Quote
Trust summary for jbreher
Trusted feedback
Some of these feedbacks may have been redone; I am quoting same from yesterday, in pertinent part.Trusted feedback
| nullius | 2020-03-06 | Yet another former Bitcoin Cash altcoin shill who upgraded his disinformation to promote the Faketoshi scam. Deftly weaves together lies, half-truths, and cherry-picked quotes in an attempt to bedazzle the audience. Dont fall for it. | |
| gmaxwell | 2020-03-06 | Promoting a scammer (CSW) and dishonestly claiming that fringe altcoins are "Bitcoin". I wouldn't trade with a person foolish enough to fall for such tripe, especially in a public way even if they were merely doing so because they're just another victim. | |
| Lauda | 2019-04-03 | Reference | Bitcoin Cash shill spreading fake propaganda in order to deceive newcomers. Do not trust a single word written by this user. Sometimes hope for betterment is wasted. |
The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?
I will do better than that: I will briefly demonstrate that you are a liar, generally. I mean that as a judgment of personal character, not merely of a few actions.
Post #3 on this thread will contain unedited full quotes and archival links from jbrehers posts that I have deleted from the Project Anastasia thread. Posts #2, #4, and #5 will be reserved for other metadata.
Local rules: In the interest of fairness, jbreher shall be accorded the reasonable right to answer in his own defencewithout regard to whether he wishes to start telling the truth, or just lie some more. Others shall be moderated at my sound discretion. TEChSHARE, truth or dare, savetheFORUM, et al. shall be deleted on sight (but with archives noted in reserved posts).
The following is overkill, and intentionally so: I am making an example. Having done so, I am uninterested in debating this, unless somebody has something new and unexpected to say.
Short Table of Contents
- A brief review of jbrehers perpetual lies over the years
Including, inter alia: - A brief review of jbrehers dishonesty on the Project Anastasia thread
Including, inter alia:
A brief review of jbrehers perpetual lies over the years
I have no desire exhaustively to document jbrehers post history. All of the following was found by me in about ten minutes of searching. It will suffice to show that he is a liar.
Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin.
I'm just much bullishier on Bitcoin Cash.
Why ? I ask with no snark or ill-intention.
Simple, characterizing Btrash as Bitcoin is purely a lie. And it is the type of lie for which I have been issuing negative trust feedback since I was a Jr. Member. theymos has not only approved, but even positively suggested this use of the trust system:
If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
Elsewhere on the same thread as that theymos statement:
User: jbreher
Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin. Shitcoins be shitcoins. Not too hard, is it?
[...]If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
I fully agree.So Bitcoin Cash is not alt coin.
It is a scam altcoin.One of my Newbie postsmy fourth post; check my post history!made when I had been actively posting for less than 36 hours:
So-called Bitcoin Cash is neither Bitcoin, nor cash, in the sense that it has neither the unlinkability nor the fungibility of cash. It and its ilk are also generically different from honest altcoins, which at least have the decency to make their own names. I dont even know what to properly call itother than a scam, of course; and anybody who does not realize its a scam must be one or more of ill-informed, malicious, or incurably stupid.
[...]
I hope that helps. As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Vers little abortion. Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN. Any better ideas? Were-not-engineers-dont-know-much-about-scaling-and-dont-care-Coin is too long.
[...]
I hope that helps. As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Vers little abortion. Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN. Any better ideas? Were-not-engineers-dont-know-much-about-scaling-and-dont-care-Coin is too long.
~
...I urge you to pray to Bitcoin Jesus. Verily, he lied for your sins. His mark rose heavenward on the pump; then a spear pierced His markets side for the dump. Be ye a sick, BOOST ye He shall. Render unto
(No wonder I love the cat.)
More of same and similar:
Bitcoin Cash _is_ Bitcoin. It's history extends unbroken back the the genesis block.
BCH seems to strive for continuous innovation at the protocol layer.
SV seems to strive for stabilizing the protocol at a state that already handles all meaningful use cases.
SV seems to strive for stabilizing the protocol at a state that already handles all meaningful use cases.
Subject: Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Merited by Bitcoin SV (1)
Please help your fellow BSV-er (wrighter? what do you call yourselves?):
BSV-er is fine for me. Wrighter, OTOH, I'm not answering to.
jbreher is an anti-Segwit disinformationist
We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.
No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.
which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.
i am curious to know about these new "vulnerabilities". would you mind listing them while explaining why has there not been any exploits in past 1 year?
If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening.
For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx. This ability of miners to claim what some think as funds that many erroneously believe to be sent to specific parties as funds that the miners can pocket themselves was newly introduced into Bitcoin by the ill-considered so-called 'soft fork' employed for activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. No matter what some arbitrarily-large cabal of miners were able to do previously, they were utterly unable to claim coins of others to themselves. This power is the direct and sole result of the segwit soft fork.
Boldface and italics are in the original:
BCH's desirability is predicated upon the fact that it does not contain the segwit virus -- especially as enacted through the so-called 'soft fork' trojan horse mechanism, which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.
You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.
Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.
You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.
I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter.
You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.
Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners?
Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.
You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.
So, the nodes run by users and HODLers of Bitcoin all collectively have fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority?
I have publicly stated that my life savings are in Bitcoin. To be clear, my life savings are in Segwit UTXOs. Why am I unconcerned about jbrehers fearmongering, which is essentially a rehash of the lies peddled by jonald_fyookball, et al. around the time of the BCH fork? Because:
Merited by Foxpup (7), gmaxwell (3), achow101 (3), malevolent (2), AGD (2), paxmao (2), HeRetiK (1), CASlO (1), Manfred Macx (1)
Full nodes do not blindly follow the longest chain. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner (or 51+% of miners) who produced invalid blocks would only be wasting hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of IP addresses. It doesnt matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodesperiod.
[...]
Segwit transactions require signatures, just like old-style transactions. Segwit transactions have security greater than or equal to old-style transactions in each and every characteristic. If a miner could somehow steal Segwit funds with a 51% attack, then the same attack could be used against all bitcoins, including Satoshis coins. But such an attack is impossible; the whole idea is ridiculous, just nonsense peddled by Btrash supporters...
[...]
Segwit transactions require signatures, just like old-style transactions. Segwit transactions have security greater than or equal to old-style transactions in each and every characteristic. If a miner could somehow steal Segwit funds with a 51% attack, then the same attack could be used against all bitcoins, including Satoshis coins. But such an attack is impossible; the whole idea is ridiculous, just nonsense peddled by Btrash supporters...
I encourage Newbies and non-experts to read that post in full. I thereby did my best to distill to more accessible terms the essence of a deeply technical argument. The anti-Segwit disinformationists have done a bang-up job of leveraging technical half-truths to build total lies that cannot be easily understood as such, without technical expertise.
Indeed, the anti-Segwit agitprop is so pernicious that at first, it confused even me. I was worried. That is why I studied the issue: I conceptually discarded all of my pre-existing knowledge of Bitcoin, all of my premises and prejudices, and did, ab initio, a review of Bitcoins design (both in theory, and in practice as empirically observed), a careful reading of BIP 141 and other technical documents, a little peek at the Core sources and bitcoin-dev/Github issue discussions, plus open-minded lurking in the debates on this forum, on Reddit, on blogs... Thereupon, I concluded that the anti-Segwit Segwit is a security vulnerability!! claims are not only technically incorrect, but so twisted as cannot reasonably occur other than through deliberate malice. I hate it when
The purpose of being open-minded is to discover the truth, not to entertain falsehoods.
A brief review of jbrehers dishonesty on the Project Anastasia thread
Project Anastasia is important to the communityas the community itself has shown by volunteering volunteering translations to seven other languages (and counting), plus awarding its OP 6.6% of merits that I have yet earned (91/1380, as of this writing). I feel a duty to the community, to Satoshi Nakamoto, and to the memory of Grand Duchess Anastasia to maintain the standards of discussion, and to prevent the diversion thereof into the types of irrelevant flamewars that Craig Wrights followers use to distract the public from the real issues.
Project Anastasia 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.
Wherefore Anastasia:
I hereby have sincerely expressed my high respect for each of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, whom I am proud to memorialize by her proper title in OP, and Satoshi Nakamoto, the ingenious founder of Bitcoin. I have also imposed on this thread a moderation rule requiring that replies must be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi. That is what I call a win-win, insofar as it is the intersection of the stories of two famous historical personages whom I remember for different reasons.
[...]
Of course, the respective circumstances of these two persons are very different and not comparable. However, Anastasia was royalty; and I do not think she would have objected to the wisdom of applying her own story to teach lessons for the greater good, as the names of the most famous royalty have always been spun into fables long after their deaths. [...]
[...]
Of course, the respective circumstances of these two persons are very different and not comparable. However, Anastasia was royalty; and I do not think she would have objected to the wisdom of applying her own story to teach lessons for the greater good, as the names of the most famous royalty have always been spun into fables long after their deaths. [...]
Again, I need not exhaustively document each and every instance of jbrehers falsity: I will pick only a few such instances as exemplary.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
The danger is that ... he can destabilize the market by making his claims to people who never used Bitcoin at all
You seem driven by illogical emotion.
I already addressed that. jbreher quote-mined the first eight-plus pages of the Anastasia thread, and cast me in a false light whilst deliberately omitting the posts where I explained why I use emotional arguments to accompany facts and logic. That is dishonest.
How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever.
Classic misdirection. jbreher doesnt seem that stupid, so he must be playing stupid.
Lies in the mainstream media obviously have both primary (direct) and secondary (indirct) effects on the Bitcoin market. In the small, that can decrease Bitcoin adoption by those nocoiners he so dismisses; in the large, it is a direct attack on the Bitcoin Social Phenomenon, i.e. the source of Bitcoins real value. Because savvy traders know this, the effect on nocoiners also affects the decision of those who are already market participants.
As Ive stated before.. it became very obvious to me when he [Faketoshi] told me he built smart contracts in to the chain from day 1, a direct contradiction to satoshi himself in this thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8140#msg8140)... Though Satoshi does not mention smart contacts by name., Nick Szabo stated to me thats exactly what he believes Satoshi ( or maybe himself) was referring to.
Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts?
Absurd twisting of what ChiBitCTy said: jbreher turned it to the exact opposite of what he obviously meant. This is the referenced Satoshi post, in pertinent part:
Here's an outline of the kind of escrow transaction that's possible in software. This is not implemented and I probably won't have time to implement it soon, but just to let you know what's possible.
Wrights theft of Satoshis identity is factually false,
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.
Dishonest misdirection.
It is technically difficult to produce positive evidence of a negative. jbreher is misapplying that technical difficulty to confuse people into believing that a negative cannot be proved at all. And he backs that with a catchphrase that most people do not properly understand. Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weak evidence: It is perfectly possible (and does occasionally happen) that somebody can be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence, if the circumstantial evidence is exceptionally strong. I note this for the sake of argument, without accepting the mischaracterization of the evidence against Wright as circumstantial.
Craig Wright is a scammer with a long history of scamming, which all goes to character and the credibility of his claims. As to Bitcoin specifically, he has been caught in numerous lies that are easily proved false. His personality, his behaviour, and his openly stated agenda all flatly contradict everything that is known about Satoshi Nakamoto. And most importantly, at the threshold, he does not provide the first key piece of evidence that any cryptography expert would use to verify his identity: A digital signature that is verifiable with a public key long known to be associated with that identity!
Overall, the evidence is sufficiently strong for me to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. (Unreasonable doubts are just that.) By minimizing that evidence, you dishonestly advance an agenda that I explained at length:
Merited by mindrust (5), Lauda (3), vapourminer (1), Last of the V8s (1), GazetaBitcoin (1)
Craig Wright does not need for a majority of people to believe him: He needs only for a hard core of shills and fanatics to believe him, whilst the majority wavers.
[...]
In the current context: If Craig Wright can play the mass-media to introduce doubt into the minds of most people who have heard of Bitcoin, and if he is shilled to the hilt by a cadre of hv_ types, and if the only significant opposition is a bunch of forum theorists who wont push the issue as hard as hv_ does, then Faketoshi will win.
A compounding factor is the distaste that many Bitcoiners have for drama, hostility, and especially, emotionalist arguments and ad hominem attacks. It is good to have a culture that values logical argumentsbut do not confuse critical thinking skills for efficacy at persuasive argument. If Craig Wright wields false persuasive arguments against your facts and logic, then he will win the heartsand minds of the majority, whose critical thinking skills are negligible. As I have said before: Dont bring a sword to a gunfight.
[...]
In the current context: If Craig Wright can play the mass-media to introduce doubt into the minds of most people who have heard of Bitcoin, and if he is shilled to the hilt by a cadre of hv_ types, and if the only significant opposition is a bunch of forum theorists who wont push the issue as hard as hv_ does, then Faketoshi will win.
A compounding factor is the distaste that many Bitcoiners have for drama, hostility, and especially, emotionalist arguments and ad hominem attacks. It is good to have a culture that values logical argumentsbut do not confuse critical thinking skills for efficacy at persuasive argument. If Craig Wright wields false persuasive arguments against your facts and logic, then he will win the hearts
On this forum and in other venues, others have spent years debunking Faketoshis lies point-by-point. That is not hereby my objective; and indeed, it is more or less off-topic in the Anastasia thread (other than providing links to such thorough debunkings, which are welcome).
Merited by gmaxwell (1), o_e_l_e_o (1)
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. Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooledand, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists!
I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wrights handssee above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.
aoluain is correct: In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:
That last bit is, Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.
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. Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooledand, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists!
I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wrights handssee above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.
aoluain is correct: In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:
[...]
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....
and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....
and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"
That last bit is, Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.
More dishonest disinformation and misdirection. Craig Wright did not actually verify anything to Gavin Andresen: What he did was a stage-magicians act in lieu of providing a verifiable signature. That, indeed, is why Gavin cannot provide any evidence thereof to others.
And that is my whole point. If I were to endorse a similar sleight of hand, then either I must be technically inept (and thus, everybody who ever endorsed my competence must be stupid), or I must be a liar. The context of this discussion:
Merited by Last of the V8s (1), xtraelv (1)
The Same Standard Applies to Me
Lets take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of Gavin Andresen out of the picture. And lets make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi verified a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his verification for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesnt even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
Lets take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of Gavin Andresen out of the picture. And lets make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
Quote
| achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi verified a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his verification for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesnt even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
jbreher supports franky1s defamation of Dr. Adam Back
(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS)
the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo..
Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect mirror, that!
Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect.
edit: found it:
Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here.
Assuming that the screenshot is authentic, so what? Dr. Back does not thereby claim to have invented Bitcoinlet alone to be Satoshi Nakamoto! The quoted characterization that bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control may be a bit arrogant; but it is clearly intended to be hyperbolic, it is not dishonest, and most importantly, it is not a claim to have invented Bitcoin. Moreover, Dr. Back is at the forefront of his field; he has a right to be a bit arrogant, especially in a context where he was so close yet so far: He was the one who almost had the world-shaking, history-changing idea. Well, that is what makes the difference between creating an intellectual curiosity with interesting potential applications, and creating Bitcoin. With all due respect to Dr. Back, whom I have admired for over twenty years, that almost must hurt more than a bit. ;-)
To draw a false equivalence between Dr. Back and Faketoshi is reprehensible:
ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror
| Craig Wright | Dr. Adam Back |
| Claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. | Claims to be Dr. Adam Back. |
| Is a grand-scale identity thief. | Is, in fact, Dr. Adam Back. |
| Claims to have invented Bitcoin. | Claims to have invented Hashcash. |
| Did not invent Bitcoin. | Did actually invent Hashcash. |
| Lies. | Makes factually correct statements, indulges in some hyperbole, and brags a bit. |
Mirror? jbreher, you are a liar for supporting franky1s false and defamatory smear of the inventor of Hashcash.
Credit where due: Hashcash was an important invention. It is the keystone in the Byzantine fault-tolerant mining archway that supports Satoshis much greater Bitcoin edifice. Most great works are built as such: Satoshi took material provided by those who came before him, Dr. Back inter alia, and assembled it according to his own design, together with his own original innovations. It is for this reason that Satoshi properly cited Dr. Back in the original Bitcoin paper.