why chain forks are bad and exactly how they will end ... ugly.
...
"Will we see court Florida action this week? Next week? 😱 "
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1272492833816150024
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1272492833816150024
The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
...
The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,)
No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain.
What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
...snip...
Not so and your entirely missing the point that the real satoshi was making.
BSV is the menace to the network, both the forked chain and the bastardized software implementation. No distinction, BCH included.
BTC is the original Bitcoin implementation.
BSV (and BCH) are no longer compatible nor in lockstep with the original Bitcoin (BTC).
Craig Wright is NOT satoshi.
BSV = Bastardized Shit Version
June 13, 2020, 05:55:59 AM
Ooh. A new challenger enters.
Yes. Not only do I believe every Mark Karpeles has ever said, I believe everything that has ever been written on the internet as a general rule of thumb.
Ok but really: let's delve a bit into the situation, just for fun.
The address in question: 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF
has been the subject of much scrutiny for several years.
It was noticeably mentioned in a court document in a lawsuit by Jed McCaleb:
https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgoxinsolvency/comments/7q9kar/i_found_79k_of_stolen_mtgox_coins/
The address was empty prior to its receipt of the stolen GOX coins. The transaction took place on March 1st, 2011:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114
It was mentioned in the chat log between Karpeles and McCaleb on the day that the attack happened, waaay before Wright claimed ownership of it or even began his whole Faketoshi saga. Its been associated with MtGOX for years.
What's more likely? Karpeles was lying to McCaleb, who never questioned his findings, or that Faketoshi got caught in yet another lie?
Do you believe everything Mark "falsifying data to inflate Mt. Gox’s holdings by $33.5 million" Karpeles tells you?
Do you trust his expertise gained from years of running an amateur-hour-shitshow-exchange so easily hacked?
Do you trust his expertise gained from years of running an amateur-hour-shitshow-exchange so easily hacked?
Yes. Not only do I believe every Mark Karpeles has ever said, I believe everything that has ever been written on the internet as a general rule of thumb.
Ok but really: let's delve a bit into the situation, just for fun.
The address in question: 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF
has been the subject of much scrutiny for several years.
It was noticeably mentioned in a court document in a lawsuit by Jed McCaleb:
https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgoxinsolvency/comments/7q9kar/i_found_79k_of_stolen_mtgox_coins/
The address was empty prior to its receipt of the stolen GOX coins. The transaction took place on March 1st, 2011:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114
It was mentioned in the chat log between Karpeles and McCaleb on the day that the attack happened, waaay before Wright claimed ownership of it or even began his whole Faketoshi saga. Its been associated with MtGOX for years.
What's more likely? Karpeles was lying to McCaleb, who never questioned his findings, or that Faketoshi got caught in yet another lie?
June 12, 2020, 07:41:10 PM
Even the cultists are finding it hard to believe:
June 12, 2020, 03:18:50 PM
Do you believe everything Mark "falsifying data to inflate Mt. Gox’s holdings by $33.5 million" Karpeles tells you?
Got myself a real simple formula - anyone who is not Craig is automatically more credible than him by a factor of around 1000x. I would sooner believe Bernie Madoff with his hands in my pockets and his johnson all the way up me while laughing hysterically at my stupidity.
June 12, 2020, 02:51:04 PM
Do you believe everything Mark "falsifying data to inflate Mt. Gox’s holdings by $33.5 million" Karpeles tells you?
Do you trust his expertise gained from years of running an amateur-hour-shitshow-exchange so easily hacked?
Do you trust his expertise gained from years of running an amateur-hour-shitshow-exchange so easily hacked?
LOL, keep denying...
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html
June 12, 2020, 02:21:16 PM
Do you believe everything Mark "falsifying data to inflate Mt. Gox’s holdings by $33.5 million" Karpeles tells you?
Do you trust his expertise gained from years of running an amateur-hour-shitshow-exchange so easily hacked?
Do you trust his expertise gained from years of running an amateur-hour-shitshow-exchange so easily hacked?
June 12, 2020, 01:04:45 PM
What a fucking bench of full grown retards.
Faketoshi's such a moron without any morality whatsoever.
Faketoshi's such a moron without any morality whatsoever.
June 12, 2020, 11:33:59 AM
Beat me to it. What's also darling is Mark Karpeles' response to the news:
https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/1271473195921465344
Confirmed, Faketoshi is the MtGOX hacker, per his lawyers.
https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/1271473195921465344
Confirmed, Faketoshi is the MtGOX hacker, per his lawyers.
June 12, 2020, 11:29:34 AM
The pure gold keeps on dripping.
https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/1271468034931036160
And I guess this implicates him as the Mt Gox hacker? I was under the impression he had his 0.1 BTC on there and got caught up but once again the curtain is pulled back to reveal that game of 4D chess.
https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/1271468034931036160
And I guess this implicates him as the Mt Gox hacker? I was under the impression he had his 0.1 BTC on there and got caught up but once again the curtain is pulled back to reveal that game of 4D chess.
June 09, 2020, 06:57:28 AM
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear ...
#WeAreAllHodlonaut
...
Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.
...
Jamie T - Sticks 'n' Stones (Official Video)
- https://youtu.be/r9APEZMeH0o
"..."In response to each exposed forgery or lie, [Wright] produces another three to take their place."
Nailed it! That's our guy! ..."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1270283818713395200
BSV = REKT
Nailed it! That's our guy! ..."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1270283818713395200
BSV = REKT
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
#WeAreAllHodlonaut
...
Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.
...
Jamie T - Sticks 'n' Stones (Official Video)
- https://youtu.be/r9APEZMeH0o
Jump to: