Topic: UPDATE CW at conference in London WTF? SCANDAL!!! What really happened? - page 3. (Read 1081 times)

I am not so sure about this and see a slightly different picture. In my opinion, the fan base of CW keeps growing with every new event or announcement.

This is enough to look at the latest BSV price and we can clearly see that the price started to grow from the day of the London forum panel, despite the hall crypto market was in red.

All other cryptocurrencies are correlated to the BTC and copy the moves exactly, only BSV and a couple of others (which we can count of one hand fingers) look like BTC is not influencing them so much as other alts.

This is scary and should be not ignored. BSV is looking strong lately and I am sure this is only the beginning.

That's a page from the "Roger Ver Trolling Cookbook". Be aggressive, and make other person look stupid while winning the debate, be cute and play the victim when losing.


Debating trolls is good for your learning process. I never knew what bilateral meant by gmaxwell until franky1 went on a misinformation rampage about it in this topic. Now everyone knows.

I don't think that's true. Everyone who was going to be convinced of the truth based on evidence is already convinced.

Did you know that email advanced fee fraud scammers who's messages sound like an obvious "Nigerian" scams are believed to more successful than scammers who use more plausible and less well known story?

Most people won't fall for an email scam, you'll make it a dozen messages in with them and they will realize something is wrong and they'll abort before they pay you and you'll waste a lot of time.  If, instead, you spend your time focusing only on the prospective victims who are ignorant enough to have never heard of a nigerian-scam-email and foolish enough to fall for one-- you'll manage to scam more people.  A scammer doesn't want to maximize the number of  people they could scam in infinite time, they want to maximize the rate of successful new victims and every person they talk to burns up their time.  They want to maximize the number of people who fall for it HARD and hand over a lot of money, a person that is saying "hm, maybe.... he might be satoshi, just maybe" is of fairly little use to scammers like wright except as a useful idiot to increase his credibility for others.

Wright actively exploits that competent people with integrity AND competence (like, say, Bitcoin developers) all know that he is an obvious scammer.  He's never going to win that audience over and so he acts in ways to make himself more obvious and more offensive to that audience.  Then when all of those people are saying "this dude is obviously a scammer", he's able to exploit that while pandering to ignorant people: "see how sure they are? obviously they're biased and covering up the truth!".

This works especially well because the cryptocurrency space has attracted  many people with a reflexive distrust of "authority".  That audience is a prime scam target because you can just manipulate them to see whatever is in their own interest as 'authority'. They have problems cooperating to identify and protect themselves from scammers because anyone who starts successfully getting the message out is 'authority', etc.

Indeed, the more chances and venues we are giving to this man, the more he will be making small and big mistakes that can show more that he is just another fake and not the real thing. As one saying goes, the best way to catch the fish is not through its tail but by its big mouth. Oh sorry, Craig Wright does not actually have a big mouth but just enough to let the bait in with the hook and sinker. Actually, I am still inclined to give CW some credit as a good entertainer, this industry will never the same without guys like him giving us some jokes for free. And he can take me to the court with that.

because the "bc1" part is not stored on the blockchain.

wallet software glues it onto the front of the address. it's a wallet standard, and so it's never part of any blockchain data

But if there was an ideal topic for him to derail, it's this one.  I mean, clearly he can't "read the room".  It's basically post after post of "CSW = bad" and yet he wants to be the lone voice saying, without a hint of irony, "but... but...  Core are teh bads" and it's so totally against the tone of the thread that no one could ever take it for anything but the fantasy it is.

In my view, it's better to quarantine him to topics like "CSW = bad: number 472958bajillionandtwelve" rather than spoiling a topic that has the potential to be considerably more informative and useful.  I don't see much worth protecting in this topic aside from gmaxwell's rebuttal. 

Good topic:  report him
Crapfest:  let him flail about harmlessly like a loon

^^^

Strange. Some people on Bitcointalk have this weird habit of doing the conversational equivalent of a massive punch in the face, while they tell you "hey, why so aggressive?"

what on earth could their motivation be?

The proof is in the pudding. Don't be like CSW -- don't be all talk.


Thanks for mentioning this thread. I encourage everybody to post all new, incoming information about how Craig is a fraud in that thread so it can act as an all-in-one resource to help people understand the severity of his deviousness. MicroGuy is encouraged to make his case there: we will listen to what he has to say if he can back it by substantiating evidence.


... And he's managed to do it again in this thread (take the subject off course and make it about politics). I don't delve into Development & Technical Discussion much other than to read on occasion, but I can see how it would be annoying having conversations constantly derailed back to the same overly-trodden rut that never goes anywhere.

I'm having a difficult time figuring out what you are attempting to ask.

The text you are quoting has nothing to do with address types, it is about the old versions having problems "involving large blocks" (see the text you quoted).  In my post two messages up, I state "If you take the very first release of Bitcoin by Satoshi and fix the BDB database problem with blocks >500KB then" -- referring to the same thing.

Versions prior to bitcoin 0.8 would get stuck when blocks are over about 500kb in a manner which is random and different on different nodes (even running the same software).  If you fix that bug, then they process everything else fine.

Address format things are just UI, they're invisible to the blockchain itself.  It's like asking if a photocopier would accept italic type or something.

Franky1 is a consistent shill and over the top liar who abusively exploits many people's lack of experience with technical matters to make claims which are flat on their face untrue.

If you take the very first release of Bitcoin by Satoshi and fix the BDB database problem with blocks >500KB then it will (very slowly) sync and accept the current Bitcoin blockchain. It will reject all those fraudulent fake bitcoin chains, such as "bitcoin cash".  It's been a couple years since I conducted the experiment, but I'm aware of no reason why it would be different now-- it's possible there there were other bugs in the original code which have since been triggered. It's so slow, however, that it's really a pain to test.

If you take Bitcoin 0.8.0 released in Feb 2013 as is with no fixes at all,  it will (very slowly) sync and accept the whole current Bitcoin chain. There are existant 0.8.x nodes running that are happily in sync with the current network so there isn't any ambiguity there.

The word "bilateral" there refers to _hardforks_ that won't just allow themselves to be reorged out if they're a loser in terms of hashrate.  Many of the early insane blocksize cranking hardforks didn't have that property. If the original Bitcoin had or subsequently ever achieved more hashes then the hardfork would simply be erased, potentially unconfirming days/weeks/months of transactions.  It comes from this post.  The word "bilateral" there means two directions: The chain forks off in an different direction *AND* cannot go back.  Bitcoin rejects Bcash blocks (because, among other reasons, the first bcash block warped down the difficulty for their forktime 'instamine') which is what makes it a hardfork,  and Bcash rejects Bitcoin blocks (because they didn't contain the instamine) which makes the hardfork bilateral.

Franky1 somehow takes that and fraudulently claims that Bitcoin was somehow changed to accomplish this, but it wasn't: Bitcoin was written from day one to reject bcash blocks. Suddenly changing the block difficulty is a violation of Bitcoin's consensus rules and always has been.

Anyone who tells you Bitcoin's consensus rules were changed in incompatible ways is misleading you, if they claim they were changed in incompatible ways since 2013 they are trying to tell you an over the top absurd lie... probably with the intention of defrauding you into buying some shitty altcoin they are shilling.

Fixing a bug that made blocks getting randomly rejected in a way that prevents consensus even with copies of itself could be argued to be a consensus change by the overly pedantic (like Luke-Jr)-- but even if you accept that pedantic definition there has still been no incompatible consensus change made since 2013... and changing the system to not spontaneously burst into flames is not remotely similar to the kinds of changes altcoins like bcash have made (e.g. significantly abandoning POW consensus, handing a massive windfall to early miners, etc.).

Franky1's consistent lying is part of why he's banned from the technical subforum.  I don't know why the rest of the community on BCT tolerates him shitting all over so many discussions.

Let's pretend you're telling the truth, and that he said it. Is that how you determine "what is Bitcoin?"

It was Roger Ver who was spreading the propaganda that Bitcoin bilaterally split to "Core and Cash". Do you follow what him?


What are you talking about? You are inventing stories, like you invented the story that Nick Szabo introduced "Craig Wright as Satoshi" to the world.


What is your Bitcoin?


Followers of Bitcoin follow the most competent people to maintain the protocol.


Did Nick Szabo "introduce Craig Wright as Satoshi", like you said, or not?


There's a Bitcoin Bible? Haha.

Who needs cryptographic proof when you've got rusty staples?

Craig Wright Relying On ‘Coffee Stains’ And ‘Rusty Staples’ In McCormack Case


He's digging his own grave. I don't see why people get so upset over him being invited to conferences -- give him a little rope and he'll hang himself. He's pathetic.

What choice do you leave us?  

You keep saying we can't have soft forks because you don't approve of it.  But we can and we will.  Not your call.
You keep saying we can't have flag day activations because you don't approve of it.  But we can and we will.  Not your call.
You keep saying we can't disconnect incompatible nodes because you don't approve if it.  But we can and we will.  Not your call.

All the lack of understanding is coming from you.

Stop telling us what we supposedly can't do and we'll stop telling you to piss off, how about that?  You are welcome to be a part of this network, but if you can't abide by what other users are doing and are willing to spend the rest of your life complaining about it, it's only natural people are going to get tired of your shit and tell you to go away.  Try being less obnoxious and maybe we'll learn to tolerate your presence a little better.

1. btc 2018 is not the same rules as bitcoin 2016.. neither is bitcoin cash. hens 2 different directions from the 2016 version. hense why gmax called it a bilateral split. again for emphasis. gmax named it such. not me. again lets get it right. the word bilateral split begun by gmax's utility of the word. it is not a word i invented or started using. the reason i laugh so much is that you want to deny it occuring yet it was the devs that caused it, named it, mandated it.. not me. i simply informed people of the devs actions. if you have an issue of the use of bilateral splits then take that up with those you follow.


2. anyone can say 'troll coz troll' but thats just empty rebuttle of throwing around names without backing it up. luke backed out of his signed agreement to help the community implement segwit+2mb base in 2015-6. and then went on to say he had no big involvement in core to be able to do anything.. and then went on hypocritically disproving that excuse by doing the mandated fork deadline to get what he prefered 1mbsegwit.
which as we all know he achieved. so the blockchain data itself shows that me highlighting the events is not a troll. hense he cannot actually rebut the history. so he just says 'troll because troll' which is empty of substance. he and gmax just hate being called out for their activities and treat publicising thier agenda as an attack so its the 'attack' they consider the trolling not the content/details, as it hits them personally. although the community still should know whats going on. by the way block data shows more truth than luke/gregs selective wording does

3. see there you go again.. 'go to your bitcoin' very naive, immature and lacking of understanding

4. you said followers too you deny there are leaders but who do followers follow. who leads the followers. .. its simple english
for there to be on there has to be the other

5. do you really want to put your head in the sand that CW's first public appearance was at a conference with nick szabo... come on. they even made a video of it. but hey be ignorant. it seems to be your gameplay
as for luke., gmax... if you think no one should hold the devs accountable, no one should be critical/criticize them. then im guessing your next act is to make a bitcoin bible announcing dves gods?.. people SHOULD be critical of devs and hold them to account. anyone with trust/hope, praise are just people who have no understanding of whats really important

enjoy writing your bitcoin bible of your gods and how you want your flock to follow them.
meanwhile many independant people will continue to try to ensure bitcoin doesnt continue on the centralist path your gods wish to lead

Looks like a boy who cried wolf too many times. Unless he presents easily verifiable cryptographic proof, no one is going to believe him.

I think you would have to read my post one more time or watch the video to understand him correctly.

Of course, I don't have any interest in defending C.W. but better to explain this one more time because many people can be confused.

Today, Bitcoin is Bitcoin. How do you determine which is it? You do you research.


First lukedashjr, he said you troll. Now, gmaxwell? Hahaha.


It was sarcasm, not flipflop. But truthfully, no one cares anymore. Go to your Bitcoin.


You said they are leaders, not me.


Why did you skip the part about the lies you made about Nick Szabo, and lukedashjr?

So good that Bitcoin doesn't need speakers, conferences, promotion and all that.

I agree this is comedy gold. Actually I've seen the video like two days ago and give telling that Satoshi plagiarised his work? It gives me a good chuckle. 

And people are going to invite him in conference because the more he open his mouth, the more people will realised that he ain't Satoshi, and the more that he is exposed 100%.