Topic: Whats up with Craig Wright? - page 2. (Read 1491 times)

Craig is a straight up pyscho, this guy would sell out his own mother for a dollar.  I'm glad that Vitalik and Roger and speaking out against him.   Guy is never to be trusted, he is worse than John Mcafee.

Anyone can call himself Satoshi because no one knows his true identity. There have been many different people who have declared their name Satoshi to attract and want to become famous. I believe that Satoshi might actually be here on a yacht and he's enjoying life.

I see this thread has taken some tangents. Regardless I have been watching him, no different than I have been watching that islander drug burnt retard McAfee trying to find some spotlights to shine on himself too.

I feel that both these clowns are attempting to fill the natural void created when Satoshi himself went silent.

Back to Craig Wright now.

I wonder if the courts will "not be amused" regarding his evidence play. They shouldn't be amused. The courts are the only voice of reason in this wild west where sherrif may not notice or care.

Who are the actual crypto sheriff?

The crypto world. Yes, you the reader. You the developer's. You the investors.

What can be done about these disruptor's efforts.

Imo, let them sink their own ships. But don't ever give them any credit for anything. Don't even give them the time of day.

But the community of crypto enthusiasts. Whether just a fan boy or major developer or miner or investor. They need to move past who Satoshi may be. It doesn't matter to anyone really, short of notoriety and as a recognised founder.

I just feel that the technology should be nurtured to drive itself. It doesn't need a figurehead to make it work.

It surely doesn't need Craig or John in the mix to screw things up.

M2c.


-CTS-

Craig Wright is nothing more than someone who wants to be known to the world by instinct by claiming to be the creator of bitcoin. this obviously looks stupid if to believe it, don't you think why just now he just appeared to claim it. especially after the debate with the founder of Bch who told him to provide evidence with the blockchain signature if he was right to shatosi

Why would satoshi himself need that

Which begs the question: Why hasn't some maniac kidnapped Craig so to practice their torture techniques of choice, fine tuning the procedures so to be ready when they nap the real Satoshi in hopes of extracting his private keys.

twitter.com/DrCSWright --> Dr. Cock Sucker Wright.

If he had been the real Satoshi, he would have long ago been kidnapped and his private keys collected from him. He is just an imposter gaining popularity for feeding the public with wrong information. Real investors don't make noise, their works just speak for them.

do some research
core devs call their users sheep by saying how their followers dont need to choose options due to "compatibility" "inflight upgrades" "consensus bypass" masf uasf and all the other buzzwords THEY invented for a controversial fork

im the one saying users should not be. and that bitcoin should be diverse
by the way. if you done research you would know it didnt take a mass community adoption of nodes doing the cull, to cause the cull...
.. which is another thing your not understanding.
you keep thinking that the cull pre activation would only have happened if there was a majority adoption for a cull..
seriously do some research


and before u dredge up more mis-understanding meanders from your past scripts. .. no compatibility* does not mean a node is a full node after activation while not having to upgrade. its a node set that it will accept pigeon english stripped data as valid oxford english without doing a full grammar check.
hint the data a 'compatible' node gets is not the same as what a fullnode gets, they are just set to just blindly accept.
why do you think the bahavior of 0.8-0.12 is so much different to 0.13-0.14 and why nodes released after august 2017 are treated as a whole different tier to the others.

*(compatibility, stripped, filtered, downstream, no witness, signature validation bypass... whatever new sweep under the carpet buzzword core devs use to mean the same thing)


blockchain data, CODE, stats =in my favour
stories, narrative flip flops, social drama = in your favour

if you dont wanna do independant research, dont want to listen to opposing discussions. then there is a ignore button.
just quit your flip flop social drama meanders. as its not just boring. but not original.

trying to blame me and others who have not activated code on the network as if non devs are some how some malicious attack force is the most hilarious part of your arguments. especially when you get emotionally insulting about it.. but after time, your jokes do become stale
bad code gets wrote by bad devs. so when there are controversial things that people yars later are still fighting to get resolved. then obviously there is an issue.
EG the reason people think LN is the only solution is because thy have just given up thinking core devs will sort bitcoin out. so the only optimism they have left is that some other network will do something different.

I'll leave the narratives to you.  You're the storyteller, after all. 

I've made it abundantly clear that users were given multiple choices.  Users could have opted to run a client flagging bits to express support for a 2mb base weight.  But instead, many of them opted to run the client that disconnected nodes flagging those bits. 

Since you think users are just "sheep", you instinctively apportion full responsibility to the devs who wrote the code.
Since I think users made their own judgement call, I naturally apportion full responsibility to the users who ran the code.

This is why we're never going to agree. 

again throwing nodes off and doing REKT's BEFORE an activation..
try to stick with one narrative

According to Charles Hoskinson, Craig Wright is a sociopath who brings negative effects to this space. Given that so many reputable people question his claim of being Satoshi, and given his divisiveness, I tend to agree. I hope his SV coin falls out of the top 50 coins and eventually goes to 0.

Those securing the network choose what activates.  This is the crux of your inability to comprehend.  "Other groups" can make changes if users agree and activate those changes.  BIP91 is a prime example.

anyone can code what they like. they can write code on paper, . they can use their finger and write it by pushing their finger through the dust on their computer desks. they can hand write it, type it, draw it..

but the ACTIVATION that affects the network. should not be that CORE can activate anything they like to affect the whole network but other groups cant.

no one disagrees that writing code is/is not allowed.... so stop trying to meander the discussion to be about the writing of code.
its about the method of activation my point has always been about the method of activation and how a certain feature that only garnished 35%, didnt just get sidelined and then cor went away and re-wrote new code that could be (without controversy) more universally acceptable.. instead of listening to the community.. they decided to use force and threats.. PRE feature.. to fake vote for a feature, just to activate their feature.
in short
if core stuck to bip 34 or just bip9 for thir sgwit1x they would have lost.
but their 148+NYA+bip9 that is NOT the same as 34.. is what core group done to bypass and twist and force their code onto the network.
and now as you say because nodes are following core. those core nodes can now EASILY kick out any opposition thus not giving much/any hope of diverse groups from forming to offer something that could be a true opposing free choice option in the future.

for months you have been poking at me when i have discussed cores method of activation. and you have always meandered it to sound like core deserve and have the right to dictate NETWORK rules. and then hypocritically then said how your happy that anyone not core has to seek permission.

anyway. mr flip flop. you have kept up your flip flops for months now and not progressed your research or understanding one bit. yea there have been times it appeared you finally cottoned on to the reality.. but days later you flip back and pretend the opposite occured.. hense why im saying instead of spending yt another 6 months of YOU flip flopping. please take a step back have some coffee, do not go reading your usual reddit/twitter sources and instead do some independent research, learn the cod, learn what bitcoins ethos/innovation/creation was about 2008-2013. for get the social drama of 2013+ and learn what tru bitcoin was before core. and truly have a independent thought about what, why and how bitcoin was initially created for.. then go pick a narrative of either your flip or your flop that fits the CODE, the network stats, the blockchain data..(not the social drama opinion groups) and stick to a narrative that fits whats important to the network(not core social group mantra)

then and only then will i find you less of a yawn, having to correct your core centralist mindset.
i know you wil always disregard my corrections by just throwing a bottom of the barrel personal insult.
hense why i just simply say dont take my word for it, do your own INDEPENDENT research.. but so far you just reply back with the standard scripted echo chamber remarks that dont sound independant at all.
(in short, you have become a boring echo chamber sounding off the same remarks as people like icebreaker, carlton,lauda and that group of core centralists.. even shorter.. nothing original)

lastly you keep implying that CW is some influencer.
you also seem to get emotional that when i say my opinion, that you think i am some revolutionary force trying to trojan horse the network.. what you dont realise is bitcoin is code. so unless you see code, dont treat it as an issue.
this forum is not bitcoin code. (something you need to learn in context of your recent meta category post about this forum)

the point being. stop spending months on social drama and concentrate on the code and those that write code. which in bitcoins case is core.

so yea you will continue to see me poking at core because these last couple years its been the core group that have been writing the code.. it doesnt magically appear. its not some self typing AI.. its wrote by core and lately only core. and thats the problem. lately only core.
emphasis: no diversity/decentralisation away from the core roadmap of 2015 that only want to lead things to stifling bitcoin to promote other networks to take over and "de-burden" bitcoin of its utility

so before pressing reply to have yet another social drama meander/flip flop.. try your darn hardest to chill your emotions, take a break, have a coffee and do some research. try to talk about the bitcoin network, not the core defense strategy. because i got your point months ago you want to defend core. even though they have admitted many things you 'pretend' your defending that they didnt do(further proof you lack the research of the group your even trying to defend)

again please take some time and think about "bitcoin a decentralised diverse network". and less about "core needs defending"

lastly, if you want to reply saying im insulting you, you waving the victim card will fail. people can read your post history and see your whole history of actual pokes and insults and social drama every time people dare to even question core code. so remember who is the instigator. hint: you

Anyone can code anything they like.  How many more times do I have to say it?  You are the one saying people shouldn't code softforks/activation dates/code that disconnects other clients/"wishy-washy scale factor"/anything even remotely to do with "other networks", or LN as most people tend to call it/etc.  Anyone can code those things.  There are no rules that state people can't code what they like.  Any other dev team can add such code to any client they are developing.  It's not like one dev team have the exclusive usage rights on code which does things that you don't like.  But whoever writes it, the code doesn't mean anything unless people run it.  

And just in case you call flip-flop yet again, I'm not saying that "no one can prevent" changes when it comes to consensus.  Lone extremists out there on the fringes are definitely not in a position to effect change.  As such, the singular "you", as in, specifically, YOU, can't do anything about anything.  You're a speck in the wind.  You literally don't matter in the slightest.  You don't have any numbers behind you.  Because you don't have any numbers behind you, you are limited to running the code you want to run and deciding which chain(s) you wish to follow.  But if a large proportion of those securing the network disagree with what a dev team are doing, they would be in a position to prevent change by simply not running the new code.  No one can prevent a dev team from coding what they like, but they are more than free to continue running the code they already have, or run an entirely different client if they so choose.  Those securing the network do not have to accept changes to the code.  That's why devs can code whatever they like and still not be "in charge".  Do you need me to repeat this a few more times?  Can I explain it to you any more simplistically?  Do you need a drawing to aid in your learning?  I'm pretty sure I say it to you often enough.  Yet it still somehow doesn't sink in.

If I don't personally agree with something, I wouldn't tell people not to code it.  I would certainly tell them why I think their ideas are terrible/stupid/dangerous/etc, sure.  But if you code it, you have my blessing.  Not least because there's nothing I can do to stop you, but primarily because I believe in permissionless freedom.  Anyone can code what they want and if you express views counter to that belief, I'm naturally going to give you a hard time.  Complain about insults all you like, but it'll keep happening because you are so quick to state what you think people "should" do.  It's none of your business.  You're free to code and run what you want, but you don't get to interfere with what other people are coding or running.  And no, before you ask, I don't see a risk of bad code being run as a result, because I feel confident that people, for the most part, recognise terrible ideas when they see them.  I'm happy to let the market decide, because it has a pretty good track record of making sensible decisions.  You can make your excuses for why other clients have failed.  You can pretend it's some sort of sinister collusion.  You can say it's all "social drama".  But at the end of the day, it's meaningless.  The only thing that matters is what people run.

For what must be the hundredth time of explaining it:
 
Your problem is not that Core are "in control" (because they aren't).
Your problem is not that consensus has "been bypassed" (because it can't be).
Your problem is not that we "don't have a level playing field" (because we do).

Your problem is that whenever someone creates code you actually like, very few people choose to run it.  It's not a conspiracy.  People just don't agree with you.
Your problem is that whenever Core creates code you utterly despise, lots and lots of people choose to run it.  It's not a conspiracy.  People just don't agree with you.



No one needs permission.  Bitcoin is permissionless.  Again, anyone can code anything.  Code means nothing unless people run it.  Stop denying reality.  This is how it works.



Insanity is rarely considered helpful.  



No thanks.  Leave no FUD unchallenged.  It applies to you and Craig "Scammer" Wright in equal measure.  Shine a spotlight on the bullshit and call it out for what it is.  If he ever decides to disappear, we'll let him disappear.  Until then, the more he lies, the more we'll refute it.  Ditto for you.

With the hash power that Jihan and Roger used to defend BCH they could have easily destroyed BSV as well. But they're not dickheads like CSW, and in this instance I regret it. BSV is a stain on cryptocurrencies.

All his statements are contradictory, in fact some don't make any sense at all. He's trying to be "scandalous" in order to stay relevant, he stopped caring about people calling him out on his bullshit.
Just ignore.

anyway.
i hope doomad drops his flip flops for a few months and spends the time just researching, learning and gaining a few independant thoughts beyond the reddit scripts he reads of 2015+

but as for CW
he is not a influencer and not important to bitcoin so best to just not treat him as important. let him sizzle into the background

your flip flops is saying how your buddies can do what they like and no one can prevent it.
but anyone opposing your buddies.. their attempt requires permission("need to agree")

do you now see the point of centralising your admitting to.. how core dont need permission(your words) but other groups would need permission

a. cant prevent
b. need agreement

your the one flip flopping about only one side has control basically

anyway. the 2012 consensus bip34 is something coded back in 2012...
BUT was not used AS -IS in 2017
again you admit to the august first bip148 that was a pre-fork method to scew and falsify a consensus by doing a controversial split. you were even extremely happy about the NYA x2 attempt too a few days later.. you seemed very happy that the consensus was abused by pushing people off thee network before a consensus to fake a consensus, to force in something that would not have got activated without the forced pressure (as it only had 35% agreement pre threat)

you trying to even suggest 2017 was a fair true honest consensus of bip 34 is just more flip flops.
anyway

go back to your social drama of thinking bitcoin is cores private property and the community should not tell core what to do when core want to activate network changing code.
but then be happy to tell a forum how a private property should listen to its userbase

point is core SHOULD not OWN the network and be the CORE / Reference... no one should be a CORE REFERNCE.
that was the whole innovation and magic lightbulb moment of 2008-2009 that there doesnt and shouldnt be a core centre of code decision

you are more of a flip flop than a fish out of water. only thing you dont realise the more you just lay there flip flopping with no single chosen direction to move in.. the more your left struggling and weakening yourself.

so spend less time flip flopping, do some real research and choose a mindset to have and stick with it. choose a narrative that has some stats and data to back it up and stick with it. because your flip flops are getting boring and winning you no sympathy even after i have tried to tell you many times to atleast try learning bitcoin more (being helpful, but you treated it as an insult)

as for your flip flop of thinking 2017 used bip 34
hint: bip 148&bip9 is not the same thing as bip 34.
bitcoin ntwork has not used 34 for years.
[/list]

Dr Craig S Wright
- https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1100437200234266624

"The ONLY legal means to create a new consensus method, to alter the protocol is to start a new blockchain from scratch.

That like Core or ETH is simply an Airdrop and sham offer.

Time will show this."

...

Dr Craig S Wright
- https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1100440103883886600

"As with the Harwyn case, unregistered spin-offs violate the intent of the 1933 act.

What in Bitcoin is a commodity in standard form, can be treated as a security sale when in other forms and issue.

#BTC is a sham and airdrop
Not bitcoin"

 

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
"... definition of knowledge: S knows that P if and only if:

    P;
    S believes that P;
    if P were false, S would not believe that P;
    if P were true, S would believe that P. ..."

...

🔴 🔴 It's now possible for everybody to be Satoshi ⭕ ⭕
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/its-now-possible-for-everybody-to-be-satoshi-5113610