Quote from: avikz on April 28, 2020, 05:29:58 PM

The news recently surfaced in my inbox,

hxxps://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-claims-satoshi-nakamoto-never-used-bitcointalk-to-communicate/

Don't know how to react! The court case seems to taking unexpected twists and turns!

1. Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.

2. BCH is NOT Bitcoin. Stop reading 'news' sites that 'promote' either of these forks (copies) as being Bitcoin.

3. Bitcoin = BTC. Always has, always will.

4. The real satoshi posted on this forum, which became bitcointalk.org.

bitcoin.org/smf > bitcointalk.org

I, 'BitcoinFX' can confirm that the real satoshi's posts have remained intact to this date ...

Welcome to the new Bitcoin forum!
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg188#msg188

...

"Exactly.

Plus the most damning evidence against Craig's claim here can include any (used or mined to) BTC addresses posted by early users of http://BitcoinTalk.org prior to the 2011 date.

These addresses have timestamps of transactions in the BTC, BCH and BSV blockchains ..."
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1245293506396073985

Herewith, my signed and verifiable message thread ...

Re: Verifying my (old) zero balance wallet address for blockchain research etc.,
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4630066.msg54167647#msg54167647

...

Full debunk of Craig Wight's false claims and mis-information by @MyLegacyKit on twitter ...

"Craig Wright - Satoshi NEVER Posted on Bitcointalk?

Every time when Craig is trying to rewrite history for his #Faketoshi clown act, he makes these funny mistakes. Because as usual, he has no idea what he's talking about.

Take this, for example."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343768045400064

...

"Here Craig spends some time figuring out on Wayback Machine how Satoshi did or did not post on the bitcointalk forum, and because he finds a few *discrepancies*, Craig claims Satoshi's posts have been edited and "Satoshi never posted on bitcointalk". "
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343769400090624

...

"Now the real story.

The earliest Bitcoin board was on SourceForge. In Sep 2009, Martti Malmi & Satoshi decided to set up their own forum, which happened in Nov 2009 on http:// bitcoin.org/smf. Satoshi registered Nov 19, 2009 and posted Nov 22, 2009 (with link to old forum)."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343770587127808

...

"Then, in June 2011 Jeff Garzik registered the domain http://bitcointalk.org. And the only thing they needed to do was a Dynamic Name Server change from http:// bitcoin.org/smf to http://bitcointalk.org as the forum environment did not change."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343772839489536

...

"Did not change? Yup. Craig is making up bullshit.

Forum in 2010: "Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC"

Forum now: "Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines"

So, all posts including Satoshi's were 1 on 1 *moved* by a simple DNS change."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343774462611456

...

"Our #Faketoshi got fooled here. He found a Dec 2010 Satoshi post with a bitcointalk link where a http:// bitcoin.org/smf link is expected.

But forum admins with a little coding experience can, and will, update these internal links during a move to a new domain... "
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343775762853888

...

"So yeah, Craig again shows that he has to do research for his #Faketoshi act. And while doing this research, he makes these hilarious mistakes & misinterpretations again. His cult will no doubt buy it again, but we know better.

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

End."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1245343777302118403

...

Quote from: satoshi on June 18, 2010, 04:17:14 PM

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

... snip...

- https://youtu.be/IsdWl0CwS2g