Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision (Important Announcements)
^. Right, two brain cells in total please, one from each. 
Thanks.
I thought so.
Is this scam fork legit or what?
Off course it's legit.Thanks.
I thought so.
Yep, BSV the totally legit SCAM fork ... [citations below]
Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud - Tulip Trust addresses signed message ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960.0
...snip...
Wonder if they will again attempt to settle before the trial. They tried once in September of last year but that fell through. The trial was originally scheduled for March 30th, then again for this month, so I hope they don't push it back too much further. But you know, covid is also a pretty good excuse not to have to do anything.
Surprisingly, NO DEFAULT SANCTIONS for Craig Wright in the Kleiman v Wright case. Trial by jury it is.
Wonder if they will again attempt to settle before the trial. They tried once in September of last year but that fell through. The trial was originally scheduled for March 30th, then again for this month, so I hope they don't push it back too much further. But you know, covid is also a pretty good excuse not to have to do anything.
I'm 99.9999% and a few more 9's percent certain that this case will eventually go to trial ...
The entire thing is a complete and utter sham, apparently based on a nullity. (Derivative suit, much?).
...
The reality most likely was ...
The real satoshi released bitcoin here:
Bitcoin v0.1 released - Thu Jan 8 14:27:40 EST 2009
- https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html
Dave Kleiman likely saw and/or got notification of the bitcoin release here:
[heise online UK] Secure deletion: a single overwrite will do it - Tue Jan 20 19:18:39 EST 2009
- https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/015029.html
January 2009 Archives by thread
- https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/thread.html
Remembering that Dave was effectively housebound in his wheelchair and he was a digital forensic investigator, therefore he most certainly downloaded and ran the bitcoin software. Maybe he mined some, maybe he did not, who knows?
Perhaps he told Craig Wright about it at the time, perhaps he did not ... presumably Craig's response at the time might of been something to the effect of "Cypherpunk BS, won't go anywhere", again, who knows?
The rest is history, as they say ...
Quote: Arthur van Pelt @MyLegacyKit
"I've changed the layout a little to a yearly "Lies, Forgeries & Frauds" timeline and will now go concentrate on the content details. Keep you posted. This is a pretty massive undertaking, especially when I go unravel the ATO and Edman reports in detail. "
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1280422503974928384
*Satire*
and/or
"THIS FACILITY CANNOT ACCEPT: DIRT"
Alice In Chains - Down in a Hole (PCM Stereo)
- https://youtu.be/f8hT3oDDf6c
...
Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud - Tulip Trust addresses signed message ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960.0
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.
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.
"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.
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.