Topic: Updates from the COPA v Craig Wright trial - page 10. (Read 4099 times)

*One forged document

Of course we know that CSW has no real documents which he can use to prove he is Satoshi, so naturally he will try to submit fake ones. That's why expert witnesses are important, because they are able to call his bluff in a way that affects the court proceedings.

That is, assuming whoever is picked for an expert testimonial does not try to withhold evidence, to basically do what you just wrote.


Well at least he didn't believe that the plagiarism was caused by a "malfunctioning Microsoft Word editor"... JFC.

Day six.

Missed the first 30 minutes of the trial this morning but Craig is getting absolutely rekt right now. First time I've seen him red-faced as they are bringing up his Master of Law degree plagiarism haha. If I'm understanding him correctly he's now blaming the degree plagiarism on an editor he hired and also malfunctioning editing software. Even the judge has expressed disbelief asking Craig "how on earth" is this logical. Mind-blowing. Annoys me that they even keep referring to him as Dr Wright, a qualification he quite clearly has not earned.

You can see the evidence that they're discussing here now: https://medium.com/@paintedfrog/craig-wrights-llm-dissertation-is-full-of-plagiarism-f21439ea8a47

"Satoshi" is now trending on twitter.

I mean, even if the court said he was Satoshi, it'd seem more plausible as a scenario that the juries were bribed, or that Craig found a loophole in the law. It is beyond my understanding how can one throw away all the forgeries and evidence of him being completely untrustworthy, and stick to insignificant details-- which ultimately can apply to every individual.

Seems to me like you really want him to be declared as Satoshi, no matter how you argue the opposite. If you didn't, you'd have focused on the evidence and forgeries that have ridiculed him years now. If your stance was neutral, you'd have looked on both that evidence and his "evidence", and reach the conclusion we've all had. You must be personally interested in him winning the case to support him as his unofficial lawyer.

The man who has been fighting with all his might since 2016 to prove that he is Satoshi, only last year decided to open his drawer and see what was in it? This really proves his "genius" in everything he does - and if this "proof" fails what's next - maybe a picture of him and Hal Finney drinking coffee while talking about how Bitcoin is something wonderful?


1 document that may appear to be legitimate and 499 documents that are proven to be fabricated only prove that he is still a scammer who forges everything he can get his hands on. You can think whatever you want, but that man you think is Satoshi is not even capable of things that children do in elementary school, let alone something as complex as the invention of Bitcoin.

Actually , i dislike coingeek , there are some articles that worth reading from specific authors but many things written regarding csw are way over biased . I dislike Kurt Wuckert Jr too , he's the main reason is stopped getting information from coingeek some years back .


In a couple of months we will have an outcome , i'll just wait till then to come to a conclusion . I don't like throwing heretics on fire without a fair trial . Who knows , maybe a surprise is coming .

"Mηδενα πρo τoυ τελoυς μακαριζε" is a famous ancient greek quote , in english it's something common to the " It ain't over till the fat lady sings " .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus_and_Fate

If i'm wrong , who cares . But imagine what happens if i'm right . So , few months so you can officially declare me as a looney , have patience and get in the line .

HmmMAA sounds like his evidence that formed his opinion is sourced from coingeek

he has not seen the tulip list CSW filed of "satoshi stash" to then see lots of random people that actually own addresses in the list use their proof of authority to announce that they are not satoshi nor CSW.
just that alone proves CSW is a fraud.. CSW in courts(plural) declared he owned other peoples funds.. that is fraud

CSW has never shown a true original document that speaks of bitcoin from 2008-2013. every document that supposedly was dated pre 2013 that mentions bitcoin is a forgery.
for years people have seen him release or cough "leaked" (by him on purpose) documents, all of which has ended up being a forgery

even his scam sponsors, as 'witnesses' and his lawyers in the hodlonaut oslo case have said silly things that lack proof "i believe he is, because his mother, his uncle and a few more people say so."... funny thing is his mother was told by CSW that he worked for nasa. and that was her belief about her son at the exact same time

HmmMAA can learn all this if he bothered to read all the documentation and details released over the years. instead of reading the opinion pieces of coingeek, HmmMAA should look at the data of the blockchain, the code, the dates when forks happened, to see that CSW's favoured altcoin is not a twin sister of bitcoin, nor the first born.
its a unwanted, rejected grandchild of bitcoin, and it would have been aborted/orphaned if CSW didnt set up shell companies of zero collateral to be the orphanage that keep his baby alive

he has no claims over bitcoin, only BSV. and if he truly believed BSV was "bitcoin" then he can edit his own chain to his desires, but even he knows and realises his BSV is not bitcoin, which is why he is trying to come after the grand-daddy trying to pretend he is due inheritance. but can only make inheritance claims if he can prove he was the grand-daddy's parent.. which he cannot

If you read more you will see that this is the only trial so far that has to do with the identity issue . All previous trials were about defamation ( McCormack , Hodlonaut ) or if bitcoin was created by more than one person ( Kleiman ) . Cobra's case was dismissed due to cobra wanting to remain anonymous .
"The identity case is expected to hinge on expert analysis of documents on computer memory sticks which Wright says he found in a drawer at his home last year. Wright will maintain that these will show his work leading up to the registration of www.bitcoin.org in 2008 and the minting of the first bitcoins in January 2009. (The blockchain contains the front-page headline of The Times on 3 January, 2009.)"
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news-focus/news-focus-bitcoin-identity-dispute-comes-to-court/5118638.article

So yes , this is the only case so far that has to do specifically with identity . 

I don't want to be true that satoshi is csw , i want to see if this is a reality or not , based on a decision of someone who understands evidence . For example , even if only 1 document proves that csw is satoshi judge will declare him as satoshi , while community will dispute that and stick to the point that the others are forgeries . Why so ? Because we are not judges or lawyers .
This case can be won very easy if he provide that 1 evidence . Will he ? Grab your popcorn like me and wait . In a few months we will know who's right or wrong .

Hello Dr Craig Wright,

after all the cross examination questions, you were very annoyed on Friday, How was your weekend ?  Have you had a good sleep ?   I am sure you are reading this Thread, can you confirm me your current situation ?  I am a Journalist and Bitcoin Historian.  By December 2024, I will publish the complete Bitcoin History, I have Two Chapters covering your stories. I am covering every year a new Chapter in the Book.


I want to interview you.  Can you grant me an appointment.  Don't worry if you cannot prove that you are the real Satoshi.  Any one can claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.  I am drafting 1001 questions for you which I will pass to you soon for getting ready for a Panoramic Interview.  After the interview you will realise some thing new regarding Bitcoin and Blockchain and its future.  



 

You are one of those people who want to believe that something is true, regardless of the fact that from 2016 until today, CW Faketoshi has failed in all discussions and trials where he presented hundreds of pieces of evidence that were proven 100% false by experts before these same courts.

It's funny that you consider this trial to be some kind of final solution to the problem of "is CW Satoshi or not?" if the chance for that is less than 1%, although some will say that it doesn't exist at all. Regardless of the court's decision, CW will continue to claim that he is Satoshi, and people like you who, despite all the evidence that he is not, will continue to give him some incentive to continue to prove it.

"I don't believe with certainty". Meanwhile:

I think you should get outside your echo chamber. This isn't about the Bitcoin community or "Bitcoin maxis" as you keep calling everyone around here. It's common sense and a vast amount of evidence suggesting he is not who he claims to be. This person has made it blatantly clear that he is a fraudster to whom I wouldn't trust a single word coming out of his mouth. He has repeatedly lied and presented forgeries. I don't know what else counts as evidence of him being a scam. You choose to ignore all the evidence, and stick to insignificant details, like "both him and satoshi were smart!", "both were involved in cryptography!" or "what if he presents receipt for bitcoin.org?!", as if such a document couldn't be counterfeited given enough money.  

"But isn't there a chance?". Negligible. Judging by the facts, I'd rather bet franky1 for being Satoshi if I had to choose between the two.

We have courts which can hopefully notice the fraud in this case. However, a trial isn't the holy grail of truth. Bribery in judiciary is not so uncommon phenomenon. Just because a court says he's Satoshi doesn't mean the public has to unquestionably take this as true.

HmmMAA is not a good judge of characters, otherwise he would have understood that CSW is a huge narcissist/attention whore. Satoshi was quite the opposite, a humble person. Everyone with basic human psychology knowledge must have noticed so far.

Regarding polymaths, other people are polymaths too, but he loves to diss them... why? Because they don't support CSW's narrative.

Gotta love his double standards... he even criticizes politicians for bribery, but he does the exact same thing via PMs (bribing with BSV and trying to influence young, gullible students).

His hypocrisy is beyond the roof and I'm surprised nobody has noticed it so far.

Says the guy who believes climate change is caused by red meat & gasoline consumption.

Don't pretend you're a critical thinker, because you're not. You're closely following a little girl's (Greta Thunberg) narrative. Such a shame for a supposed 50-year old guy...

I don't believe with certainty , don't twist my words . Certainty has a specific meaning . I'm not 100% certain , but if you decide to spend time and don't get your opinion from what others offer you you will see that things are as others say . In other words get outside of your echo chamber . May i ask what will you say in the extreme case he proves in court that he is satoshi ? Will you leave this community as it's against your bias and never use bitcoin again ?   

I don't ignore anything contrary to you and most in here , on the opposite i take those into consideration and i want to see if there are other reasons that those seem like something obvious . Do you disagree that we should have courts to solve cases like this or should we look at what twitter majority says to come to a conclusion ?

What you don't understand is that this is his only trial so far that has to do with identity . It's his last chance to prove what he says for years in his way . If he doesn't provide the necessary info i'm on your side . if he provides it you will be on my side or will you try to find excuses to still stand on your opinion ?

I thought he say himself a complete fool or idiot but called himself a complete 'arse'

 https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/i-was-a-complete-arse-to-my-solicitors-bitcoin-inventor-tells-court/5118705.article

Just wow. I believed the answer to my question would be a "no", and that you just supported big blocks. I mean, we had our disagreements about block size and privacy in the past, but believing with certainty that CSW is Satoshi? That assertion goes beyond the extreme of the fallacies.

I don't have anything in response. Just look at the mountains of evidence of Craig being a pathetic liar and actively submitting forgeries, which you must be ignoring.

HmmMAA & LeezHamilton's information "sources"(pronounced for satire) are closer to ketchup, not credible

fun fact
even going back as far as CSW's first public appearance (in that panel you speak of).. bitcoin belle later opened up, admitted and debunks many things about CSW, she admits she was duped into introducing him to the "big players" of bitcoin via his conniving tactics

Back in 2016 i thought it might be him based on the body language after breakdown . I had already watched the bitcoin belle panel and bitcoin doco documentary which intrigued me . Later i started researching with others and found that he was not as incompetent as the majority said . The things that added to my opinion that he possibly is was his series about how bitcoin works , whitepaper , small world networks , philosophy and more . This guy is definitely a polymath and a really sharp mind . People in here will laugh with this but it's common for those that just stick to others opinions because they are too lazy to do some proof of work (sick ) .
At this point i'm 95% certain that he is satoshi or was one of the architects behind the pseudonym . The last 5% will be either a significant proof like a receipt of bitcoin.org purchase or something significant like what he mentioned in the trial that there is a steganographic message in the whitepaper which only satoshi could know . A public signing message will be insignificant after that and probably people will understand why he chose to do it this way .
Of course there is the case that none of this happens and i'm just wrong , but that doesn't mean that the process is wrong .

Your assumption is that he has no other ways to prove who he is and that satoshi is anonymous while it's just a pseudonym .  And based on that assumption you think that he should do what most people want which is to sign . By doing that he's admitting that what most think is the right thing to do . He choose to do it the hard way , and if he can't he will be discredited and possibly go to jail .
Joseph Vaughn-Perling said in one of his interviews back in 2016 :
"The world can learn much from what he has done and how. He is showing what cryptography does and does not do. It is a lesson that the world needs to learn before mass adoption can occur."
"People do not understand what cryptography does and does not do. People do not understand pseudonymous. Having a key means you have a key. It does not mean you had it previously, or that you will have it in the future."

You should read and listen about what Ian Grigg has said about identity and the problems with PGP keys . You have a false impression of how identity works .

I disagree , not everyone can be satoshi . I can't be , as i don't have the technical skills . You too even with more skills . Probably 99.9 % of the community doesn't have the skills . Don't fall to the childish motos of maxi's like we are all satoshi or wagmi . That's for 5yo's .

Edit. I think i missread your last quote , did i ? My english suck . I totally agree .

Wow, now it's a planted documents that's being a defense against the litigation. The holes in his story just keeps getting bigger and bigger day by day, it seems that there's no other for Craig now but to admit I guess, this is probably a last ditch effort to try and delay the case as there's going to be an investigation that the documents that proves him to be Satoshi are planted by Hanssen, totally weird that he trusts someone on his computer and that he didn't know that it was compromised, goes to show that he's a big fat liar.

You are an interesting person. No, I do not think the way you have described here, I was reading you many post. Actually I am a reader, I am not a BTC buyer or trader, I am just a SR. I like too do what you said but have no much time for it.  Can teach me some technical thing if you have some time for me ? 

Real Satoshi is an Angel. He has nothing to do with business world people or money mongers or criminal. Satoshi first created rBitcoin in the Reddit in back May 2007.  you can look for Metadata of rBitcoin of Reddit. Satoshi did not created Reddit.

A Request: My friend like to create Bitcoin address offline, which software or BTC address generator is good for her ?  I am not a technical person. I know only Journalism. Thanks for your comments. 

i know ur trolling.. but its a laugh to think you even want to attempt to now say satoshi is also a reddit creator and wire fraud convicted guy
maybe its time u stop wasting your life wanting criminals to be satoshi and actually spend some time learning about how bitcoin works and how facts work and do something with yourself to better your life and prospects

Satoshi had 2 PGP keys with MIT server. Aaron Swartz hacked MIT to destroy Satoshi's PGP Keys. Aaron Swartz is not dead as his dead donkey drama were staged to fool the government. His full names then was Aaron David Swartz but he has dropped Aaron from his names and now he is known  by is last two names. Any one can fool any one but not their own grandfather.

Satoshi does not need to prove anything to any one and he is not craving for a Nobel Prize in economic.