Topic: Updates from the COPA v Craig Wright trial - page 9. (Read 3835 times)

this copa case is not like the W&k case
COPA is actually challenging CSW. the other case of Ira was not about challenging but just setting a narrative.

COPA are trying to break CSW narrative

also it was CSW that first filed against COPA people. so due to CSW being in london, thats where the case lays

Hi, That is a good analogy.  I like your argument. The truth is far from this two parties pretending and debating of the fact if whether Dr CSW is Satoshi or Dr Fraud, This  arguments in the High Court in London is just a setup by Craig and the COPA organiser Jack Dorsey.

There is a hidden agenda of this case to file in London by COPA. They could have file the case in in US but they did not because they went no where in the Florida Case. So have chosen  London because, Satoshi Nakamoto is a British Economic scientist and he is a Londoner.

Tomorrow, there will be a twist. It is a twist of the Tricks of the Trade of the Bitcoin Drama.  

---

If Andreas Antonopoulos and Anthony Pompliano would have claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto jointly then that could have been a reasonable claim. COPA is challenging Craig but there is secret deal going on between this two sponsored by a third party.  

No matter,  whatever would be the out come, for as far as I am sure the real Satoshi will not come out and Challenge Craig unless it is necessary.

courts are mediators. where its for the defense and prosecution to show their sides and prove/disprove each other and the judge just chooses the winner of the dispute/debate based on what the dispute is about

yes courts can be abused.
take for instance the CSW vs Ira Kleiman

everyone knows in 2009-13 CSW had no bitcoin and not involved in it
everyone knows in 2010-11 got talking to am american guy called Dave and they set up W&K to (wright:scam - dave:apply for grants)  US gov defense grants. Dave K realised CSW was not going to offer real US defense services and distanced himself and discontinued communication with CSW
W&K had nothing to do with bitcoin, pre 2013

in 2013 CSW bought his first bitcoin but wanted to use W&K brand to now get involved in bitcoin because W&K was a US business he can take advantage over for US exchanging. but found out his ex-partner died. so took over the brand..
then later communicated with IRA to suggest they should both agree that W&K was worth billions and had some (false) patents involved.. as IRa would earn some money out of this agreement
so they both went to court acting like frenemies pretending they both agree that W&K had assets and value, but where the court filed dispute was purely on ownership stake of the brand.. just so CSW can start his proof of satoshi games in court. by getting the court to not make verdict on the W&K assets.. but just ownership % of brand thus in CSW view make him feel the court is proving W&K had assets because the judge didnt argue about proof of assets

yep
if both parties can secretly agree that a empty shell has crabs... even if the shell is actually empty. by both parties saying they agree the shell has crabs. but the dispute is only about who gets to hold the shell.. the judge does not check for crabs. thus people then (falsely) believe the shell has crabs, even if dispute is solely about who gets to hold the SHELL

---

again maybe you should catchup and gather actual sources rather than gather ketchup sauces

I have also read hitler's mein campf and quran , i guess my hands should be chopped off as a punishment .

I'll never understand why courts are considered "objective", since they're being ruled by (subjective) human beings with hidden agendas.

The exact same courts didn't declare mandatory lockdowns illegal... just sayin'.

I don't believe a single word that comes from them.

if you are reading ANYTHING from coingeek you already failed yourself. if you know enough about coingeek to know publishers names you know too much about them. by you admitting you previously relied on them and still read them. shows you are piling up on ketchup instead of gathering real sources(sauces)

as for your previous posts thinking CSW was smart and a candidate of satoshi due to intelligence. as hilariousetc just linked.. CSW not only used ghost writers to write his degree stuff, the stuff wrote were plagiarised. whole blocks of texts copy and pasted..  thus not showing any sign of individual intelligence/novel thinking.

he is cunning. has skills in forgery, but this does not translate to intelligence..
much like criminals have "street smarts" but get caught and put in prison.. does not translate to being smart enough to not get caught. they just have cunning to scam/steal enough to survive until caught. cunning is not equal to intelligence.
CSW is getting caught in court right now

You can check his qualifications for charles state university here https://alumni.csu.edu.au/benefits/verify-qualifications , craig wright 23-10-1970

Edit. If his doctorate was plagiarised after all the noise years ago i would expected that the university would have it withdrawn , i'm not sure if this can happen though , someone with knowledge on this might add something productive .

*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