Re: Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam]
⭐ Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
-snip-
Haha, called it:It's difficult to make sense of their incoherent ramblings, but it also seems as if CSW and Ayre are gearing up for some kind of legal claim against the entire blockchain "database"...? They seem to be suggesting that while Bitcoin is under MIT licence, the ledger isn't and so therefore is a "breach of contractual rights": https://mobile.twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1224753981206990853
Good catch!
On the side, I am trawling through some of CSWs older essays to show what his ultimate agenda is: His ends sought by such means as would be merely absurd, if they were not so potentially harmful.
What is he even talking about though?
"Those on the copies systems are put on notice"? What's he going to do, sue every developer, every exchange, every merchant, every wallet, every user? Because he has such a strong track record when it comes to winning lawsuits.
Quote
This year I take charge and control of my system[5]. Those on the copied systems that are passing themselves off as bitcoin, BTC or CoreCoin and BCH or BCash are hereby put on notice.
"Take control"? If it's under an individual's control, then it's not decentralized, it's not bitcoin, and it's worthless."Those on the copies systems are put on notice"? What's he going to do, sue every developer, every exchange, every merchant, every wallet, every user? Because he has such a strong track record when it comes to winning lawsuits.
The danger is that he may FUD Bitcoin analogously to how BSD was treated as radioactive by business owners worried about liability, at just the time when Linux was nascent. (Important distinguishments: In that case, it was not Linuxs fault that an unrelated corporation decided to do some copyright trollingand the original lawsuit there was not totally frivolous from a legal perspective, at the time before all the remaining AT&T code was stripped out on an emergency basis.)
In the future we're going to see more crap like him threatening any business that accepts Bitcoin with patent litigation, to which the common response will be "damn, this bitcoin stuff isn't worth the trouble" from most parties who's business isn't primarily about Bitcoin. How could you expect otherwise when your response to wright is "damn, this wright stuff isn't worth the trouble"?
I know the language Craig speaks very well and as a professional in my field I can say that Craig clearly knows what he is talking about.
In that case, perhaps you could start working through the long list of errors, inaccuracies and incompetence displayed by CSW and explain how someone who knows what he's talking about could make so many? See below:In the interest of providing people with talking points, as much as it pains me to link to a BCH subreddit, I'll share this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b479rk/please_excuse_the_craig_wright_spam_but_this_is/ej4oxvj/
No, not unless he passes the threshold:
Observe that besides some insults (e.g., segshit), hv_ kept trying to lure people into an endless argument over issues that are both irrelevant to my OP, and unreasonable to even consider when Craig Wright has not produced a cryptographic authentication of his claim to the identity of a cryptographic innovator who has known public keys.
This is called a threshold question. An affirmative answer thereto is necessary but insufficient to conclude an argument; and if the answer is either negative or nonexistent, then further questions need not be reached.
Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood.
Its important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point. But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else.
The answer to every statement he ever said about Satoshi's wallets or ownership
of same should have been "sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet ...and until such time as the message is signed you are treated as a fake"
of same should have been "sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet ...and until such time as the message is signed you are treated as a fake"
This is called a threshold question. An affirmative answer thereto is necessary but insufficient to conclude an argument; and if the answer is either negative or nonexistent, then further questions need not be reached.
Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood.
Its important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point. But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else.
I have deleted Hyenas post (Loyce archive) due to his violation of the thread-local rule clearly stated in OP:
Moderation note: Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood. And I am in a bad mood. Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi. Thank you.
Any further posts by him in this thread will be deleted, unless he posts a threshold Satoshi-signed message identifying CSW as Satoshi.