Quote from: Bitcoin SV on July 07, 2020, 05:43:59 PM

Quote from: seoincorporation on July 07, 2020, 04:35:54 PM

If BSV is better then why CSW is trying so hard to prove he is satoshi Nakamoto?

Let me tell you something. If CSW is not Satoshi, let Satoshi show up and declare about it.
Until then, Craig has the right to all claims

Craig claimed in court he owned a bunch of addresses ... turns out he does not own them and someone else in fact does ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960.0

Quote from: BitcoinFX on July 07, 2020, 08:01:35 PM

The real satoshi would simply never say this ...

"Interviewer: "Hey Craig, how do you explain the 145 addressed that signed "Craig is a fraud" last week ?"

Craig: " No message was signed, you can't sign anonymously - you have to have an identity to sign....key don't count..I gotta go...be" 😂😂😂 "
https://twitter.com/BitcoinMemeHub/status/1268366834287312897

Source: REIMAGINE 2020 - Craig S. Wright - World Riots, Hard Work, Quantum Computing and more
- https://youtu.be/PHBrodzl5qY?t=5105

...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature

"A digital signature is a mathematical scheme for verifying the authenticity of digital messages or documents. A valid digital signature, where the prerequisites are satisfied, gives a recipient very strong reason to believe that the message was created by a known sender (authentication), and that the message was not altered in transit (integrity).

Digital signatures are a standard element of most cryptographic protocol suites, and are commonly used for software distribution, financial transactions, contract management software, and in other cases where it is important to detect forgery or tampering..."

...

Back to the OP ... 145 addresses were signed and the messages are 100% verifiable on the blockchain.

These are addresses that Craig Wright told the court he owned / mined, in the 4th revision of the Tulip Trust, which is supposedly inaccessible. Cheesy

Valid Bitcoin messages can clearly be signed anonymously and no you don't have to have an identity for the message to be validated.

Moreover, the message does in fact contain an identity i.e. the anonymous address does NOT belong to Craig Wright.

The addresses could belong to anybody, but it categorically does not belong to Craig Wright.

Anyone who still thinks that 'Craig is Satoshi', based on this single piece of evidence alone, is a complete and utterly misguided fool.

Care to explain this one? Plus all his other lies ...

- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1280422503974928384

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960.msg54747021#msg54747021

Roll Eyes

Bitcoin = BTC