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.


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)  



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.




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



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.



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).



Too late.  I already replied.


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.


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).


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



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?


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.


I don't have any friends.


Stop bossing me around.


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