Re: Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam]

Announcement: Project Anastasia now brings us from Romania the correct identification that Craig Wright este un hoț de identitate. Mulțumesc, GazetaBitcoin, for your defence of Bitcoin: Fenomenul social against Craig Wrights lies!

English, Russian, and now Romanian... Soon enough, the whole world shall know that Craig Wright is committing grand-scale identity theft.

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 05, 2020, 10:50:54 AM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 05, 2020, 07:34:16 AM

This whole thing just gets more and more stupid as time goes on. Honestly, who still believes this nonsense?

The doubling down is polarizing. If you thought wright wasn't satoshi it makes you more sure of it, if you thought he was it also makes you more sure of it.

For a scammer this is a great move: The people who are eligible victims become more vulnerable from their increased belief and the non-victims get further away and less likely to disrupt the scam.

Indeed: And this only yet again underscores the error that I and many others made by ignoring Wright for years, trying to starve him of attention. The bolded portion is the reaction of Too Stupid, Didnt Respond (with apologies to o_e_l_e_o, who is not making that mistake here).

The answer is a tightly focused counterattack that rises from a positive desire to make the world a better place, cuts the spew of lies off at the threshold, and focuses on one simple point that everybody can understand: Identity theft. That is the real issue here; and we must not let Wright perpetually reframe and divert the public presentation with antics that do exactly what you say.

People should neither ignore Wright, nor wildly lash out at him: Keep focus, keep the high ground, and keep hitting the key points, repeatedly, in every single discussion so that he cannot get away with these cheap psychological ploys.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 04, 2020, 04:54:10 PM

The ~~TL;DR~~ too stupid; didn't read is that he has now claimed that the bonded courier who is delivering the private keys to Satoshi's addresses is an attorney, and so all communication from said courier is "privileged", and therefore he does not have to submit it to the court. He is also claiming thousands of documents from a bunch of bankrupt or liquidated companies he was involved in are also "privileged", and so can effectively ignore the court order for these documents.

You can read the plaintiff's response as to why this is complete nonsense here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/389/kleiman-v-wright/.

Although I am not an attorney, much less an American attorney admitted to Federal practice in S.D. Florida, I know of nothing in F.R.E. or the law that would allow an attorney to argue something tantamount to letting a client claim unlimited privilege on discoverable evidence, simply by the artifice of hiding it in an attorney-client communication. Of course, such things have been litigated in the past. Does anyone with West/Lexis access care to take a glance at the annotations on privilege and its limits?

I ask, for reason that I have seen cases in which attorneys were sanctioned for advancing much less-frivolous arguments. We know that Wright is a liar. Why are his attorneys failing their duties as officers of the court, bound to represent their clients interests zealously but in a manner not inconsistent with their ethical duties? N.b. that the claim of privilege is a legal argument, not only a question of factual falsehood by Wrightthat is an important distinction in this context.

(And by the way, re bunch of bankrupt or liquidated companies, where are the pertinent court-appointed U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee(s)?)

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 05, 2020, 07:34:16 AM

In general BSV news - they forked again yesterday. Only 100 nodes (of their tiny number of 300 total nodes) didn't upgrade, still haven't upgraded, and are still on the old chain: https://mobile.twitter.com/alistairmilne/status/1224582671323598848

Further to that, Calvin Ayre now controls 75% of their hashrate: https://mobile.twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1224768472791560194

LOL, yes: Meanwhile, they are abysmally failing to even keep their fraudulently misnamed altcoin running on a technical level. Not that technical incompetence will much bother a project that anyway exists only to swinde: They only need to keep a coin sort-of almost approximately running, as a stage prop for a scam based primarily on psychological manipulation.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 04, 2020, 04:54:10 PM

This quote sums up CSW's behavior perfectly. If he is Satoshi, why is he going to such extraordinarily extreme lengths to avoid having to sign a message or move some coins? Why is he trying so hard to hide the truth? Maybe, just maybe, because he is a pathological liar?

Quote from: nullius on February 04, 2020, 04:34:23 PM

...a string of illogical twists by which he [Wright] claimed, in effect, that people who demanded a Satoshi signature from him were somehow violating his financial privacy (!).

Vide:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228100312/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/careful-what-you-wish-for-c7c2f19e6c4f

Quote from: Craig Wright (2019-02-08T13:04:08.150Z)

There is a real problem with such a call from Core for me to sign. There are a number of downsides I will not discuss and a couple I will. You ask to see my keys; well, you are in effect asking to see my bank statement. Doing so is the opposite of what Bitcoin is about. I really do not care if you like that you cannot tell what I have or do not have. It is a form of information asymmetry that I desire to preserve.

So, Craig Wright conflates signatures, public keys, and (by implication) private keys (!). Whereupon he, who in the same essay openly states his agenda to preserve the totally public nature of Bitcoins global ledger (which effectually puts everybodys bank statements on the blockchain), argues that signing with a key associated with an already-public Satoshi UTXO would be tantamount to showing his bank statement (!!).

This tangle of concepts is so nonsensical that it cannot but be presented for one purpose: If you cant convince em, confuse em! Dr. Wrights explanation will seem plausible to people who know absolutely nothing about public-key cryptography, and the application thereof in Bitcoin. And therein lies the rub: The overwhelming majority of living human beings know absolutely nothing about public-key cryptography, and the application thereof in Bitcoin.

This is how Wright sneaks by the threshold question in the public mind, in furtherance of his grand-scale identity theft. Dont let him get away with it!