It's not a private key it's a brainwallet.

1 ) Go to https://www.bitaddress.org/
2 ) click on brainwallet (upper right)
3 ) Disconnect from internet
4 ) Verify that you are offline
5 ) Be 100% sure you are offline
6 ) Verify steps 4 & 5
7 ) Click on show so you can see what you are typing.
8 ) Put in what is there in the enter passphrase box CApitAlizatiON matters
9 ) Click on view it should show the address and the private key.


-Dave

I believe you would need to peel the hologram to reveal the private key and then sweep it in your wallet.

Για να χρησιμοποιήσεις ένα αυτοκίνητο δε χρειάζεται να γνωρίζεις την κάθε τεχνική λεπτομέρεια. Για να πείσεις όμως κάποιον πως το μοντέλο Α είναι καλύτερο απ' το μοντέλο Β χρειάζεται να γνωρίζεις την κάθε λεπτομέρεια.

Εσύ έρχεσαι εδώ και προσπαθείς να πείσεις ανθρώπους ότι είναι τεχνικά λανθασμένοι. Παράλληλα μας λες ότι σημασία δεν έχουν οι τεχνικές λεπτομέρειες.

Δυστυχώς δεν μπορώ να συμμετέχω σε μια ακόμη τέτοια συζήτηση με τα ίδια χιλιοειπωμένα θέματα. Το ότι δε λες να παραδεχτείς πως μπορεί να είσαι τεχνικά λάθος, πως είσαι υπέρ μιας Οργουελιστικής πραγματικότητας, και το γεγονός πως πιστεύεις ότι ο Craig είναι ο Satoshi μετά από όλα όσα έχουν ειπωθεί, μου δίνει την εντύπωση πως δεν έχεις έρθει με καλόβουλες προθέσεις. Δεν νομίζω πως έχουμε κάτι άλλο να πούμε.

... στρατόπεδο; Η αποκέντρωση δεν έχει ούτε εθνικότητα ούτε σύνορα. Το βλέπεις σαν έναν πόλεμο, ο οποίος δεν υπάρχει. Αυτό που έχουμε φτιάξει είναι ένα σύνολο από επιλογές. Όλα αυτά τα δίκτυα που έχουμε στη διάθεσή μας (Bitcoin, Monero, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin κλπ.) δεν είναι ούτε κτήμα σου, ούτε είσαι εσύ για αυτά. Είναι κουτό να το βλέπεις μέχρι και σαν διαγωνισμό για το ποιο είναι "καλύτερο". Καθένα από αυτά εξυπηρετεί διαφορετικές μερίδες ανθρώπων, τα ενδιαφέροντα των οποίων κάποιες φορές συγκλίνουν κι άλλες αποκλίνουν.

Αντί για να έχεις το θράσος και την έλλειψη ταπεινοφροσύνης, με τέτοια τεχνική ανικανότητα, να αποκαλείς όλους τους Bitcoiners πρόβατα, θα ήταν προτιμότερο να μελετούσες λίγο παραπάνω για αυτό που έχεις στα χέρια σου; Εκτός κι αν πιστεύεις ότι γνωρίζεις τεχνικά καλύτερα τα πάντα από όλους μας, που στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση θα ήσουν ψευδαισθητικός...

it started in 2003 and ended after 2005.. (many appeals and asking for continuances and such stupid avoidance tactics)
he was ordered to not compete in 2003

i was actually reading the court filings of the 2003 case..

he worked at ASX? according to? wiki, media? that can only source CSW's own word for it

ever tried to do research to find proper information..
EG
after resigning from his families business(demorgan(sisters last name) (founders CSW and his first wife))* which the exit came with a non-compete
he then approached ASX trying to offer products/services("independant consultant") where he treated ASX as a (potential/solicited) customer of his shell company.. not where CSW was an active employee of ASX... oh and CSW got 28 days prison time for approaching ASX offering ASX products and services...**
even funnier.. CSW appeals the guilty judgement of the breach of non-compete by trying to say his involvement/solicitation/approach to ASX was ambiguous(no deals made) thus in CSW view was thus not competing***


the wording of the court cases back then, were not that he provable worked for, was contracted to, or subcontracted to ASX, but instead ambiguous at best was just approaching companies like ASX asking for business. and that alone was enough to be a breach of his exit contract(non-compete) from demorgan

have a nice day

*he duped an investor into buying a large share% of demorgan, promising fake profits.. then he stepped down signing a non-compete.. but leaving the investor holding an empty bag of crap as the sole owner of 'demorgan'(which had not products or services).. but had a promise to provide service to ASX but never did provide services under 'demorgan'..
**then setting up 'ridge' he approached ASX employees trying to win new contracts(but didnt succeed)
***by saying that demorgan wont offer services promised and they should go with him.. ASX however forwarded that contact communication to the demorgan share % owner and it went to court

yep he was even scamming back in early 2000's

Who said he's a security expert? That's a title Craig has given himself, but given he gets hacked regularly when it's convenient for him as an excuse I'd say I'm more of a security expert than Craig.

Umm... Excuse me, but what definition? The guy argues he is an expert in cybersecurity and the person behind Bitcoin, and yet he fails to tell what's an unsigned integer. I really want to know what makes it so difficult for you to connect the dots.

Nobody offended you though. If someone is called to be "low level ignorant", it's you, who's ignoring all the evidence (or completely misinterpreting them).

He doesn't understand what's a static const unsigned int, which is considered basic knowledge for beginners in C++. In fact, you can find the definition of these keywords on probably every programming book there is, beyond C++. Yet, he's a "cybersecurity expert" and has written Bitcoin in above-average C++ code. They add up, don't they?  

Lol! Just lol!

We will see more about this when c++ creator will be on the stand .

Sorry for missing the updates for the past few days. Here's a quick summary:

Day 8:

Day 8 was the last day of Craig's cross examination. COPA's Jonathan Hugh KC has now finished questioning him and handed over cross-examination to Alexander Gunning KC for the first time who was grilling Craig on the bitcoin code. It was by far my favourite day as Craig fucked himself royally and he knew it. Craig couldn't even explain two simple bits of code within bitcoin nor did he know what the code did. He didn't know what 'static const unsigned int' was. According to Arthur Van Pelt 'unsigned integer' was used over 500 times in the original bitcoin code  . It was at this point I think they should have just called off the trial and told him to get out. Craig really should have spent more time learning to code or at least memorising it instead of wasting his time with phony degrees and worthless patents.

Day 9:

Craig's cross examination has finished now and his "expert witnesses" are now being cross examined. And when I say expert witnesses they include his sister, friends, and people who worked for or with him years ago. I'm not sure why Craig picked these doofs because they're making him look like an even bigger idiot. One of the witnesses was caught looking down at something at certain points after questions. COPA's lawyer asked him if he was reading from something and he admitted he was. He was asked what he was reading from and said notes. He was asked why he had notes and who gave him them. He denied Craig gave him them and made the notes himself, but couldn't explain why he needed them. The time he was caught was when he mentioned Timecoin because he paused and looked down before he continued. This is the first time he'd ever mentioned Timecoin and hadn't mentioned it in either of his previous testimonies for Craig, so it was pretty obvious he'd been told to try shoehorn this mention in somewhere and obviously has list of things Craig has told him to now mention to bolster his claims. Timecoin is something Craig dreamed up fairly recently so it's obviously another example of Craig trying to backdate evidence and re-write history in his favour.

Day 10:

This was a shorter day and included only a couple of testimonies, including from Craig's sister. The best thing she had was that Craig has always been smart and weird, and used to dress up as a ninja as a kid . So... Satoshi is a Japanese name and ninjas are Japanese, so therefore Craig is Satoshi??? The other people were just old work colleagues in various capacities. Pretty much all the witnesses couldn't remember Craig ever mentioning something specific to bitcoin, only that he was always messing about with computers, and might have mentioned something like blockchain, or mining etc, but Hugh kept asking them if this is what actually happened or are they looking back through the prism of hindsight and knowing what they know now rather than at the time. The trial has become a farce now in my opinion.

Day 11: Today

Today we've had Craig's witnesses of David Bridges, who worked alongside Craig at Australia's Qudos Bank who he met Craig in 2006, Max Lynama who is Craig's cousin, and now BSV's Stefan Matthews who is currently being cross examined as I type this. Nothing exciting or important has happened or been said so far really and Matthew's is just denying most things.

I will try get back on track to the daily updates, but if you want to listen to a concise recap of the trial so far I recommend listening to Part 2 of the Dr Bitcoin podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3CoTfili4

They have been doing updates every few days and I'm sure part 3 will be coming soon.

When we talk about influencial names in crypto aside the greatest of the greatest like Satoshi Nakamoto and Vitalik Buterin, we hear names like Chanpeng Zhao, Justin Sun, Barry Silbert and the rest. I have only come across few female names which are quite unpopular if you ask me. Names like Caitlin Long, Cathie Wood and Elizabeth Stark are few names that rings a bell out of the thousands names one can find. Do you think there are more influencial women in crypto, this will help to encourage more women into adopting cryptocurrency? Perhaps there are some which are doing really great but we haven't got to hear their names.