Since this guy has over 500 instances of document forgeries, it should be relatively simple for cross-examiners and experts to put them all together and prove him guilty, right?
The judge made them whittle it down to 25 documents I believe. You would think that it's easy but Craig just disagrees and half of the time either COPA's lawyer moves on or just calls him a liar (but in my lighter terms) and then they move onto the next forgery. Hopefully the judge is seeing through it all as he hasn't really said much so far and rarely gets involved but I would be surprised if he's buying any of it.
Since this guy has over 500 instances of document forgeries, it should be relatively simple for cross-examiners and experts to put them all together and prove him guilty, right?
i havnt read any transcript of the copa case yet, but if the 500 docs are things CSW filed in relation to this case (rather than documents he sent out publicly over the years)
knowing how CSW operates. i bet right near the end or after he will say, "those 500 documents were on my hard drive last year when i was about to file, but maybe a ex-employee/adversary got into my computer and tweaked the documents to now be forgeries.. so what i submitted, i thought was the original but is actually tweaked stuff someone replaced when i filed the documents, .. it wasnt me judge"
He's already been using this line and has said it's not him that publishes his blogs or papers etc but an assistant, college, student, ex wife, employee etc. He claimed today that he has a four year backlog of papers he's yet to publish (or more likely yet to forge haha). He's very cunning and conniving and confidently has at least some sort of excuse for everything no matter how ridiculous it may be.
If Craig was Satoshi he would just sign a message and shut everyone up, but he can't, because he's not Satoshi, so has to try prove it with forged documentation and sheer talk.
Would anyone who has ever read posts from Satoshi on this forum or private correspondence with any of the developers really think that CW is the real Satoshi even if he signed a message from any BTC address believed to belong to Satoshi? At some point, we have to accept that it may happen that someone will come into possession of the private keys of those addresses, which means that even a signed message cannot mean that someone is the original owner.
Well probably not now but it would be pretty hard to dispute if Craig signed the genesis block, Satoshi's known addresses or his PGP keys. It's moot point though because he can't do that. It's not very likely that someone could cryptographically prove he was Satoshi other than Satoshi himself unless we get to a point in the future where these things can be bruteforced or exploited by a supercomputer somehow.
Would anyone who has ever read posts from Satoshi on this forum or private correspondence with any of the developers really think that CW is the real Satoshi even if he signed a message from any BTC address believed to belong to Satoshi? At some point, we have to accept that it may happen that someone will come into possession of the private keys of those addresses, which means that even a signed message cannot mean that someone is the original owner.
That's exactly the reason identity isn't proven the way community wants satoshi to come forward and introduce himself . Keys can be stolen , public identity can't be altered ( well , that doesn't apply to rainbow people ) .
That's Craig's convenient excuse. Sure, keys can be stolen but signing them at least proves he is in possession of them currently. If he was serious, he would just sign a message whilst also saying this is not proof or something. Satoshi expertly designed bitcoin this way so someone can prove ownership of their keys, but Craig seems to want to conveniently ignore this. If what Craig is saying is true then he would have designed bitcoin differently and maybe put in some sort of backdoor or allowance for court orders etc, but he didn't, because he's not Satoshi so has to merely rely on bullshit.
Well , by looking at everything craig said and showed of how bitcoin works all these years i tend to think that he is an extremely intelligent person with better understanding of the network than anyone else . Is he satoshi ? Court will decide .
The courts shouldn't be deciding. Craig can prove it to the entire crypto community in 5 minutes if he wanted to, but he can't. If he somehow unbelievably manages to hoodwink a court into saying he's Satoshi then that still wouldn't mean anything to me. An idiot could be convinced by the nonsense documents that he provides and that's the case with many BSV-ers. It's entirely possible that the courts will decide that you can't prove a negative even if it's likely that they find the documents are all forgeries and not outright proclaim he is or isn't Satoshi but just that the documents he provided hold no validity and what then? We're still meant to pretend he could quite possibly be Satoshi?
If I claimed to be Satoshi would you assume I'm innocent unless a court decides? You should assume anyone who claims to be Satoshi is lying unless they can prove otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We have nothing from Craig other than his mountains of forged documents. If he's satoshi then let him prove it cryptographically, not just go here's a printout of an email alluding to I'm satoshi. It's nonsense.