Day 12Today was mostly taken up by Stefan Matthews who has been caught out in several lies already. Matthews claimed to have been given a draft copy of the whitepaper before it was public, but was shown an email sent from Craig with Stephan CC-ed that proves otherwise:
Here's an article published yesterday that lists lots of contradictions by Craig and his witnesses:
https://whatthefinance.com/satoshi/sermon-of-contradictions-11th-testamentAdam Back and Martti Malmi are apparently up tomorrow.
I will try get back on track to the daily updates, but if you want to listen to a concise recap of the trial so far I recommend listening to Part 2 of the Dr Bitcoin podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3CoTfili4 - 22m 0 sec (the story of secret meetings to destroy satoshi ID in january 2011*)
not only did craig trip himself on the date as it was after G.williams(person claimed to be in secret call) died months prior(aug 2010), but D.klieman was also in hospital at the time.. but there are other inconsistence too not mentioned but worth highlighting now on this forum for context
going back through my own notes.. of al the snippets from different court cases over the years
This wasn't the only person they brought up in the trial. There was some other guy Craig alleged to have been in contact with but that guy was in a hospice at the time and his daughters confirmed he wasn't using or even able to use a computer at the time.
Craig couldn't even explain two simple bits of code within bitcoin nor did he know what the code did. He didn't know what 'static const unsigned int' was. According to Arthur Van Pelt 'unsigned integer' was used over 500 times in the original bitcoin code
. It was at this point I think they should have just called off the trial and told him to get out. Craig really should have spent more time learning to code or at least memorising it instead of wasting his time with phony degrees and worthless patents.
This by itself means anyone who still believes Wright's claims should feel deep humiliation, as it's beyond obvious by this point that they've been taken for fools. Anyone who claims to be satoshi, but can't explain what satoshi's code does is undeniably a fraud. And it's permanently on record now for all the world to see. Wright can't explain the code. No one can come up with a justifiable excuse as to how the real satoshi wouldn't be capable of answering that question. Ergo, he isn't satoshi. That's all the evidence any rational person should need.
The charade is over.
I mean, we didn't need that to know Craig is a fraud, but yeah, the trial should have just been closed early after that. I just wish they could pull out a laptop, link it up the the screen in the court and tell Craig to code bitcoin from scratch. That would be interesting.
I haven't seen so far copa dispute any of his certificates . It would be the no 1 target if copa had any evidence that he either plagiarised or faked any . Strange that none has disputed so probably he is a person with a very wide knowledge .
What certificates? His fake degrees? They have already been through the plagiarism of one of his degrees. Craig blamed it on his editors and some other bullshit.
That leads me to another speculation . If he is a security expert ( let's not forget that's not disputed by copa ) would it be possible not to have c++ knowledge ? So i googled it .
Who said he's a security expert? That's a title Craig has given himself, but given he gets hacked regularly when it's convenient for him as an excuse I'd say I'm more of a security expert than Craig.
CSW admitted he hires patent writers
Hi, sorry for interrupting, patent professional here. There is a very simple and very good reason for hiring professional patent drafters, and that is that if you don't know what you are doing, you will almost never be able to write a defensible patent. At least in U.S. patent practice, specific words can have very specific meanings which differ from common connotations; claims have to be in a specific format; and the body of the patent must be drafted in particular ways to avoid giving up entire areas of subject matter, or worse, destroying your chances of obtaining or being able to defend a patent. Also, there are requirements for drawings and how they relate to the claims, such that someone who doesn't know what they are doing can make it impossible to prosecute a patent to allowance.
For example, "plurality" means "two or more" and never one. One patent-holder's case against a competitor was completely ruined by pointing that out; his patent required two items, but the competitor only used a single item in the not-actually-infringing product.
Another patent-holder could not enforce his patent because the drawings didn't show parts of the claimed matter. (The USPTO examiner didn't bother to do his job during examination of the application, it should never have been allowed in the first place.)
Yes, legally speaking, you are allowed to draft and prosecute your own patent application. Doing so is almost always a waste of your efforts because you will be destroyed by your lack of knowledge of the laws and practices.
Anyway, we now return you to your regularly scheduled unfettered glee at the meltdown of Craig Wright and all the other scammers who enabled and supported him. Hodl on.
Another thing I forgot to mention was COPA brought up Craig's patents. What Craig has actually done in most instances is merely add his name to existing patents. I.E. they were filled by others originally without Craig, but then amended later to include him. He has also been registering the patents in several jurisdictions to bolster the number he has, I.E. if he registers the same patent in the US, UK and wherever else then that is three patents for Craig as opposed to one. Regardless, and as I've always said, his worthless patents are irrelevant to this trial just like his qualifications.
He doesn't understand what's a static const unsigned int, which is considered basic knowledge for
beginners in C++. In fact, you can find the definition of these keywords on probably every programming book there is, beyond C++. Yet, he's a "cybersecurity expert" and has written Bitcoin in above-average C++ code. They add up, don't they?
Lol! Just lol!
Was his definition wrong or different than what someone would expect ?
He didn't even know what it was let alone what it does and that wasn't the only code he couldn't explain. He's a buffoon and it was over at that point for him, if it wasn't already given every bit of evidence has been found to be fraudulent and manipulated in some way. His witnesses are just making him look like a bigger bozo.
