Quote from: Biphuy7eth on Today at 04:21:23 PM

Whoever signs all of these addresses wants to prove that this person is a fraud and wants to win some audiences by saying that he is Satoshi, but so far he has not succeeded in those claims, but has become a laughing stock among people.
Does anyone know who signed these addresses or knows anything about their content?
They have many currencies and it is difficult for it to be done by unknown people.
and after all of that some people support him

You are full of shit, Biphuy7eth.

Should already be clear that the signing of the addresses was to show that fraudster craig wright was not satoshi.. no one else, with any note (or fame, if you want to call it that), is trying to proclaim to be satoshi.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

heres the funy part
juan is crying so hard. but has not himself read the actual parts of the latest filings

ill say it one more time.. but please this time let this sink in..
dont just instantly hit the reply button.. but instead go read the document

Dear franky1, the seemingly disingenuous dweeb: I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt and attempting to get through your thick skull, which seems impossible since you seem to be on a mission to keep repeating nonsense without even accounting for weaknesses and fallacies in your arguments and your approach, which I have attempted to point out to you.

I guess what I am suggesting is the most important thing is what you are saying about the evidence you provide, rather than the evidence itself, and at least, I have been reading your posts and attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of your various assertions and claims... You do not make it easy, but hey, I have been trying.

You, on the other hand, don't even account for my direct assertions regarding the various places that both your arguments and your presentations of evidence has been weak.. you just keep spouting out the same weak phony baloney and you fail and refuse to either account for my various outlines of the weaknesses or to improve either your arguments and your evidence in any kind of meaningful and substantial way.

Can't say that I have not tried with you, franky1 (on the other hand, you can say it, but again, insufficient evidence to establish) Tongue

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

IRA is saying craid is not supplying the real evidence of the partnership and so IRA wants the judge now or a jury later to by default judge that there is a partnership. judge that dave and CSW created bitcoin and judge that it has value.

Huh? Again, you don't even understand what the fuck is happening and the meaning of various rulings.

Let me see if I can try to 'splain this to you one more time.

Ira's attorneys were trying to get some favorable rulings for some of the issues, including the issue of whether Craig had provided fabricated evidence. Since Craig's team had recently put forth a defense that Craig is an autistic genius, the judge decided that there was a triable issue of fact, and judges do not want to make issue of law rulings when there are possible triable facts that have to be resolved, and Craig has a right to have his issues presented in front of a jury in order to resolve some of the issues of fact.

So, surely some of the trial might be complicated by having more and more issues to resolve, it frequently will be a more solid ruling if the issues of facts are allowed to be presented to jury, especially when the parties cannot come to agreements about the facts.. so in this case, the facts that are being presented by Craig seems to be whether his supposed autism had actually caused his submission of false evidence in such a way that would possibly allow him to either not be culpable or maybe to be less culpable.

Does not seem like a winning argument to me, but the judge is going to allow evidence to be presented on that issue that Craig (and legal team) wants to present.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

atleast try reading it and stop being a cry baby

The only cry baby seems to be you. I already sufficiently made my points on the topic.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

Quote from: franky1 on June 25, 2020, 01:47:04 PM

here ill continue. incase it has not sunk in
this is what IRA's team is requesting as their default judgement
" Plaintiffs request the Court permit an adverse inference instruction as follows: “(1) Wright has committed perjury, produced fabricated evidence, and withheld relevant evidence with respect to whether (a) he and David were partners, (b) the activities of their partnership, and (c) the extent of the partnership’s assets; and (2) the jury may, if it so chooses, properly infer from this misconduct that (a) Wright and David entered into a 50/50 partnership to develop blockchain-related intellectual property and mine bitcoin, (b) any such intellectual property developed by Wright prior to Dave’s death was property of the partnership, and (c) all bitcoin included in the CSW Filed List is property of the partnership.”

ill summarise
1A) wants judgement that CSW and dave were partners
1B) the activities of the partnership(creating and mining bitcoin)
1C) that the partnership has 820k coins as assets
or
2A) they had a partnership of creating and mining bitcoin
2B) any stuff done before daves death is part of the partnership
2C) all bitcoins in CSW fake list now belong to the partnership

these requested judgements from IRA's team(not CSW) sound very much like CSW's game

Those are likely going to end up as triable issues of fact. Sure, the judge might narrow down what needs to be presented to the jury, but they are still trying to work out these matters. I doubt that resolution of these issues are craigs game, but instead, they need rulings regarding the facts of these matters in order to get a judgement for damages.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

so do yourself a big favour. and realise in many posts now i have showed you
and all you wannt do is cry saying i have not showed you
so this time instead of asking me to show you.
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND READ THE FRIGGEN document

here.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.0.pdf

that document has in many different times within it multiples times saying that the plaintiff(IRA) wants the judge to rule that the trust has value and CSW&dave created bitcoin

Great.. In order to get a judgement, they need to have something to latch onto, which is the purported joint enterprise having value and Craig stealing Dave's coins or Dave's proportion of the coins (what should have been dave's that Craig supposedly stole).

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

..
now dont bother replying and just read the document

Too late. I already replied.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

you have no excuses left. just read it

You can beg me until you are blue in the face, and my reading it does not matter. You already said what you believe the document says, and even if I give you all the benefit of the doubt, the matters still need to be presented to trial for resolution.. and you can spin collusion until you are blue in the face, it makes little to no sense.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

i could show you many other documents that have IRA's team not really caring about the real fact that CSW is a scammer that had nothing to do with bitcoin more than 5 years ago.. but instead is pursuing a story that CSW had alots of involvement throughout including creating it.

Yes, they are using Craigs story against him to get a judgement in their favor... good for them. You think that is going to affect bitcoin beyond the drama? Let's say that the court rules that craig is the rightful owner of all the coins that he proclaims in the trust and craig is satoshi. Therefore Craig owes Ira half of those coins, then you think that the court is going to be able to deliver half of the coins to craig so that he can pay Ira if craig does not even have the keys that he proclaims to have? Whatever, you are living in a fantasy, franky1. Anyone gives any shits about what the court proclaims about ownership, if they actually are not able to show the private keys? Makes no sense what you are striving to proclaim about the supposed collusion/conspiracy of the parties, merely because Ira's team is trying to get a ruling that craig owes him and his family half of the value of the coins that they proclaim to have (even if CSW and their nutjobs end up not having those coins).

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

no where does it say that IRA is calling CSW a fraud in regards to pretending to be satoshi.

Who cares? And who cares if the court rules him to be satoshi? Does not matter, because he is not.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

no where does iras team suggest CSW had nothing to do with bitcoin

Again, who cares? And who cares if the court rules him to be involved in bitcoin when he has been faking it since about 2015-ish? Does not matter, because craig has been making up the vast majority of his supposed activism in bitcoin. who cares what the court rules? Apparently you do?

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

so go wake up and realise the game CSW and ira are play together.. but against the community.

Even if some of their attempts to resolve some issues might align in terms of wanting to get a ruling that Craig and Dave had engaged in a joint venture and that craig had stolen dave's coins, still does not mean that they are either colluding or conspiring.. even if they share some interests that happen to be hostile to bitcoin itself, which seems to be the crux of your disjointed and all over the place nonsensical arguments.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

if you want to reply. use the documents. not your friends opinion that your following.

I don't have any friends.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

use the documents and actually read them for what they are

Stop bossing me around.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 05:13:02 PM

my point is not about my opinion.. but about what is actually wrote in the documents.
try to do the same

Your point or your points are nonsense, even if there might possibly be some truth in your point(s) here and there. Tongue