Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 245 results by kna
A short explanation about BitCoin:
Quote
Craig Wright signed messages from block 1 proving he was Satoshi to numerous people who vouched for him including Gavin Andresen, Ian Grigg, Jon Matonis and others.
submitted 10 months ago * by Truth__MachineCRYPTOREBEL@HANDCASH.IO
I am getting sick of answering a lot of questions over and over from newbs in this sub who don't understand these things and are having trouble shaking their CDS. Here you can see Ian Grigg, Gavin Andresen, and Jon Matonis, among others all received signed messages from block 1. On top of that they have vouched for Craig not only for cryptographic evidence but also social evidence which is arguably a much harder standard to prove.
I have also noticed that so many are clueless about facts and fail to research and just parrot talking point propaganda that they believe the signed message released by Craig in 2018 here is the same one given to Gavin and others. It is not. That signature and the signatures given to Gavin and others are completely different events. The second signature event is put up by trolls often to say the Gavin signature event was debunked, which shows their complete lack of understanding. It is known that the second signature event has doubt as csw says, but a message could be revealed later which proves its authenticity.
Edit (4-22-21): I would like to clarify an error in this post, Ian Grigg never received a signed message from block 1, as he has clarified here, instead he was vouching for Craig Wright as being Satoshi based on "direct knowledge", which is probably even more powerful evidence.
Although Craig did sign with Block 1 for Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis as described in the links above. Craig has also signed privately for Calvin Ayre, Stefan Matthews and others according to what Calvin says here.
Edit: (5-29-21): Here Stefan Matthews, CEO of Taal mining company says that Craig showed him material included in the whitepaper prior to its public release.
~
FucktheCaball 1 point 18 days ago
If BSV is the so called “real Bitcoin” why is it so low? I’m just finding out there was a split. What made it different and why don’t exchanges like Binance, and Crypto.com not hold it?
Truth__MachineCRYPTOREBEL@HANDCASH.IO
Yes its low because of censorship and delisting campaigns against BSV. Basically when BSV first split we went by the BCH ticker, and we were still on a lot of exchanges for a while, but then when Amaury Sechet and Roger Ver usurped BCH and stole the ticker, BSV split off and many exchanges used it as an excuse to delist BSV. Many of them had only supported BCH reluctantly, and BCH had a lot of community support in early days which forced their hand. But over time they were able to loosen the grip and get rid of BSV for good. Ledger and Trezor also refused to support it. Binance supported BSV for a while, but then when Craig Wright sued Peter McCormack for defamation, Binance CEO CZ went on twitter and threw a fit and said any more of this and we delist, then he delisted BSV to try to hurt BSV because he does not like Craig Wright. Since then Craig has won his lawsuit with Peter McCormack. Some other exchanges also trolled BSV and did twitter polls asking twitter if they should delist BSV and basically everyone was mocking and trashing on BSV and every BSVer. But despite all those attacks we still are thriving, and eventually we will triumph. Dr. Wright is now sending letters to Coinbase, Kraken, BlockStream and others warning them not to pass off BTC as a fake Bitcoin anymore. So there is likely going to be legal action to get the Bitcoin brand back for BSV. What they have done to BSV is not acceptable and is shameful, but we are not backing down.
FucktheCaball
Wow. This is crazy I didn’t know all this I just thought it forked because of changes and the real BTC was that . the real BTC. It sounds like a inside coupe . Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist Im going to buy some. I have Poloniex so I’ll get it there.
Truth__MachineCRYPTOREBEL@HANDCASH.IO
Yes the censorship is real, you are in the right place to find the truth. We got banned from /r/bitcoin and /r/btc, trolls stole the /r/bsv sub so we made this sub. Some pretty dark interests are funding BlockStream, even Jeffrey Epstein is funding Core through the MIT media lab. Powerful interests are trying to stop the real Bitcoin. BSV mines world record 2GB blocks and is the only system that can scale for world adoption with small fees. BSV has also re-enabled all of satoshi's opcodes, which allows it to do smart contracts like ETH, something the Core people said was impossible. But the difference is BSV can actually scale, unlike ETH.
FucktheCaball
This is crazy. The cabal has their hands in everything and they ruin everything good for the small guy. I bought some BSV I notice the link had dollar vigilantes Jeff B in there I’m going to go watch that video. It’s like a big conspiracy but I’m the type that do t believe in that many Coincidences. Thank you for informing me Is there somewhere I can get more info on all this? Or maybe I’ll just follow you, you seem well informed
Truth__MachineCRYPTOREBEL@HANDCASH.IO
Yes Jeff has been somewhat open minded, but a lot of the anarchists in the space have decided that Craig Wright is the enemy, so he has tended to side with BCH more as well which I think is a mistake. I think Vigilante Crypto also works with Jeff and he supports BSV despite a lot of disagreement from some of his colleagues in terms of BSV. A lot of people have been swayed by the narratives in the space, and the intimidation mobs. Its like if you support BSV you will be a victim of cancel culture and attacked and deplatformed and shunned. But when you look deeper you will find the truth, there is a reason people don't want you to look at it.
FucktheCaball
So what is Bitcoin cash from? Please excuse my ignorance on the subject. I’m just kinda confused and you seem to know ALOT.
Truth__MachineCRYPTOREBEL@HANDCASH.IO
Basically Bitcoin Core developers were funded by blockstream and took over the development, sometimes in a very hostile way. Satoshi's quotes on bitcointalk and early emails were clear, Bitcoin would scale on chain and use SPV (simplified payment verification) as described in whitepaper. Users don't need to run nodes as the system scales according to Satoshi's quotes. But Core says we need to keep 1MB blocks forever so everyone can run a node forever. This was the disagreement and usurpation. Eventually Core added segwit instead of a blocksize increase, so we had no choice but to preserve the ledger and split off, so we supported Bitcoin Cash, which split from BTC-Core in August 2017. The split occured right after segwit was guaranteed to be activated on BTC. We raised the blocksize to 32MB and started scaling. Baiscally BSV is the real Bitcoin Cash and the real Bitcoin. Over time we tried raising the blocksize again to 128MB but the BCHABC devs blocked it and tried adding changes to the protocol like CTOR instead which violates the whitepaper description of chronological ordering of transactions. They lied and said they would raise the 32MB limit, and to this day they still have small blocks and their blocksize is actually shrinking. BSV had to split off again to avoid their usurpation of the protocol, so the BSV ticker was created in November 2018. But just because the ticker changes from, BTC to BCH to BSV, its all the same original Bitcoin from our perspective. BSV is the only system following Satoshi's vision and the whitepaper. Now BSV mines world record 2GB blocks, 2000x the size of BTC, proving it can scale for world adoption with small fees.
Read more: https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/l5u9sb/craig_wright_signed_messages_from_block_1_proving/
Quote
Bitcoin—the jury is still out
The biggest civil court case in recent history is winding down. Both sides of the Kleiman v Wright trial have made their case, and the jury is now out on deliberation. I figure this may be the last time I can write something without it being a retrospective “in hindsight” viewpoint. So I will take that liberty and give an opinion while I can still say that an official court ruling unsullies my viewpoint.
And what a case this has been. More than that, the drama and differences in the internet and mainstream and digital media responses have been nothing short of remarkable. Remarkable in the sense that it is objectively apparent that the age of disinformation is truly upon us. Journalism is essentially dead, and in the plethora and chaos of information available to us, the power falls into the hands of those who control the platforms and portals through which we get that information (Twitter, Facebook, and the usual villains). Future generations will refer to the saga of Dr. Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto, as the epitome of tragedies of the chaotic information age, hopefully, the last one.
In the future, pulling off such a widespread media disinformation campaign will become difficult, given that data will be more and more traceable thanks to BSV and the Metanet. But today, never before has there been such illogical public outcry against someone who simply refuses to give the public what they want, which is instant answers (that they don’t deserve).
Those who are not convinced that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, given the evidence revealed in this trial, will never be convinced because their salary/livelihood/reputation depends on them not believing. Essentially, because some people were born into an age where the internet allowed you to say whatever you felt like, without any consideration for public norms of decorum, common decency, or any mutual respect for fellow members of the human race. They have taken their high school locker room antics a tad too far and have now firmly put themselves between a rock and a hard place after screaming foolish slander from the tops of the mountains of the digital frontier. They have a tough choice—that is, either throwing away all logic and common sense and continuing to play the ignoramus fool, or doing something unthinkable for the millennium generation: admitting that they were wrong online. Many, it seems, predictably have decided to stick to their guns until the music stops. (Or at least until they can find other gullible people to ‘unload their bags onto’, then fade quietly from the public eye).
I have made a video stating all the technical reasons as to why I believed that Craig is Satoshi in the past, but the court case has revealed more non-technical evidence to support the claim. To me, this stuff wasn’t needed, as I don’t need to see a calculus’s professors credentials to know that they have a mastery of calculus. All you need to do is attend their class (and be well-versed in mathematics to follow the material).
However, to summarize the corroborated evidence supporting Craig as Satoshi claim:
■ His ex-wife was the primary Wright behind the business partnership W&K (with Dave), and that their relationship ultimately fell apart due to his unwavering work on the Bitcoin project.
■ His uncle, a decorated war veteran, spoke often times in the past about cryptography and computer science topics, illustrating his history with cybersecurity and computers, and recalls them talking about an invention that may be the prototype of Bitcoin, the Lasseters coin system.(Lasseters is a large casino and gaming conglomerate) in 2005. (This alone puts him above and beyond Nick Szabo1, Adam Back2 and the other “experts” who have tried to claim the Satoshi moniker. He also went into the background of Craig’s fascination with all things Japanese.
■ His history in the gaming industry, explaining why a version of online poker was included in the original version of the Bitcoin code release, also relating back to the Lasseters coin.
■ The fact that forged documents, allegedly implying partnership between Dave and Craig, were revealed to be more likely forged by someone else, someone close to him, and planted.
■ Likely culprits who would have incentive to help Ira in an elaborate extortion plot, Jamie Wilson, and Patrick Paige, have been revealed. Both had an association with Dave and Craig, and whose stories seem suspicious at best and require scrutiny.
■ Forged emails dating back to 2008 between Craig and Dave were using a domain rcjbr.org that didn’t exist in 2008—and the forgers didn’t know that. Importantly some of the forged documents were sent from an ISP in a suburb of Brisbane (the location of Craig’s company), but at the time Craig was known to be 570km away, at the site of his ranch where Bitcoins were being mined.
■ Phil Wilson, another claimant to the moniker Satoshi Nakamoto, showed “evidence” (not court submitted, just unsubstantiated unverified documents) that the domain was created between him and Craig. Phil claims that he was the mastermind behind Bitcoin, and Craig just helped him. Unfortunately for Phil, it came out in the trial that the name of that domain are the initials of Craig and Ramona and family members. And Craig hadn’t met Ramona until 2010, showing that the forger of the documents in all likelihood wasn’t Craig, but someone or some people who wanted to implicate Craig later on in 2013 during the height of his legal issues with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Perhaps to trump up evidence in order to substantiate a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit?
■ The ATO case, which Craig won in a settlement, showed that ATO had corrupt officers who made false records and leaked information to “shake down” their quarries. Some key evidence of the plaintiff’s case turned out to be unverified documents that the ATO later denied as unofficial.
With all the character witnesses testimonies, and the countless writings of Craig himself which exhibits intimate knowledge of Bitcoin, it is completely ridiculous that there are still online personalities who will continue to contrive and conjure up fantastic reasons why he cannot be Satoshi. The most recent claims now that Phil Wilson must be Satoshi because his story seems to “fit the pieces and fill in the missing holes” is the most moronic of all. (And I don’t usually use that term, but in this case, there is nothing that describes it sufficiently other than moronic). That some people will be more apt to trust a completely unverified story from what likely is a no one other than a rather insignificant ex-employee of Craig illustrates the cancer that the internet is suffering from today. And that some people are more willing to believe a good story than logic if it goes against their existing beliefs.
What happened to critical thinking? Do they not teach that anymore in schools? Has our society degraded so far in just one generation? They would rather trust a message that comes from someone that they don’t know, who uses the excuse of wanting to remain private and low-key as an excuse for not providing any additional information. The irony is that Craig also wanted to stay private but was not given the choice. In the end, it just boils down to people only listening to voices that they like, and not to the voice who is making the most sense, or even the person who has the most believable story, simply because it is a story that they don’t like, or wish to identify with.
It seems that the internet has divided people into cults of belief, not unlike religious cults in the real world. BTC has become the Scientology of the new world, and you have less of a chance of convincing a Scientologist that L.Ron Hubbard was just a sci-fi writer (and a bad one at that!), than convincing them that the most likely guy to be Satoshi, is the guy who has been working on Bitcoin since 2003, and still is to this day. To them, that would be sacrilege, as they have already created the god of their religion, built the altar, erected a statue, and they cannot accept a living person standing to disprove their belief system3.
All hail Satoshi Nakamoto, our lord and savior from evil governments, the oppression of laws, society, and common human decency.
Without a living inventor, they can always just point to the price appreciation to show that they are right and continue to recruit more unsuspecting converts. Why? Leaderless movements have a way of turning into religions. It is the same reason that cults exist… because those who make it their livelihood to perpetuate it, depend on them NOT believing otherwise. And while the jury is still out on the Kleiman v. Wright case, it is also still out on BTC and whether or not it is worth anything more than the Ponzi scheme cult that it has become. In its meteoric rise in a misguided attempt at taking down the banks as they were the ultimate middleman, the shadowy secret leaders of the BTC movement have become precisely those middlemen that they profess to despise.
/Jerry Chan
***
Notes:
[1] While never outright saying that he was Satoshi, Nick Szabo never denied it strongly, rather allowing the public to “come to their own conclusions.” He later capitalized on this reputation as one of the Satoshi potentials when he supported the Ethereum project.
[2] Adam never actually said he was Satoshi, but he all too often points out that Bitcoin was based on his hashcash project, going as far as to say that “Bitcoin is just hashcash with inflation control.”
Clearly he missed the whole part about the transaction structure of Bitcoin, Bitcoin script, contracting, and, well, everything else outside of the SHA256 mining function. He has over the years, enjoyed and stoked his fans’ belief that he is the secret creator of Bitcoin, capitalizing on this reputation to land him his present position as an executive of Blockstream, a company that develops and builds solutions to the self-inflicted scaling problems of the BTC network.
[3] That has made its leaders unbelievably rich. Well, paper gains anyway. They can only cash OUT, when you dear reader, cash IN.
source Jerry Chan https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-the-jury-is-still-out/
The biggest civil court case in recent history is winding down. Both sides of the Kleiman v Wright trial have made their case, and the jury is now out on deliberation. I figure this may be the last time I can write something without it being a retrospective “in hindsight” viewpoint. So I will take that liberty and give an opinion while I can still say that an official court ruling unsullies my viewpoint.
And what a case this has been. More than that, the drama and differences in the internet and mainstream and digital media responses have been nothing short of remarkable. Remarkable in the sense that it is objectively apparent that the age of disinformation is truly upon us. Journalism is essentially dead, and in the plethora and chaos of information available to us, the power falls into the hands of those who control the platforms and portals through which we get that information (Twitter, Facebook, and the usual villains). Future generations will refer to the saga of Dr. Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto, as the epitome of tragedies of the chaotic information age, hopefully, the last one.
In the future, pulling off such a widespread media disinformation campaign will become difficult, given that data will be more and more traceable thanks to BSV and the Metanet. But today, never before has there been such illogical public outcry against someone who simply refuses to give the public what they want, which is instant answers (that they don’t deserve).
Those who are not convinced that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, given the evidence revealed in this trial, will never be convinced because their salary/livelihood/reputation depends on them not believing. Essentially, because some people were born into an age where the internet allowed you to say whatever you felt like, without any consideration for public norms of decorum, common decency, or any mutual respect for fellow members of the human race. They have taken their high school locker room antics a tad too far and have now firmly put themselves between a rock and a hard place after screaming foolish slander from the tops of the mountains of the digital frontier. They have a tough choice—that is, either throwing away all logic and common sense and continuing to play the ignoramus fool, or doing something unthinkable for the millennium generation: admitting that they were wrong online. Many, it seems, predictably have decided to stick to their guns until the music stops. (Or at least until they can find other gullible people to ‘unload their bags onto’, then fade quietly from the public eye).
I have made a video stating all the technical reasons as to why I believed that Craig is Satoshi in the past, but the court case has revealed more non-technical evidence to support the claim. To me, this stuff wasn’t needed, as I don’t need to see a calculus’s professors credentials to know that they have a mastery of calculus. All you need to do is attend their class (and be well-versed in mathematics to follow the material).
However, to summarize the corroborated evidence supporting Craig as Satoshi claim:
■ His ex-wife was the primary Wright behind the business partnership W&K (with Dave), and that their relationship ultimately fell apart due to his unwavering work on the Bitcoin project.
■ His uncle, a decorated war veteran, spoke often times in the past about cryptography and computer science topics, illustrating his history with cybersecurity and computers, and recalls them talking about an invention that may be the prototype of Bitcoin, the Lasseters coin system.(Lasseters is a large casino and gaming conglomerate) in 2005. (This alone puts him above and beyond Nick Szabo1, Adam Back2 and the other “experts” who have tried to claim the Satoshi moniker. He also went into the background of Craig’s fascination with all things Japanese.
■ His history in the gaming industry, explaining why a version of online poker was included in the original version of the Bitcoin code release, also relating back to the Lasseters coin.
■ The fact that forged documents, allegedly implying partnership between Dave and Craig, were revealed to be more likely forged by someone else, someone close to him, and planted.
■ Likely culprits who would have incentive to help Ira in an elaborate extortion plot, Jamie Wilson, and Patrick Paige, have been revealed. Both had an association with Dave and Craig, and whose stories seem suspicious at best and require scrutiny.
■ Forged emails dating back to 2008 between Craig and Dave were using a domain rcjbr.org that didn’t exist in 2008—and the forgers didn’t know that. Importantly some of the forged documents were sent from an ISP in a suburb of Brisbane (the location of Craig’s company), but at the time Craig was known to be 570km away, at the site of his ranch where Bitcoins were being mined.
■ Phil Wilson, another claimant to the moniker Satoshi Nakamoto, showed “evidence” (not court submitted, just unsubstantiated unverified documents) that the domain was created between him and Craig. Phil claims that he was the mastermind behind Bitcoin, and Craig just helped him. Unfortunately for Phil, it came out in the trial that the name of that domain are the initials of Craig and Ramona and family members. And Craig hadn’t met Ramona until 2010, showing that the forger of the documents in all likelihood wasn’t Craig, but someone or some people who wanted to implicate Craig later on in 2013 during the height of his legal issues with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Perhaps to trump up evidence in order to substantiate a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit?
■ The ATO case, which Craig won in a settlement, showed that ATO had corrupt officers who made false records and leaked information to “shake down” their quarries. Some key evidence of the plaintiff’s case turned out to be unverified documents that the ATO later denied as unofficial.
With all the character witnesses testimonies, and the countless writings of Craig himself which exhibits intimate knowledge of Bitcoin, it is completely ridiculous that there are still online personalities who will continue to contrive and conjure up fantastic reasons why he cannot be Satoshi. The most recent claims now that Phil Wilson must be Satoshi because his story seems to “fit the pieces and fill in the missing holes” is the most moronic of all. (And I don’t usually use that term, but in this case, there is nothing that describes it sufficiently other than moronic). That some people will be more apt to trust a completely unverified story from what likely is a no one other than a rather insignificant ex-employee of Craig illustrates the cancer that the internet is suffering from today. And that some people are more willing to believe a good story than logic if it goes against their existing beliefs.
What happened to critical thinking? Do they not teach that anymore in schools? Has our society degraded so far in just one generation? They would rather trust a message that comes from someone that they don’t know, who uses the excuse of wanting to remain private and low-key as an excuse for not providing any additional information. The irony is that Craig also wanted to stay private but was not given the choice. In the end, it just boils down to people only listening to voices that they like, and not to the voice who is making the most sense, or even the person who has the most believable story, simply because it is a story that they don’t like, or wish to identify with.
It seems that the internet has divided people into cults of belief, not unlike religious cults in the real world. BTC has become the Scientology of the new world, and you have less of a chance of convincing a Scientologist that L.Ron Hubbard was just a sci-fi writer (and a bad one at that!), than convincing them that the most likely guy to be Satoshi, is the guy who has been working on Bitcoin since 2003, and still is to this day. To them, that would be sacrilege, as they have already created the god of their religion, built the altar, erected a statue, and they cannot accept a living person standing to disprove their belief system3.
All hail Satoshi Nakamoto, our lord and savior from evil governments, the oppression of laws, society, and common human decency.
Without a living inventor, they can always just point to the price appreciation to show that they are right and continue to recruit more unsuspecting converts. Why? Leaderless movements have a way of turning into religions. It is the same reason that cults exist… because those who make it their livelihood to perpetuate it, depend on them NOT believing otherwise. And while the jury is still out on the Kleiman v. Wright case, it is also still out on BTC and whether or not it is worth anything more than the Ponzi scheme cult that it has become. In its meteoric rise in a misguided attempt at taking down the banks as they were the ultimate middleman, the shadowy secret leaders of the BTC movement have become precisely those middlemen that they profess to despise.
/Jerry Chan
***
Notes:
[1] While never outright saying that he was Satoshi, Nick Szabo never denied it strongly, rather allowing the public to “come to their own conclusions.” He later capitalized on this reputation as one of the Satoshi potentials when he supported the Ethereum project.
[2] Adam never actually said he was Satoshi, but he all too often points out that Bitcoin was based on his hashcash project, going as far as to say that “Bitcoin is just hashcash with inflation control.”
Clearly he missed the whole part about the transaction structure of Bitcoin, Bitcoin script, contracting, and, well, everything else outside of the SHA256 mining function. He has over the years, enjoyed and stoked his fans’ belief that he is the secret creator of Bitcoin, capitalizing on this reputation to land him his present position as an executive of Blockstream, a company that develops and builds solutions to the self-inflicted scaling problems of the BTC network.
[3] That has made its leaders unbelievably rich. Well, paper gains anyway. They can only cash OUT, when you dear reader, cash IN.
source Jerry Chan https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-the-jury-is-still-out/
Um at it's inception ZEUBI ZEUBII ZEUUBIII
Quote
There is a fundamental problem with your BTC Ponzi shema, it is Tether USDT and other backed coins on thin air that allows even more BTC ETH to be bought from deluded people and institutions and as a result artificially drives up the prices of the entire crypro sphere, so money is created out of thin air and then slips out the door or into the stock market
You know this, it is no secret, unfortunately you seem to continue to be dishonest, even to yourself and the readers, participants.
You know this, it is no secret, unfortunately you seem to continue to be dishonest, even to yourself and the readers, participants.
Quote
There is a serial forger in Kleiman vs Wright, and it isn’t Satoshi
For months and even years in the lead-up to Kleiman v Wright, the idea that there are forged exhibits in “evidence” has come up often.
Usually, it comes up in the form of indignant bleating from the people who have already decided (or been paid to decide) that Dr. Craig Wright couldn’t possibly be behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym. After all, if you can get enough people to write a person off as a serial forger, you can make sure they are never taken seriously again.
That is perhaps the reason for the seemingly immortal claim that if there are any forgeries connected to Wright, it must be Wright who is responsible for them. Who else would have the motive to alter and forge documents? Right?
However, as the Kleiman trial began and as thousands of pages of evidence and hours of testimony were presented to the jury, it has become apparent that this assumption is way off, and that though there is a serial forger in the midst of the Kleiman v Wright suit, it isn’t Wright.
Vital forgeries which can’t be blamed on Wright
To those paying close attention to the case, this won’t be a huge surprise at this stage. Expert witness Dr. Matthew Edman testified for the plaintiffs that 40 or so emails he reviewed had been forged: specifically, he was able to determine that IP addresses associated with some of the forgeries came from Wooloowin, a suburb of Brisbane Australia.
At the time the forgeries were said to have been created, Dr. Wright was living and working in Sydney, 900km and a 9.5-hour drive from Wooloowin—suggesting whoever has been forging evidence, it isn’t Dr. Wright.
Wright was further exonerated when he [url=http://returned to the stand on Monday]returned to the stand on Monday[/url] and was presented with an email—P2 on the plaintiff’s exhibit list—purportedly sent from Wright to Dave Kleiman on March 12, 2008:
"I need your help editing a paper I am going to release [sic] later this year. I have been working on a new form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin"
"You are always there for me Dave. I want you to be a part of it all."
"I cannot release it as me. GMX, vistomail and Tor. I need your help and I need a version of me to make this work that is better than me."
This email was introduced by the plaintiffs and is vital to their case against Wright because it is the only primary evidence that indicates Dave had any involvement in the Satoshi Nakamoto partnership at all. Wright has always indicated that Dave Kleiman helped edit the white paper, so the email isn’t a slam dunk for the plaintiffs, but it does a lot of heavy lifting for the plaintiff’s case. Without this email, there is zero evidence that Dave and Wright ever talked about Bitcoin before it was released publicly.
What is important is that the email comes from one of Wright’s well-known domains (@rcbjr.org). But public records show that the domain wasn’t registered until 2011 (something which Wright confirmed on the stand). Further, the metadata analysis produced by the defense show that the email was sent in 2015, rather than 2008.
In other words, the 2008 email seems to be at least partly inauthentic.
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1462835989550977038
It should be mentioned that this particular email was conspicuously left off the list of documents sent to Edman by the plaintiff’s lawyers for analysis. Given its importance to the plaintiff’s case and what we now know about the email, it would seem that this omission was deliberate.
However, the most intriguing bit of evidence showing that the email is a forgery has nothing to do with metadata. In something of a ‘gotcha’ moment at the expense of the plaintiffs, Dr. Wright explained to the jury that the @rcjbr.org domain refers to the initials of his family: Ramona, Craig, and his three kids first initials J,B and R. Given that Wright didn’t meet his wife until 2010, the email couldn’t have been sent prior to that even ignoring the metadata.
This puts the 2008 email in a category of its own among the allegedly forged evidence in the case, because it’s the only one where we can definitively rule out any suspects. Whoever forged this document can’t have known what @rcjbr.org stands for, and the email itself is only detrimental to Wright’s defense—which means whoever did the forging was almost certainly someone other than Wright.
In addition to exonerating Wright, it also lends credence to his long-standing claims that some of the evidence being relied upon by the plaintiffs—such as the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) documents—have been forged.
But by who?
Not Dr. Wright
The first thing to clarify is that contrary to what Wright’s detractors would have you believe, the plaintiffs have not been the only party to complain about forgeries on the docket. In fact, it has been the plaintiffs who have fought the hardest to keep the evidence of bogus documents from being considered by the jury.
For example, Dr. Wright’s legal team had expended considerable effort before trial to make sure the issue of forged evidence was put before the jury. They fought to have an expert presented at trial who would testify that certain documents on the record contained forged signatures—including that of Wright. The plaintiffs successfully argued to have the expert excluded.
Consistent with this strategy, the plaintiffs went even further, filing a motion to get the court to prohibit Wright from claiming that any documents in the case had been forged. The court rejected this out of hand on the basis that any claims of forgeries are for the jury to evaluate.
So, even going into the trial, the idea that the record was littered with documents and emails forged by Dr. Wright didn’t make sense. Add to that the fact that the most definitive thing anyone can say about any of the apparent forgeries on the record relates to the 2008 RCBJR email: that whoever made that forgery, it could not have been Dr. Wright.
As the person with hundreds of billions to gain from demonstrating that Dr. Wright was both his brother’s business partner and a compulsive liar, Ira Kleiman is an obvious candidate. The aforementioned pre-trial strategy of preventing Wright from complaining about forgeries certainly indicates that the plaintiffs were well aware that some of their evidence are of questionable authenticity.
Ira isn’t much of a computer expert, however, so if he was forging documents, he at the very least was using someone else to do it.
Jamie Wilson had means, motive and opportunity
There is another suspect worth considering: Jamie Wilson, witness in Kleiman v Wright and former CFO to Dr. Wright.
Remember the testimony by Dr. Edman, presented as part of the plaintiff’s case, which revealed that at least some forgeries were done by an IP based in Wooloowin, Brisbane? Wilson’s company, Cryptoloc, is just an 11-minute drive from Wooloowin.
Source: Google Maps
Further, though a former accountant, Wilson is technologically competent: he runs a successful cryptographic security company, Cryptoloc, so it’s fair to say his competency to create convincing digital forgeries exceeds that of Ira Kleiman.
All of this is circumstantially damning by itself, but a close look into the relationship between Dr. Wright and Jamie Wilson reveals that Wilson had plenty of motivation to implicate Wright in what is said to be most valuable robbery in history.
Jamie Wilson is Dr. Wright’s old chief financial officer, and his testimony formed a curious part of the plaintiff’s case: he appeared to be brought on to opine about the quality of Wright’s various company books, but admitted under oath he’d never seen them in more than a year he supposedly spent serving as CFO. He complained he was never paid for his work with Dr. Wright, but then admitted under oath that no one had ever agreed to pay him in the first place.
Maybe most importantly, Wilson testified that he quit in 2013, while Dr. Wright testified that Wilson was fired. Wright’s story is at least backed up by writings from as early as 2020, where he mentions that around the time Wilson exited the business, he was caught trying to steal and sell Wright’s intellectual property.
That’s right: the person who lives and works just 11 minutes from the suburb proven to be the location where the much-discussed forgeries took place was fired by Wright years ago for stealing intellectual property.
Perhaps more relevant to the question of the forgeries is the fact that the patent which sits at the heart of Wilson’s Cryptoloc business bears Dr. Wright’s name. In fact, Wilson is attached to multiple applications relating to the same Cryptoloc patent, and every one of them—even those filed as late as 2017, well after Wilson had been fired by Wright—bear Wright’s name.
This would seem at odds with answers Wilson gave in his Kleiman v Wright deposition. There, rather than conceding that Dr. Wright (who according to Wilson, was sought out specifically for his expertise in cryptography) played any role in his patents, he began claiming the opposite: that Dr. Wright was on the patents in name only and hadn’t contributed to them at all.
That’s a highly convenient state of affairs for Wilson, because he would go on to leverage the patent originating from his time with Wright to launch Cryptoloc. It turns out that Wilson’s company was listed as one of the 20 Best Cybersecurity Start Ups to Watch in 2020 by Forbes. In the Forbes piece it mentions how the company has set up a new Regional Headquarters for Europe in Cambridge, England. Right in Dr. Wright’s back yard. Certainly, the last thing Wilson or his lucrative business needs is to be accused of stealing from one of the most celebrated inventors in modern history.
Wilson also had more opportunity than anyone to plant damning and convincing forgeries in a way that would implicate Dr. Wright. He had been working in Wright’s companies since 2012, well after Bitcoin had been released to the world, so he would have had a front-row seat to the inner workings of the Wright machine during the elusive time period which is the focus of the Kleiman lawsuit. He also testified that Wright told him about Dave when the two worked together, and Wilson’s involvement with Wright’s companies also coincided with Wright’s ongoing skirmish with the ATO about the tax position of Bitcoin, long before he was outed as Satoshi.
Wilson’s knowledge of the Wright’s fight with the ATO makes him particularly unique as a suspect because it is the ATO documents in evidence in Kleiman v Wright that are perhaps of the most questionable authenticity. Wright’s attorneys fought hard to have these documents thrown out before trial on the basis that they could not be authenticated. Indeed, the pages of ATO documents, which relate to audits of Dr. Wright’s companies which are not parties to this lawsuit, contain unsworn statements, interview transcripts without any seal of authenticity, and documents which are outright incomplete. The motion was denied on the basis that the deficiencies raised by Wright don’t rise to the standard required to have the evidence tossed, but the problem reared its head at trial when the plaintiffs attempted to make sense of the documents in front of the jury. Wright repeated his claim that the ATO documents are incomplete and unverifiable, and the plaintiff’s attorneys could say nothing in response, no doubt leaving the jury wondering why they’d bothered in the first place.
Even ignoring the shortcomings within the ATO documents themselves, their origin is so dubious that they are evidentiarily useless. The story goes that Ira was contacted by the ATO’s “criminal investigations unit,” and that’s how he came to be in possession of the documents. The story itself is highly questionable: there is no criminal investigations unit within the ATO, and the plaintiff has never tried to introduce testimony from anybody at the ATO who might be able to testify to their accuracy.
Even if there was, in a criminal investigation the chain of custody is everything. Access to evidence is closely monitored and documented so that any changes or discrepancies are obvious and can be challenged by the defendant. Here in civil proceedings, the burden is much lower, which means that the ATO evidence is as good as a bundle of documents handed to Ira by a stranger on the street. Wright (and therefore the jury) can only take them at face value and have no way of knowing what happened to the documents from the time it (supposedly) left the ATO’s inbox in Australia and ended up in discovery in this case. But from the point of view of somebody trying to denigrate Dr. Wright, getting the ATO documents admitted is nothing short of a luxury—because assuming someone had the means to do it, they could have made any amendments or additions they wanted prior to it being sent to Wright’s lawyers and it still would have ended up in Kleiman v Wright as evidence for the plaintiffs.
In other words, Wilson is one of the only people in the world who could have known all the ingredients necessary to successfully implicate Dr. Wright in the robbery of a partnership which never existed. What’s more, Wilson at best had a bone to pick with Dr. Wright after being unceremoniously let go, and at worst saw Wright as a loose end which could potentially unravel the business he’d built atop their shared patent.
The real question would be how Wilson could possibly have known his breadcrumbs would eventually lead to Dave Kleiman’s brother suing Wright for hundreds of billions of dollars, particularly when for all he knew Wright’s identity would remain a secret forever.
Of course, Wilson doesn’t need to have expected his trail of forgeries would be quite so spectacularly effective, nor does he need to have acted alone. Some of the forgeries were determined to have originated in 2015, for example, after Ira Kleiman had started sniffing around for Wright’s Bitcoin. Wilson may have left a trail of evidence leading Kleiman to Wright, but he could just of easily have collaborated with Kleiman directly in building a case against Wright.
The fact does remain, however, that any attempt to frame Wright for bilking his best friend out of his share of the Satoshi Nakamoto partnership would be futile if no one ever found out that Wright was involved in the creation of Bitcoin.
On this, harken back to the debunked email from March 2008, which has the effect of both confirming Wright to be Satoshi and implicating Dave as a partner. It turns out the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit is not the first time that email has been seen by the general public: it was one of the key pieces of evidence leaked to Wired and Gizmodo which caused them to expose Wright in 2015. That email, together with evidence which included the dubious ATO documents, formed the basis of Wired and Gizmodo’s story—if those outlets didn’t receive these documents from someone, they likely don’t run the story.
No one knows who leaked Wright’s identity to Wired and Gizmodo. It makes no sense for it to be Wright: the breaking of the Gizmodo and Wired story was accompanied by the Australian Federal Police raiding his home, and we can see from private emails between Wright and colleagues that he was just as surprised by the reporters sniffing around before they published their story as the rest of the world was when it was released.
We also know from evidence shown at the Kleiman v Wright trial that Gizmodo was communicating with Ira Kleiman via one of Dave’s many old email addresses, which seems to definitively disprove the idea that the Gizmodo journalists discovered and printed the Wright story without being tipped off by someone familiar with Wright and Dave Kleiman? How else would it be possible for the journalists investigating the Satoshi Nakamoto story to get a hold of Dave’s old e-mail address, and most importantly, how could they have possibly known it was an address that could be used to get in touch with his brother Ira?
https://coingeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/there-is-a-serial-forger-in-kleiman-vs-wright-and-it-isnt-satoshi-1024x725.png
Similarly, Ira swore the ATO reached out to him directly, apparently via old inboxes that also belonged to Dave. How did the ATO get these addresses of Dave? And how could they have possibly known Ira Kleiman would be the man on the other end of the line? And how did they vet Ira was really Dave’s brother before sending him the ATO documents? Dr Wright himself testified that he no idea that Dave had a living brother, so how did they come to send pages of documents allegedly from their own investigations to an inbox that was—by all accounts—totally unidentified?
Given that we now know that at least part of what Wired and Gizmodo received were forgeries, some of which have been shown to have originated not 20 minutes’ walk from Wilson’s place of business, and given that we know that whoever was talking to both those publications and the ATO was someone very familiar with Wright and the Kleimans, perhaps we can take a good guess at who was involved.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.
source Jordan Atkins : https://coingeek.com/there-is-a-serial-forger-in-kleiman-vs-wright-and-it-isnt-satoshi/
For months and even years in the lead-up to Kleiman v Wright, the idea that there are forged exhibits in “evidence” has come up often.
Usually, it comes up in the form of indignant bleating from the people who have already decided (or been paid to decide) that Dr. Craig Wright couldn’t possibly be behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym. After all, if you can get enough people to write a person off as a serial forger, you can make sure they are never taken seriously again.
That is perhaps the reason for the seemingly immortal claim that if there are any forgeries connected to Wright, it must be Wright who is responsible for them. Who else would have the motive to alter and forge documents? Right?
However, as the Kleiman trial began and as thousands of pages of evidence and hours of testimony were presented to the jury, it has become apparent that this assumption is way off, and that though there is a serial forger in the midst of the Kleiman v Wright suit, it isn’t Wright.
Vital forgeries which can’t be blamed on Wright
To those paying close attention to the case, this won’t be a huge surprise at this stage. Expert witness Dr. Matthew Edman testified for the plaintiffs that 40 or so emails he reviewed had been forged: specifically, he was able to determine that IP addresses associated with some of the forgeries came from Wooloowin, a suburb of Brisbane Australia.
At the time the forgeries were said to have been created, Dr. Wright was living and working in Sydney, 900km and a 9.5-hour drive from Wooloowin—suggesting whoever has been forging evidence, it isn’t Dr. Wright.
Wright was further exonerated when he [url=http://returned to the stand on Monday]returned to the stand on Monday[/url] and was presented with an email—P2 on the plaintiff’s exhibit list—purportedly sent from Wright to Dave Kleiman on March 12, 2008:
"I need your help editing a paper I am going to release [sic] later this year. I have been working on a new form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin"
"You are always there for me Dave. I want you to be a part of it all."
"I cannot release it as me. GMX, vistomail and Tor. I need your help and I need a version of me to make this work that is better than me."
This email was introduced by the plaintiffs and is vital to their case against Wright because it is the only primary evidence that indicates Dave had any involvement in the Satoshi Nakamoto partnership at all. Wright has always indicated that Dave Kleiman helped edit the white paper, so the email isn’t a slam dunk for the plaintiffs, but it does a lot of heavy lifting for the plaintiff’s case. Without this email, there is zero evidence that Dave and Wright ever talked about Bitcoin before it was released publicly.
What is important is that the email comes from one of Wright’s well-known domains (@rcbjr.org). But public records show that the domain wasn’t registered until 2011 (something which Wright confirmed on the stand). Further, the metadata analysis produced by the defense show that the email was sent in 2015, rather than 2008.
In other words, the 2008 email seems to be at least partly inauthentic.
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1462835989550977038
It should be mentioned that this particular email was conspicuously left off the list of documents sent to Edman by the plaintiff’s lawyers for analysis. Given its importance to the plaintiff’s case and what we now know about the email, it would seem that this omission was deliberate.
However, the most intriguing bit of evidence showing that the email is a forgery has nothing to do with metadata. In something of a ‘gotcha’ moment at the expense of the plaintiffs, Dr. Wright explained to the jury that the @rcjbr.org domain refers to the initials of his family: Ramona, Craig, and his three kids first initials J,B and R. Given that Wright didn’t meet his wife until 2010, the email couldn’t have been sent prior to that even ignoring the metadata.
This puts the 2008 email in a category of its own among the allegedly forged evidence in the case, because it’s the only one where we can definitively rule out any suspects. Whoever forged this document can’t have known what @rcjbr.org stands for, and the email itself is only detrimental to Wright’s defense—which means whoever did the forging was almost certainly someone other than Wright.
In addition to exonerating Wright, it also lends credence to his long-standing claims that some of the evidence being relied upon by the plaintiffs—such as the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) documents—have been forged.
But by who?
Not Dr. Wright
The first thing to clarify is that contrary to what Wright’s detractors would have you believe, the plaintiffs have not been the only party to complain about forgeries on the docket. In fact, it has been the plaintiffs who have fought the hardest to keep the evidence of bogus documents from being considered by the jury.
For example, Dr. Wright’s legal team had expended considerable effort before trial to make sure the issue of forged evidence was put before the jury. They fought to have an expert presented at trial who would testify that certain documents on the record contained forged signatures—including that of Wright. The plaintiffs successfully argued to have the expert excluded.
Consistent with this strategy, the plaintiffs went even further, filing a motion to get the court to prohibit Wright from claiming that any documents in the case had been forged. The court rejected this out of hand on the basis that any claims of forgeries are for the jury to evaluate.
So, even going into the trial, the idea that the record was littered with documents and emails forged by Dr. Wright didn’t make sense. Add to that the fact that the most definitive thing anyone can say about any of the apparent forgeries on the record relates to the 2008 RCBJR email: that whoever made that forgery, it could not have been Dr. Wright.
As the person with hundreds of billions to gain from demonstrating that Dr. Wright was both his brother’s business partner and a compulsive liar, Ira Kleiman is an obvious candidate. The aforementioned pre-trial strategy of preventing Wright from complaining about forgeries certainly indicates that the plaintiffs were well aware that some of their evidence are of questionable authenticity.
Ira isn’t much of a computer expert, however, so if he was forging documents, he at the very least was using someone else to do it.
Jamie Wilson had means, motive and opportunity
There is another suspect worth considering: Jamie Wilson, witness in Kleiman v Wright and former CFO to Dr. Wright.
Remember the testimony by Dr. Edman, presented as part of the plaintiff’s case, which revealed that at least some forgeries were done by an IP based in Wooloowin, Brisbane? Wilson’s company, Cryptoloc, is just an 11-minute drive from Wooloowin.
Source: Google Maps
Further, though a former accountant, Wilson is technologically competent: he runs a successful cryptographic security company, Cryptoloc, so it’s fair to say his competency to create convincing digital forgeries exceeds that of Ira Kleiman.
All of this is circumstantially damning by itself, but a close look into the relationship between Dr. Wright and Jamie Wilson reveals that Wilson had plenty of motivation to implicate Wright in what is said to be most valuable robbery in history.
Jamie Wilson is Dr. Wright’s old chief financial officer, and his testimony formed a curious part of the plaintiff’s case: he appeared to be brought on to opine about the quality of Wright’s various company books, but admitted under oath he’d never seen them in more than a year he supposedly spent serving as CFO. He complained he was never paid for his work with Dr. Wright, but then admitted under oath that no one had ever agreed to pay him in the first place.
Maybe most importantly, Wilson testified that he quit in 2013, while Dr. Wright testified that Wilson was fired. Wright’s story is at least backed up by writings from as early as 2020, where he mentions that around the time Wilson exited the business, he was caught trying to steal and sell Wright’s intellectual property.
That’s right: the person who lives and works just 11 minutes from the suburb proven to be the location where the much-discussed forgeries took place was fired by Wright years ago for stealing intellectual property.
Perhaps more relevant to the question of the forgeries is the fact that the patent which sits at the heart of Wilson’s Cryptoloc business bears Dr. Wright’s name. In fact, Wilson is attached to multiple applications relating to the same Cryptoloc patent, and every one of them—even those filed as late as 2017, well after Wilson had been fired by Wright—bear Wright’s name.
This would seem at odds with answers Wilson gave in his Kleiman v Wright deposition. There, rather than conceding that Dr. Wright (who according to Wilson, was sought out specifically for his expertise in cryptography) played any role in his patents, he began claiming the opposite: that Dr. Wright was on the patents in name only and hadn’t contributed to them at all.
That’s a highly convenient state of affairs for Wilson, because he would go on to leverage the patent originating from his time with Wright to launch Cryptoloc. It turns out that Wilson’s company was listed as one of the 20 Best Cybersecurity Start Ups to Watch in 2020 by Forbes. In the Forbes piece it mentions how the company has set up a new Regional Headquarters for Europe in Cambridge, England. Right in Dr. Wright’s back yard. Certainly, the last thing Wilson or his lucrative business needs is to be accused of stealing from one of the most celebrated inventors in modern history.
Wilson also had more opportunity than anyone to plant damning and convincing forgeries in a way that would implicate Dr. Wright. He had been working in Wright’s companies since 2012, well after Bitcoin had been released to the world, so he would have had a front-row seat to the inner workings of the Wright machine during the elusive time period which is the focus of the Kleiman lawsuit. He also testified that Wright told him about Dave when the two worked together, and Wilson’s involvement with Wright’s companies also coincided with Wright’s ongoing skirmish with the ATO about the tax position of Bitcoin, long before he was outed as Satoshi.
Wilson’s knowledge of the Wright’s fight with the ATO makes him particularly unique as a suspect because it is the ATO documents in evidence in Kleiman v Wright that are perhaps of the most questionable authenticity. Wright’s attorneys fought hard to have these documents thrown out before trial on the basis that they could not be authenticated. Indeed, the pages of ATO documents, which relate to audits of Dr. Wright’s companies which are not parties to this lawsuit, contain unsworn statements, interview transcripts without any seal of authenticity, and documents which are outright incomplete. The motion was denied on the basis that the deficiencies raised by Wright don’t rise to the standard required to have the evidence tossed, but the problem reared its head at trial when the plaintiffs attempted to make sense of the documents in front of the jury. Wright repeated his claim that the ATO documents are incomplete and unverifiable, and the plaintiff’s attorneys could say nothing in response, no doubt leaving the jury wondering why they’d bothered in the first place.
Even ignoring the shortcomings within the ATO documents themselves, their origin is so dubious that they are evidentiarily useless. The story goes that Ira was contacted by the ATO’s “criminal investigations unit,” and that’s how he came to be in possession of the documents. The story itself is highly questionable: there is no criminal investigations unit within the ATO, and the plaintiff has never tried to introduce testimony from anybody at the ATO who might be able to testify to their accuracy.
Even if there was, in a criminal investigation the chain of custody is everything. Access to evidence is closely monitored and documented so that any changes or discrepancies are obvious and can be challenged by the defendant. Here in civil proceedings, the burden is much lower, which means that the ATO evidence is as good as a bundle of documents handed to Ira by a stranger on the street. Wright (and therefore the jury) can only take them at face value and have no way of knowing what happened to the documents from the time it (supposedly) left the ATO’s inbox in Australia and ended up in discovery in this case. But from the point of view of somebody trying to denigrate Dr. Wright, getting the ATO documents admitted is nothing short of a luxury—because assuming someone had the means to do it, they could have made any amendments or additions they wanted prior to it being sent to Wright’s lawyers and it still would have ended up in Kleiman v Wright as evidence for the plaintiffs.
In other words, Wilson is one of the only people in the world who could have known all the ingredients necessary to successfully implicate Dr. Wright in the robbery of a partnership which never existed. What’s more, Wilson at best had a bone to pick with Dr. Wright after being unceremoniously let go, and at worst saw Wright as a loose end which could potentially unravel the business he’d built atop their shared patent.
The real question would be how Wilson could possibly have known his breadcrumbs would eventually lead to Dave Kleiman’s brother suing Wright for hundreds of billions of dollars, particularly when for all he knew Wright’s identity would remain a secret forever.
Of course, Wilson doesn’t need to have expected his trail of forgeries would be quite so spectacularly effective, nor does he need to have acted alone. Some of the forgeries were determined to have originated in 2015, for example, after Ira Kleiman had started sniffing around for Wright’s Bitcoin. Wilson may have left a trail of evidence leading Kleiman to Wright, but he could just of easily have collaborated with Kleiman directly in building a case against Wright.
The fact does remain, however, that any attempt to frame Wright for bilking his best friend out of his share of the Satoshi Nakamoto partnership would be futile if no one ever found out that Wright was involved in the creation of Bitcoin.
On this, harken back to the debunked email from March 2008, which has the effect of both confirming Wright to be Satoshi and implicating Dave as a partner. It turns out the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit is not the first time that email has been seen by the general public: it was one of the key pieces of evidence leaked to Wired and Gizmodo which caused them to expose Wright in 2015. That email, together with evidence which included the dubious ATO documents, formed the basis of Wired and Gizmodo’s story—if those outlets didn’t receive these documents from someone, they likely don’t run the story.
No one knows who leaked Wright’s identity to Wired and Gizmodo. It makes no sense for it to be Wright: the breaking of the Gizmodo and Wired story was accompanied by the Australian Federal Police raiding his home, and we can see from private emails between Wright and colleagues that he was just as surprised by the reporters sniffing around before they published their story as the rest of the world was when it was released.
We also know from evidence shown at the Kleiman v Wright trial that Gizmodo was communicating with Ira Kleiman via one of Dave’s many old email addresses, which seems to definitively disprove the idea that the Gizmodo journalists discovered and printed the Wright story without being tipped off by someone familiar with Wright and Dave Kleiman? How else would it be possible for the journalists investigating the Satoshi Nakamoto story to get a hold of Dave’s old e-mail address, and most importantly, how could they have possibly known it was an address that could be used to get in touch with his brother Ira?
https://coingeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/there-is-a-serial-forger-in-kleiman-vs-wright-and-it-isnt-satoshi-1024x725.png
Similarly, Ira swore the ATO reached out to him directly, apparently via old inboxes that also belonged to Dave. How did the ATO get these addresses of Dave? And how could they have possibly known Ira Kleiman would be the man on the other end of the line? And how did they vet Ira was really Dave’s brother before sending him the ATO documents? Dr Wright himself testified that he no idea that Dave had a living brother, so how did they come to send pages of documents allegedly from their own investigations to an inbox that was—by all accounts—totally unidentified?
Given that we now know that at least part of what Wired and Gizmodo received were forgeries, some of which have been shown to have originated not 20 minutes’ walk from Wilson’s place of business, and given that we know that whoever was talking to both those publications and the ATO was someone very familiar with Wright and the Kleimans, perhaps we can take a good guess at who was involved.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.
source Jordan Atkins : https://coingeek.com/there-is-a-serial-forger-in-kleiman-vs-wright-and-it-isnt-satoshi/
⭐ Merited by Bitcoin SV (1)
Quote
MNP accounting firm declares BSV blockchain to be most energy efficient in new report
The BSV blockchain’s energy efficiency record has received a big boost from MNP, one of Canada’s largest professional accounting and business advisory service firms. Comparing models and real-world data from BTC, BCH and BSV, a report titled “The Search for a More Efficient Bitcoin” found BSV to be the most efficient due to its unbounded transaction processing capacity.
“So long as the size or number of transactions on the BSV network exceeds the limitation of the other protocols, BSV is the most efficient in this group,” the report concluded. It also found that BSV’s energy consumption per transaction is more likely to improve over time than the other two networks, and that the “arbitrary limitations of BTC and BCH may have a significant impact in consumption per transaction.”
Since restoring Bitcoin‘s original protocol in February 2020, BSV sustained a higher transaction count than BTC or BCH throughout that year, and for most of 2021. Even where its total transaction numbers have fallen below BTC’s, the numbers were close to equal.
MNP has over 7,000 employees nationwide and has offices in most of Canada’s major urban centers. Its clients include businesses across multiple sectors, as well as government and not-for-profit organizations. Representatives from the firm gave a preview of their research findings at the recent CoinGeek conference in New York City.
Transaction processing infrastructure firms growing in Canada
The firm wrote that it performed the research because there are approximately 12 publicly traded firms in Canada providing infrastructure for processing blockchain transactions as their main business. Focusing on SHA-256 proof-of-work (POW) based transaction processing operations, it added that there has been an increasing mainstream and social media focus on these networks’ energy consumption issues in 2021. This comes amid a growing conversation about digital assets in general, which has seen market prices rise in parallel to concerns over the industry’s sustainability.
“As more businesses and consumers adopt blockchain technologies, and regulatory requirements towards green and renewable energy continue to become more stringent, it is important to understand the impact blockchain has on the environment—especially related to the energy consumption issue,” the report said.
It set out to answer two main questions: Is it possible to accurately estimate the power consumption of a blockchain network? And is there a more efficient blockchain implementation when comparing kilowatt hours consumed per block? MNP’s findings confirmed the answer to both questions to be yes, and that BSV had proven itself the most efficient based on both its data models and real-world research.
Profitability, energy efficiency and throughput
MNP’s research did not take into account the current market price situation for each of the networks’ native assets. However, it noted that coin prices played a significant role in mining/processing operators’ choices when purchasing equipment. Describing this as “trading efficiency for value,” it said processors for more profitable assets may in fact choose older, less energy efficient equipment to give them lower overhead costs for a comparable amount of hashing power.
“Transactions are the ultimate measure of throughput,” the report noted.
While it added that “equipment efficiency is the major unknown factor in calculating network consumption,” its model took into consideration the most- and least-efficient methods. This covers the most efficient processing equipment available (the Bitmain 219 Pro, Ebang Ebit E11++, and Canaan AvalonMiner 1246) to the least (Bitmain Antminer S9, Ebang Ebit E10, and Canaan AvalonMiner 921) as well as air- and immersion-cooling methods. It assumed that mining operations would base decisions on profitability before efficiency.
“The number and size of the transactions in a block will affect the size of the block. BTC has a strictly limited block size approaching 4MB. BCH has a much more permissive limit of 32MB. BSV is unbound by block size. Since mining is what consumes energy, and blocks are the product of mining: the more transactions in a block, the lower the energy consumption per transaction. Similarly, the larger a block can be (measured in megabytes), the lower the energy consumption per megabyte.”
“Results indicate BTC consumes orders of magnitude more power than either of the other two protocols tested,” it said, between 60 and 250 times that of BSV per quarter. This is due to the popularity advantage BTC enjoys, despite its severely limited capacity.
MNP compared its model to actual block data from the three networks from April 1, 2020, to June 13, 2021. This included network difficulty figures and the hashrate necessary to mine/process a transaction block, looking at kilowatt hours per transaction and per megabyte of data processed. It concluded that this comparison confirmed the validity of its data model to provide a reasonable estimate of the three networks’ energy efficiency, while noting the model could be made more accurate by making profitability calculations at multiple stages over test periods.
At the end of the day, network data processing capacity is the key factor when determining energy efficiency, and it’s here that BSV has the clear advantage. As more users come to BSV, it becomes more efficient given it has no upper limit on scaling. With a mainstream focus on energy use and sustainability that is only likely to increase in the future, corporations and governments will be taking note of these results.
Watch: CoinGeek New York panel, How to Achieve Green Bitcoin: Energy Consumption & Environmental Sustainability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdycRafL6MU&t=27226s
Thanks to Jon Southurst source https://coingeek.com/mnp-accounting-firm-declares-bsv-blockchain-to-be-most-energy-efficient-in-new-report/
The BSV blockchain’s energy efficiency record has received a big boost from MNP, one of Canada’s largest professional accounting and business advisory service firms. Comparing models and real-world data from BTC, BCH and BSV, a report titled “The Search for a More Efficient Bitcoin” found BSV to be the most efficient due to its unbounded transaction processing capacity.
“So long as the size or number of transactions on the BSV network exceeds the limitation of the other protocols, BSV is the most efficient in this group,” the report concluded. It also found that BSV’s energy consumption per transaction is more likely to improve over time than the other two networks, and that the “arbitrary limitations of BTC and BCH may have a significant impact in consumption per transaction.”
Since restoring Bitcoin‘s original protocol in February 2020, BSV sustained a higher transaction count than BTC or BCH throughout that year, and for most of 2021. Even where its total transaction numbers have fallen below BTC’s, the numbers were close to equal.
MNP has over 7,000 employees nationwide and has offices in most of Canada’s major urban centers. Its clients include businesses across multiple sectors, as well as government and not-for-profit organizations. Representatives from the firm gave a preview of their research findings at the recent CoinGeek conference in New York City.
Transaction processing infrastructure firms growing in Canada
The firm wrote that it performed the research because there are approximately 12 publicly traded firms in Canada providing infrastructure for processing blockchain transactions as their main business. Focusing on SHA-256 proof-of-work (POW) based transaction processing operations, it added that there has been an increasing mainstream and social media focus on these networks’ energy consumption issues in 2021. This comes amid a growing conversation about digital assets in general, which has seen market prices rise in parallel to concerns over the industry’s sustainability.
“As more businesses and consumers adopt blockchain technologies, and regulatory requirements towards green and renewable energy continue to become more stringent, it is important to understand the impact blockchain has on the environment—especially related to the energy consumption issue,” the report said.
It set out to answer two main questions: Is it possible to accurately estimate the power consumption of a blockchain network? And is there a more efficient blockchain implementation when comparing kilowatt hours consumed per block? MNP’s findings confirmed the answer to both questions to be yes, and that BSV had proven itself the most efficient based on both its data models and real-world research.
Profitability, energy efficiency and throughput
MNP’s research did not take into account the current market price situation for each of the networks’ native assets. However, it noted that coin prices played a significant role in mining/processing operators’ choices when purchasing equipment. Describing this as “trading efficiency for value,” it said processors for more profitable assets may in fact choose older, less energy efficient equipment to give them lower overhead costs for a comparable amount of hashing power.
“Transactions are the ultimate measure of throughput,” the report noted.
While it added that “equipment efficiency is the major unknown factor in calculating network consumption,” its model took into consideration the most- and least-efficient methods. This covers the most efficient processing equipment available (the Bitmain 219 Pro, Ebang Ebit E11++, and Canaan AvalonMiner 1246) to the least (Bitmain Antminer S9, Ebang Ebit E10, and Canaan AvalonMiner 921) as well as air- and immersion-cooling methods. It assumed that mining operations would base decisions on profitability before efficiency.
“The number and size of the transactions in a block will affect the size of the block. BTC has a strictly limited block size approaching 4MB. BCH has a much more permissive limit of 32MB. BSV is unbound by block size. Since mining is what consumes energy, and blocks are the product of mining: the more transactions in a block, the lower the energy consumption per transaction. Similarly, the larger a block can be (measured in megabytes), the lower the energy consumption per megabyte.”
“Results indicate BTC consumes orders of magnitude more power than either of the other two protocols tested,” it said, between 60 and 250 times that of BSV per quarter. This is due to the popularity advantage BTC enjoys, despite its severely limited capacity.
MNP compared its model to actual block data from the three networks from April 1, 2020, to June 13, 2021. This included network difficulty figures and the hashrate necessary to mine/process a transaction block, looking at kilowatt hours per transaction and per megabyte of data processed. It concluded that this comparison confirmed the validity of its data model to provide a reasonable estimate of the three networks’ energy efficiency, while noting the model could be made more accurate by making profitability calculations at multiple stages over test periods.
At the end of the day, network data processing capacity is the key factor when determining energy efficiency, and it’s here that BSV has the clear advantage. As more users come to BSV, it becomes more efficient given it has no upper limit on scaling. With a mainstream focus on energy use and sustainability that is only likely to increase in the future, corporations and governments will be taking note of these results.
Watch: CoinGeek New York panel, How to Achieve Green Bitcoin: Energy Consumption & Environmental Sustainability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdycRafL6MU&t=27226s
Thanks to Jon Southurst source https://coingeek.com/mnp-accounting-firm-declares-bsv-blockchain-to-be-most-energy-efficient-in-new-report/
Quote
Notorious defamation troll Arthur Van Pelt who constantly harasses BSV and Craig Wright with misinformation and lies, admits that he "lives off of donations to do this" in reference to defaming Craig Wright and trolling BSV on Social Media at 1:18 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvzIbnQ_mQ&t=4685s
Source: https://twitter.com/cryptorebel_SV/status/1448872867098025985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvzIbnQ_mQ&t=4685s
Source: https://twitter.com/cryptorebel_SV/status/1448872867098025985
Getting paid to harass people? Seriously! The 🤡 is fucking wasting his life, time is running out but he only has one life and he's wasting his time.
sad.
crazy man Quote
Van Pelt's damning confession is also time-stamped forever on the BitCoin blockchain . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvzIbnQ_mQ&t=4684s
Quote
How I know Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto: Connor Murray
In the past few weeks, several high-profile names within the BSV ecosystem have released YouTube videos explaining how they know or why they believe Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
This trend was kicked off by Ryan X. Charles, who interviewed Dr. Wright for over 50 hours on every technical element of Bitcoin. And this week, Connor Murray, founder and CEO of Britevue, gave his views on how he came to believe Dr. Wright’s claims of being [ur=https://coingeek.com/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/l]Satoshi Nakamoto[/url].
How identity is established
Identity is something that is earned over time – Dr. Craig Wright
Before diving into the finer points of Murray’s informative video, it’s essential to understand its central thesis and a more philosophical point in general.
Murray points out that identity is not established by a single event such as signing with Satoshi Nakamoto’s keys but is built over time with evidence, slowly establishing the person’s credibility and making it more likely to be who they say they are.
Murray uses the example of a driving license. He says that the driving license does not necessarily prove the person in possession of it is the person printed on it. For example, the person could have a fake ID card. Rather, the driving license is an attestation, and the person can use it to claim they are someone. However, establishing identity requires much more than a simple attestation. It requires verifiable evidence over time to prove that the attestation is true.
What evidence does Dr. Wright have that Conor Murray finds convincing?
Murray starts with a story about the animated TV series Southpark. He recalls how Southpark’s creators initially recorded a short animated film called “The Spirit of Christmas” and sent it out to various people like George Clooney. However, they didn’t put their name on it, and soon enough, others tried to claim credit for their work.
To prevent others from stealing their work, they presented evidence that they were, in fact, the creators of The Spirit of Christmas. They had cutouts, machines that could produce the shots, etc. In short, they had more information about the creation of The Spirit of Christmas than anyone else.
This example serves to illustrate Murray’s larger point; identity is not simply bestowed by a government, an authority, or by possession of any one item. It is earned over time with verifiable evidence.
Let’s now look closer at what evidence Murray has seen to convince him that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Explaining Bitcoin
Giving the example of an academic with a new theory explaining their work, Murray delves into how Dr. Wright has explained several “mysterious” things about Bitcoin.
For example, Dr. Wright has been able to give explanations for:
■ Bitcoin script and what it can be used for.
■ Why there was a poker game in the initial Bitcoin code.
■ Why there was a marketplace in the first version of the software.
■ The mystery of the double hash.
■ How Bitcoin could scale as Satoshi Nakamoto claimed.
■ Taking these one by one, Murray lists the explanations Dr. Wright has given.
1. Bitcoin Script – Dr. Wright explained to the world how Bitcoin script is Turing Complete. While the world initially dismissed this claim, Murray himself has since verified it by running a Turing complete application on Bitcoin.
2. The Poker Client – Dr. Wright has consistently mentioned that there was a poker client in the initial Bitcoin code. While anyone could have looked back and discovered this, it so happens that Dr. Wright worked in the iGaming industry. This is corroborated by Steffan Matthews, who adamantly claims that he spoke with Dr. Wright about Bitcoin before it was released.
3. The Marketplace – Once again, critics could point out that anyone could look to the initial Bitcoin code and discover that there was a marketplace. However, Dr. Wright consistently brings it up and points it out. While this does not directly establish his claim to be Satoshi, we can deduce from it that Bitcoin was intended to be peer-to-peer electronic cash for use in commerce.
4. The Double Hash – Dr. Wright is the only person who has ever explained the double hash. He wrote a Medium article on it. This is highly technical information that only someone with a deep understanding of Bitcoin could comprehend. Dr. Wright even points out his consideration of the security risks of using the double hash versus the benefits of using it. We would expect the mind that created Bitcoin to have considered this.
5. Bitcoin Scaling – Dr. Wright has always maintained that Bitcoin scales well beyond Visa and to a global scale. This lines up with what Satoshi Nakamoto said. Dr. Wright has since proven his critics wrong by proving Bitcoin does scale. The BSV blockchain scales to 50,000 transactions per second today.
An obscure book that leads to Bitcoin
We would expect the creator of Bitcoin to have done extensive research while working on it. In all likelihood, they would be able to cite some of the books and papers they read while figuring various things out. Murray explains that Dr. Wright has referenced two obscure books that hint at the research Dr. Wright was doing when developing Bitcoin.
One of these is “Policing Online Games,” a 2006 book by Peter Wayner that barely sold any copies. It describes how to create digital cash for use in gaming using digital signatures. Dr. Wright was the first to draw attention to this book, giving it credit for the ideas he pulled from it to create Bitcoin.
How did he know about such a niche book that nobody had ever heard of? The most likely explanation is that he has done extensive research on creating digital cash himself.
Describing Bitcoin’s network topology
Dr. Wright is the first person to describe Bitcoin as a small-world network. To help people understand this, he has recommended that people read a 2007 book called “Complex Social Networks.”
This is, yet again, another obscure book that hints at a crucial piece of how Bitcoin functions. It’s not a well-known, mainstream book, yet Dr. Wright references it to explain Bitcoin.
Using the example of a calculus teacher, Murray explains how Dr. Wright is explaining high-level concepts in Bitcoin that few comprehend at all. Just as we’d be more likely to believe someone’s claims of being a calculus teacher if they could explain high-level calculus, so we should be more likely to believe Dr. Wright’s claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto if he can explain high-level concepts related to Bitcoin.
Dr. Wright’s astonishing number of patents
As the next piece of evidence, which should go some way to earning Dr. Wright’s identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, Murray references the sheer number of patents he has. Recently, in court, Dr. Wright claimed to have 3208 patents.
“We would expect the creator of Bitcoin to be one of the most innovative in the space…” Murray says in the video.
Aside from Murray’s point, one might wonder why a mind capable of creating thousands of patents would resort to false claims, and why he would spend hundreds of millions of dollars filing for patents unless he expected to be around for a very long time and have an influential place in the future of blockchain.
Identity and attestation
Getting further into how identity is established, Murray points out that when a government issues an ID card, they are not directly bestowing identity but rather are issuing an attestation of identity based on evidence they have received from the person claiming it. Attestations from credible authorities are important in the process of identifying someone.
Does Craig Wright have attestations from credible sources claiming that he is Satoshi Nakamoto? As it so happens, he does, and nobody else does.
Here’s a quick list of the people who have attested to the fact that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto:
■ Gavin Andresen – Andresen was Satoshi Nakamoto’s right-hand man. Satoshi handed Bitcoin over to him, and he had the most interaction with Satoshi. Andresen has said publicly on the BBC that Dr. Wright signed early blocks of his choosing with Satoshi’s private keys and that his personality lines up with the person he communicated with.
■ Ian Grigg – A highly credible financial cryptographer, and the inventor of the Ricardian contract, Ian Grigg has also attested that Dr. Wright is the creator of Bitcoin. He bases this on his own research and explains the full story of how he knows Dr. Wright is Satoshi in an interview with CoinGeek.
Jon Matonis – Matonis has held senior positions at Visa, Versign, and other large firms and is the founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation. He has also attested that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto as he saw a private key signing.
■ Joseph Vaughn Perling – Better known to some as New Liberty on Bitcoin forums, Vaughn Perling had direct communication with Satoshi Nakamoto. He has not only provided his own attestation but claims that he met Dr. Wright in 2005 and that he told him about Bitcoin.
■ Clemens Ley – A PhD-level mathematician who independently discovered that Bitcoin is Turing complete, Ley found out that Dr. Wright was the only other person claiming this. He subsequently met Dr. Wright and attested that he was the creator.
■ Wright Family – Dr. Wright’s wife Ramona Watts, as well as his ex-wife Lynn Wright, have attested that he is Bitcoin’s inventor. His uncle, Donald Lynam, had also claimed that he saw an early copy of the Bitcoin white paper before it was released and discussed the system with his nephew.
■ David Kleiman – There are also emails between Dr. Wright and the late Dave Kleiman in which he asks for Kleiman’s assistance in editing the Bitcoin white paper.
Key point: Remember that the key signings themselves are not conclusive proof in and of themselves. As the Bitcoin white paper makes clear, identity is firewalled from transactions and keys. Taken in conjunction with everything else, they are simply more evidence to add to the growing pile that Dr. Wright is the man behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym.
No exposure by Satoshi himself
Finishing up with his last point, Murray points out that we would expect the real Satoshi Nakamoto to step forward and expose Dr. Wright if he was falsely claiming to be Bitcoin’s inventor.
This is a point that will cause most of Dr. Wright’s critics to diverge into unproven conspiracy theories; that Satoshi is dead or that he has better things to do, yet history has shown us that he will step up when someone is wrongly identified as Nakamoto; he did so when Newsweek wrongly identified Dorian Nakamoto as the inventor.
Yet, when it comes to Dr. Wright, Satoshi is silent.
The evidence is piling up
Sticking with Murray’s central thesis that identity is granted based on evidence over time, it’s clear to any reasonable person that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
The evidence outlined by Murray in this excellent video goes a long way to establishing Dr. Wright’s claim. However, the best is arguably yet to come as the defense takes the stand and presents further evidence in the Kleiman v Wright trial in Florida. Stay tuned for the latest information.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
Source https://coingeek.com/how-i-know-craig-wright-is-satoshi-nakamoto-connor-murray/ thanks to Gavin Lucas
In the past few weeks, several high-profile names within the BSV ecosystem have released YouTube videos explaining how they know or why they believe Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
This trend was kicked off by Ryan X. Charles, who interviewed Dr. Wright for over 50 hours on every technical element of Bitcoin. And this week, Connor Murray, founder and CEO of Britevue, gave his views on how he came to believe Dr. Wright’s claims of being [ur=https://coingeek.com/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/l]Satoshi Nakamoto[/url].
How identity is established
Identity is something that is earned over time – Dr. Craig Wright
Before diving into the finer points of Murray’s informative video, it’s essential to understand its central thesis and a more philosophical point in general.
Murray points out that identity is not established by a single event such as signing with Satoshi Nakamoto’s keys but is built over time with evidence, slowly establishing the person’s credibility and making it more likely to be who they say they are.
Murray uses the example of a driving license. He says that the driving license does not necessarily prove the person in possession of it is the person printed on it. For example, the person could have a fake ID card. Rather, the driving license is an attestation, and the person can use it to claim they are someone. However, establishing identity requires much more than a simple attestation. It requires verifiable evidence over time to prove that the attestation is true.
What evidence does Dr. Wright have that Conor Murray finds convincing?
Murray starts with a story about the animated TV series Southpark. He recalls how Southpark’s creators initially recorded a short animated film called “The Spirit of Christmas” and sent it out to various people like George Clooney. However, they didn’t put their name on it, and soon enough, others tried to claim credit for their work.
To prevent others from stealing their work, they presented evidence that they were, in fact, the creators of The Spirit of Christmas. They had cutouts, machines that could produce the shots, etc. In short, they had more information about the creation of The Spirit of Christmas than anyone else.
This example serves to illustrate Murray’s larger point; identity is not simply bestowed by a government, an authority, or by possession of any one item. It is earned over time with verifiable evidence.
Let’s now look closer at what evidence Murray has seen to convince him that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Explaining Bitcoin
Giving the example of an academic with a new theory explaining their work, Murray delves into how Dr. Wright has explained several “mysterious” things about Bitcoin.
For example, Dr. Wright has been able to give explanations for:
■ Bitcoin script and what it can be used for.
■ Why there was a poker game in the initial Bitcoin code.
■ Why there was a marketplace in the first version of the software.
■ The mystery of the double hash.
■ How Bitcoin could scale as Satoshi Nakamoto claimed.
■ Taking these one by one, Murray lists the explanations Dr. Wright has given.
1. Bitcoin Script – Dr. Wright explained to the world how Bitcoin script is Turing Complete. While the world initially dismissed this claim, Murray himself has since verified it by running a Turing complete application on Bitcoin.
2. The Poker Client – Dr. Wright has consistently mentioned that there was a poker client in the initial Bitcoin code. While anyone could have looked back and discovered this, it so happens that Dr. Wright worked in the iGaming industry. This is corroborated by Steffan Matthews, who adamantly claims that he spoke with Dr. Wright about Bitcoin before it was released.
3. The Marketplace – Once again, critics could point out that anyone could look to the initial Bitcoin code and discover that there was a marketplace. However, Dr. Wright consistently brings it up and points it out. While this does not directly establish his claim to be Satoshi, we can deduce from it that Bitcoin was intended to be peer-to-peer electronic cash for use in commerce.
4. The Double Hash – Dr. Wright is the only person who has ever explained the double hash. He wrote a Medium article on it. This is highly technical information that only someone with a deep understanding of Bitcoin could comprehend. Dr. Wright even points out his consideration of the security risks of using the double hash versus the benefits of using it. We would expect the mind that created Bitcoin to have considered this.
5. Bitcoin Scaling – Dr. Wright has always maintained that Bitcoin scales well beyond Visa and to a global scale. This lines up with what Satoshi Nakamoto said. Dr. Wright has since proven his critics wrong by proving Bitcoin does scale. The BSV blockchain scales to 50,000 transactions per second today.
An obscure book that leads to Bitcoin
We would expect the creator of Bitcoin to have done extensive research while working on it. In all likelihood, they would be able to cite some of the books and papers they read while figuring various things out. Murray explains that Dr. Wright has referenced two obscure books that hint at the research Dr. Wright was doing when developing Bitcoin.
One of these is “Policing Online Games,” a 2006 book by Peter Wayner that barely sold any copies. It describes how to create digital cash for use in gaming using digital signatures. Dr. Wright was the first to draw attention to this book, giving it credit for the ideas he pulled from it to create Bitcoin.
How did he know about such a niche book that nobody had ever heard of? The most likely explanation is that he has done extensive research on creating digital cash himself.
Describing Bitcoin’s network topology
Dr. Wright is the first person to describe Bitcoin as a small-world network. To help people understand this, he has recommended that people read a 2007 book called “Complex Social Networks.”
This is, yet again, another obscure book that hints at a crucial piece of how Bitcoin functions. It’s not a well-known, mainstream book, yet Dr. Wright references it to explain Bitcoin.
Using the example of a calculus teacher, Murray explains how Dr. Wright is explaining high-level concepts in Bitcoin that few comprehend at all. Just as we’d be more likely to believe someone’s claims of being a calculus teacher if they could explain high-level calculus, so we should be more likely to believe Dr. Wright’s claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto if he can explain high-level concepts related to Bitcoin.
Dr. Wright’s astonishing number of patents
As the next piece of evidence, which should go some way to earning Dr. Wright’s identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, Murray references the sheer number of patents he has. Recently, in court, Dr. Wright claimed to have 3208 patents.
“We would expect the creator of Bitcoin to be one of the most innovative in the space…” Murray says in the video.
Aside from Murray’s point, one might wonder why a mind capable of creating thousands of patents would resort to false claims, and why he would spend hundreds of millions of dollars filing for patents unless he expected to be around for a very long time and have an influential place in the future of blockchain.
Identity and attestation
Getting further into how identity is established, Murray points out that when a government issues an ID card, they are not directly bestowing identity but rather are issuing an attestation of identity based on evidence they have received from the person claiming it. Attestations from credible authorities are important in the process of identifying someone.
Does Craig Wright have attestations from credible sources claiming that he is Satoshi Nakamoto? As it so happens, he does, and nobody else does.
Here’s a quick list of the people who have attested to the fact that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto:
■ Gavin Andresen – Andresen was Satoshi Nakamoto’s right-hand man. Satoshi handed Bitcoin over to him, and he had the most interaction with Satoshi. Andresen has said publicly on the BBC that Dr. Wright signed early blocks of his choosing with Satoshi’s private keys and that his personality lines up with the person he communicated with.
■ Ian Grigg – A highly credible financial cryptographer, and the inventor of the Ricardian contract, Ian Grigg has also attested that Dr. Wright is the creator of Bitcoin. He bases this on his own research and explains the full story of how he knows Dr. Wright is Satoshi in an interview with CoinGeek.
Jon Matonis – Matonis has held senior positions at Visa, Versign, and other large firms and is the founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation. He has also attested that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto as he saw a private key signing.
■ Joseph Vaughn Perling – Better known to some as New Liberty on Bitcoin forums, Vaughn Perling had direct communication with Satoshi Nakamoto. He has not only provided his own attestation but claims that he met Dr. Wright in 2005 and that he told him about Bitcoin.
■ Clemens Ley – A PhD-level mathematician who independently discovered that Bitcoin is Turing complete, Ley found out that Dr. Wright was the only other person claiming this. He subsequently met Dr. Wright and attested that he was the creator.
■ Wright Family – Dr. Wright’s wife Ramona Watts, as well as his ex-wife Lynn Wright, have attested that he is Bitcoin’s inventor. His uncle, Donald Lynam, had also claimed that he saw an early copy of the Bitcoin white paper before it was released and discussed the system with his nephew.
■ David Kleiman – There are also emails between Dr. Wright and the late Dave Kleiman in which he asks for Kleiman’s assistance in editing the Bitcoin white paper.
Key point: Remember that the key signings themselves are not conclusive proof in and of themselves. As the Bitcoin white paper makes clear, identity is firewalled from transactions and keys. Taken in conjunction with everything else, they are simply more evidence to add to the growing pile that Dr. Wright is the man behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym.
No exposure by Satoshi himself
Finishing up with his last point, Murray points out that we would expect the real Satoshi Nakamoto to step forward and expose Dr. Wright if he was falsely claiming to be Bitcoin’s inventor.
This is a point that will cause most of Dr. Wright’s critics to diverge into unproven conspiracy theories; that Satoshi is dead or that he has better things to do, yet history has shown us that he will step up when someone is wrongly identified as Nakamoto; he did so when Newsweek wrongly identified Dorian Nakamoto as the inventor.
Yet, when it comes to Dr. Wright, Satoshi is silent.
The evidence is piling up
Sticking with Murray’s central thesis that identity is granted based on evidence over time, it’s clear to any reasonable person that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
The evidence outlined by Murray in this excellent video goes a long way to establishing Dr. Wright’s claim. However, the best is arguably yet to come as the defense takes the stand and presents further evidence in the Kleiman v Wright trial in Florida. Stay tuned for the latest information.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
Source https://coingeek.com/how-i-know-craig-wright-is-satoshi-nakamoto-connor-murray/ thanks to Gavin Lucas
Quote
Satoshi Nakamoto Trial: Did Jamie Wilson go Cryptoloco and alter documents?
The name of Jamie Wilson, the former employee of Dr. Craig Wright in Australia who appeared via a video deposition early in the Kleiman v Wright trial, resurfaced during the defense team’s cross-examination of Dr. Matthew Edman.
Edman testified that some of the allegedly altered metadata in the communications between Wright and Dave Kleiman indicated that the documents were created in the UTC plus-11 time zone, aka eastern Australia. Wright was born in and lived in Australia until December 2015, when he was outed as Satoshi Nakamoto by tech publications Wired and Gizmodo.
Wright’s team got Edman to acknowledge that GeoIP2 Precision Lookup forms for one of these emails indicated an IP address located in Wooloowin, a suburb of Brisbane. At the time this email was sent, Dr. Wright lived and worked in Sydney, which is over 900km south of Brisbane—or an 9.5-hour drive from Wooloowin.
Source: Google Maps
But Jamie Wilson’s company Cryptoloc Technology Group is located in Brisbane, an 11-minute stone’s throw from Wooloowin. Wright’s team asked Edman if he knew that Wilson lived in the suburb, or whether Edman had ever tried to determine if any other trial witnesses lived there. Edman replied in the negative to both questions.
Source: Google Maps
The apparent implication by Wright’s team that Wilson could have been the source of the altered documents begs the obvious question of Wilson’s motivation. But his deposition made it clear that, while Wilson considers Wright “a very bright, very smart man” and “one of the greater futurists I have actually come across,” Wilson definitely has a bone to pick with Wright.
This friction is based in part on Wilson’s perception that Wright underwent a “change of attitude” in 2013, the year Dave Kleiman died. Wilson claimed Wright went from a very low-key” guy in hoodies to someone who felt “I’ve got to be the man, I’ve got to be the CEO, new flash suits, ties, and it was just a massive change.” Wilson also somehow bore ill will toward Wright for his spending AU$15,000 on a party for his staff one Christmas.
It’s worth remembering that 2013 was the year BTC experienced its first major spike in value. Each token was only worth about US$100 around the time Dave died, but by December BTC hit a then all-time high of just under US$1,000. The idea that Wright might choose to enjoy his newfound Bitcoin wealth—and share some of that good fortune with people close to him at Christmas—doesn’t really sound like something to get one’s knickers in a twist about.
There’s also the pride that Wright must have felt in seeing something he built from the ground up and shared with the world nearly five years prior finally achieving a modicum of mainstream success. In that light, Wilson’s recriminations come off more like sour grapes than legitimate criticism.
Regardless, Wilson’s deposition left no doubts as to the depth of his antipathy towards Wright, as he stated that he’d initiated contact with Ira’s legal team in July or August 2019. Wilson said he emailed Velvel Freedman “to say congratulations or something like that on the case of Craig Wright.” Wilson began regularly communicating with Freedman after that, an exchange that included Wilson sharing documents with Freedman. According to Wilson, he was “more than happy to share what I did share.”
Despite Wilson stating in his deposition that he “travels back and forward out of the U.S. on a regular basis,” he hasn’t made himself available for further testimony during this trial. Too bad, because we’re sure Wright’s lawyers would love to ask Wilson if his anti-Wright vendetta was simply a case of lingering resentment or whether he was motivated by something more tangible.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
Source: thanks to Steven Stradbrooke https://coingeek.com/satoshi-nakamoto-trial-did-jamie-wilson-go-cryptoloco-and-alter-documents/
The name of Jamie Wilson, the former employee of Dr. Craig Wright in Australia who appeared via a video deposition early in the Kleiman v Wright trial, resurfaced during the defense team’s cross-examination of Dr. Matthew Edman.
Edman testified that some of the allegedly altered metadata in the communications between Wright and Dave Kleiman indicated that the documents were created in the UTC plus-11 time zone, aka eastern Australia. Wright was born in and lived in Australia until December 2015, when he was outed as Satoshi Nakamoto by tech publications Wired and Gizmodo.
Wright’s team got Edman to acknowledge that GeoIP2 Precision Lookup forms for one of these emails indicated an IP address located in Wooloowin, a suburb of Brisbane. At the time this email was sent, Dr. Wright lived and worked in Sydney, which is over 900km south of Brisbane—or an 9.5-hour drive from Wooloowin.
Source: Google Maps
But Jamie Wilson’s company Cryptoloc Technology Group is located in Brisbane, an 11-minute stone’s throw from Wooloowin. Wright’s team asked Edman if he knew that Wilson lived in the suburb, or whether Edman had ever tried to determine if any other trial witnesses lived there. Edman replied in the negative to both questions.
Source: Google Maps
The apparent implication by Wright’s team that Wilson could have been the source of the altered documents begs the obvious question of Wilson’s motivation. But his deposition made it clear that, while Wilson considers Wright “a very bright, very smart man” and “one of the greater futurists I have actually come across,” Wilson definitely has a bone to pick with Wright.
This friction is based in part on Wilson’s perception that Wright underwent a “change of attitude” in 2013, the year Dave Kleiman died. Wilson claimed Wright went from a very low-key” guy in hoodies to someone who felt “I’ve got to be the man, I’ve got to be the CEO, new flash suits, ties, and it was just a massive change.” Wilson also somehow bore ill will toward Wright for his spending AU$15,000 on a party for his staff one Christmas.
It’s worth remembering that 2013 was the year BTC experienced its first major spike in value. Each token was only worth about US$100 around the time Dave died, but by December BTC hit a then all-time high of just under US$1,000. The idea that Wright might choose to enjoy his newfound Bitcoin wealth—and share some of that good fortune with people close to him at Christmas—doesn’t really sound like something to get one’s knickers in a twist about.
There’s also the pride that Wright must have felt in seeing something he built from the ground up and shared with the world nearly five years prior finally achieving a modicum of mainstream success. In that light, Wilson’s recriminations come off more like sour grapes than legitimate criticism.
Regardless, Wilson’s deposition left no doubts as to the depth of his antipathy towards Wright, as he stated that he’d initiated contact with Ira’s legal team in July or August 2019. Wilson said he emailed Velvel Freedman “to say congratulations or something like that on the case of Craig Wright.” Wilson began regularly communicating with Freedman after that, an exchange that included Wilson sharing documents with Freedman. According to Wilson, he was “more than happy to share what I did share.”
Despite Wilson stating in his deposition that he “travels back and forward out of the U.S. on a regular basis,” he hasn’t made himself available for further testimony during this trial. Too bad, because we’re sure Wright’s lawyers would love to ask Wilson if his anti-Wright vendetta was simply a case of lingering resentment or whether he was motivated by something more tangible.
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
Source: thanks to Steven Stradbrooke https://coingeek.com/satoshi-nakamoto-trial-did-jamie-wilson-go-cryptoloco-and-alter-documents/
Yes, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is much more than a blockchain, it is the original Bitcoin. See https://bsvblockchain.org/
You have been warned
Dixit the guy who calls for the manipulation of markets in public ...
Quote
So you support a fake Bitcoin called BTC, which has nothing to do with Bitcoin, limited on purpose, the evidence here https://coingeek.com/crypto-crime-cartel-behind-adam-back-and-blockstreams-attempts-to-constrain-bitcoin/
which is also supported by AXA, MasterCard, the very company that rules the payments world, and funds Core!!! Doesn't that make you wonder?
https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://steemitimages.com/DQmahQS6DkLfqRTQVwruGSnpcpBHDS9b6Y8bZZqpmX5o9cD/image.png
So ... Bilderberg was misled by Core developers of BTC? ...
You let the wolf into the henhouse, jack, gregs, COPA, you are all responsible for destroying the very essence of Bitcoin.
To date all these companies, finances, to make it exist legally, then to destroy.
Until you trolls and princess gang understand this.... I will be there to open your eyes.
If you want to build use Bitcoin and its original protocol aka Bitcoin Satoshi Vision BSV.
Yep'''' is EVERYWERE! Wake up!!!!!
Quote
How we are trading the 70 billion dollar lawsuit over Satoshi’s Bitcoins
Guest Contributor
This post originally appeared on the Unbounded Capital website, and we republished with permission from Jack Laskey.
TLDR; Long BSV (available on Robinhood)
Overview
A Florida civil suit over the $70+ billion Satoshi fortune that started November 1st could lead to broad market awareness that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. This could have significant short term price impacts on Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), a version of Bitcoin which Craig Wright is heavily associated with and endorses as “the real Bitcoin.” We believe that the market has an outdated perception of Craig Wright and the potential that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Additional scrutiny of existing evidence due to the high-profile nature of the trial as well as the potential for new evidence presented in trial could significantly change public sentiment regarding the likelihood that Craig Wright is Satoshi. We believe this could result in a rapid and significant price increase for BSV, due to its association with Craig Wright, its technical merits and market traction which have been overlooked to this point, and in part because of its accessibility to retail investors via Robinhood. BSV is also one of the most shorted cryptos, meaning that there is potential for both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze, the latter in part due to positions held by Unbounded Capital.
Background
One of the most important trials of the century begins today, Nov 1, 2021 at 10 a.m. Kleiman v Wright is a Florida civil suit over the ownership of around $70 billion dollars’ worth of Bitcoin. Not only is this a stunning sum, but the quality of these Bitcoins is also exceptional. Why? Because they are allegedly the Bitcoins that Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, mined in Bitcoin’s earliest days, from 2009-2011. Thus, the trial not only could determine the fate of Satoshi’s Bitcoins, but it could shed an extraordinary amount of light upon one of the biggest mysteries of the 21st century, the identity of the pseudonymous creator of a trillion-dollar invention.
Chances are, you probably haven’t heard about it. Why?
Both mainstream and crypto media have been shockingly quiet about this incredibly significant and intriguing case. The reason for this is that the media, most of the public, and perhaps most importantly, the market, have a major disagreement with both the plaintiff and defendant. The disagreement is whether or not Dr. Craig S Wright, the defendant in the trial and an Australian computer security expert and polymath, is the man, or one of the men behind the Satoshi pseudonym.
Ira Kleiman, the plaintiff, and Dr. Wright, however, are in agreement that Dr. Wright was involved in the creation of Bitcoin and the mining of Satoshi’s billions. The dispute is about Ira’s deceased brother, Dave Kleiman, and the degree to which his involvement in the creation of Bitcoin constitutes a partnership, and a claim on the Satoshi billions by his estate, now managed by Ira Kleiman. However, much of the crypto world thinks Craig is involved in an elaborate hoax—that he is pretending to be Satoshi. This has earned him the moniker “Faketoshi” and inspired t-shirt designs like what are pictured below.
A popular refrain “We are all Satoshi Except Craig Wright” was even made into a shirt worn by popular crypto influencers like Tone Vays
At Unbounded Capital, we believe that the “Faketoshi” narrative is out of date. Most people either formed their opinion about Dr. Wright in 2016 or inherited their opinion from someone who had. A lot has happened with Dr. Wright since then, much of it due to the ongoing discovery process in the trial. The result of this is that people have not been paying close attention to what is happening with Dr. Wright or Bitcoin SV, a fork of Bitcoin Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin.” We think the trial could change this, and we are placing our bets accordingly.
Our investment thesis behind the Satoshi trial
We think Dr. Wright is likely to both win the trial and also confirm his ownership over these Bitcoins in the process. However, what is most pertinent to our investment thesis is the possibility that the market increasingly perceives Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto due to new evidence and increased public scrutiny of existing evidence resulting from the trial. In other words, we believe the market is mispricing the probability that Kleiman v Wright will make it clear to the public that Dr. Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin.
BTC’s market cap is already over a trillion dollars. Why would a Satoshi reveal matter at this point? The answer is that Dr. Wright is perhaps the world’s biggest BTC bear. Dr. Wright has been publicly lamenting changes made in BTC which he believes cripple its functionality. Since 2017, he has supported alternate forks as “the real Bitcoin” and focused his efforts in these communities, first Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and for the last three years since its inception, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).
In particular, Dr. Wright has impressed his stamp on BSV, both from an influence standpoint as well as a reputation standpoint. BSV has been inextricably linked to Dr. Wright and has followed the development path prescribed by Dr. Wright—to return to the original Bitcoin protocol outlined by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008-2009. Not only has Dr. Wright placed his efforts and support behind BSV, but he has also been public about his plan to liquidate Satoshi’s BTC and BCH for BSV and USD and then to use the proceeds from the sale for charitable purposes. Keep in mind that because BTC, BCH, and BSV are all forks of the same chain, Satoshi’s ~1.1M Bitcoin fortune would apply to all of these forks. In other words, Satoshi is suspected to have ~1.1M of each BTC ($66.5B total value), BCH ($0.65B total value), and BSV ($0.17B total value). Craig’s warning is that he will convert the ~$67B of BTC and BCH into BSV and USD. The current market cap of BSV is ~$3.1B.
*Note that the trial was originally scheduled for July 2020. The delays were largely due to Covid.
While the broader investing public is not aware of this, most crypto whales are. We believe that meaningful evidence presented in the trial will likely result in the market front-running the perceived inevitability of an increase in BSV price. We feel that the lack of price movement until now indicates that these whales are not correctly evaluating the likelihood that the trial will lead to this evidence, presenting a window of where there is asymmetric upside in trading on a bullish trial result for BSV.
In the rest of this article, we will present more detailed evidence in support of our thesis including existing evidence that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, positive BSV fundamentals which are being overlooked due to a clear negative media filter, more detail about the conflict of visions which may bias the crypto investing public against the possibility that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, our expectations for the trial, and how current market conditions are ripe for a sharp increase in BSV price due to revelations from the trial.
The market’s view on ‘Faketoshi’ is outdated
Dr. Wright was exposed as Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired in 2015. He first denied it and later admitted to being Satoshi. When the crypto community were forming their opinions about his claim to be Satoshi in 2016, there was mixed evidence including the absence of evidence thought to be essential—signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. Dr. Wright orchestrated a private signing with then BTC chief developer, Gavin Andresen, and Bitcoin Foundation head, Jon Matonis. Gavin publicly affirmed that he was satisfied with this private demonstration, as did Jon, and other individuals came forward attesting to knowledge that Dr. Wright is Satoshi.
A public demonstration was offered but never delivered. This left many skeptical. A blog post that came out in 2016 was accused of being a fake proof attempt. While it is cryptic, a close reading of the post makes it clear that it was not a proof attempt. Still, the lack of public proof combined with concerns that Craig was changing and backdating blog posts and other documents led to the consensus view that Craig was a pretender, earning him the “Faketoshi” moniker.
In our view, there was nothing completely unreasonable about this conclusion in 2016. It was a strange story with the attestation of Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis combined with the lack of a public signing and strange incidents with suspected forgeries. The evidence was unsettling, but certainly inconclusive.
However, even if the view of Dr. Wright as Faketoshi was justifiable in 2016, it has become increasingly outdated in the ensuing years. Craig’s continued actions, the actions of his professional associates, Craig’s extensive commentary on Bitcoin’s creation and design, as well as evidence that has been presented through the Kleiman vs Wright discovery plus evidence put forth by Dr. Wright outside of the trial paints a significant likelihood that Dr. Wright is actually Satoshi or at least a significant part of a potential Satoshi team. We will also explore the significant conflicts of interest which exist in crypto media which may have contributed to the continued prevalence of the “Faketoshi” narrative.
Dr. Wright and associates’ work and actions
One of the most salient, and overlooked reasons to suspect that Dr. Wright is, in fact, Satoshi are his and his business partners’ continued actions. Dr. Wright currently acts as the Chief Scientist at nChain, a Bitcoin R&D firm which has now created and sold enterprise software products utilizing BSV. Dr. Wright and nChain have filed over 1200 patents on Bitcoin related technology. nChain has over 100 employees and recently launched their first enterprise product, Kensei, a data integrity solution, which is being used by Crucial Compliance, a compliance software provider for the online gaming industry, and others. In 2016, almost none of this existed, and what did exist was not well known. Dr. Wright’s professional work since 2016 is much more in line with what one would expect from the inventor of Bitcoin than from a fraud.
The chairman of nChain’s board is Stefan Matthews, who is also the CEO of a publicly traded mining company, [ur=https://www.taal.com/l]TAAL Distributed Information Technologies Inc.[/url] (CSE:TAAL | FWB:9SQ1 | OTC: TAALF), which is focused on creating services for the BSV blockchain. Stefan is an associate of Dr. Wright’s from before Bitcoin. Stefan has previously said that Craig offered him 50,000 Bitcoins in 2009, an offer which Stefan rejected. Stefan also claims to have seen a copy of the Bitcoin whitepaper before it’s publication in 2008. Stefan has now dedicated his career to working alongside Dr. Wright on BSV. This story and Stefan’s continued commitment to Dr. Wright and BSV was not known in 2016.
Stefan is also the connection between Dr. Wright and Calvin Ayre. Calvin Ayre is a billionaire who made his fortune through Bodog, a pioneering company in offshore gambling. The Kleiman v Wright trial has revealed that Dr. Wright, at least allegedly, placed Satoshi’s bitcoins into a trust. The inability to access Satoshi’s Bitcoins in 2015 combined with tax issues resulting from the 2015 outing of Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired placed Dr. Wright in a position where he was looking for an investor.
Calvin Ayre has staked a significant percentage of his fortune and his reputation behind Dr. Wright—an ongoing investment and involvement over the course of almost seven years. Given the fact that Dr. Wright offered private proof to Gavin Andresen, it would defy common sense to think that this same proof and more was not offered to Calvin Ayre. This relationship and the degree to which Calvin would continue to invest in and back Dr. Wright was not well known in 2016.
It is also important to note that many people, including many entrepreneurs, are building in the BSV space. We will address more specifics about BSV fundamentals soon. What is notable is that there is a significant entrepreneurial community that either believes that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, or is not dissuaded by uncertainty or unconcerned about being associated with a “scammer.” In other words, even though the market has largely stuck with the “Faketoshi” thesis, many individuals have rejected it with conviction by dedicating their professional lives to BSV, a phenomenon that was not present or possible in 2016 since BSV did not exist until the end of 2018.
Evidence of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto from Kleiman v Wright
Another important post-2016 development has been the discovery process from Kleiman v Wright. Prior suspicions of forged blog posts and other documents have lured the market into a state of comfort in ignoring additional evidence made public via discovery. However, this evidence should not be overlooked, both because of its pertinence and because the massive quantity of evidence makes the possibility of an elaborate hoax more and more unlikely.
What does this evidence include? Let’s start with the premise of the case. A standard document called the “Joint Neutral Statement of Case” is submitted to lay out, in plain English, what is being disputed in the legal action. Each party, Plaintiff and Defendant, describe what they are alleging. The Joint Neutral Statement of Case for Kleiman v Wright confirms that the case is predicated on the suggestion that Dr. Wright played a central role in the creation of Bitcoin. In other words, the Kleiman family, which is 4 years and, presumably, millions of dollars into this case, is convinced that Dr. Wright is at least part of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto.’
What about documentary evidence? The extensive discovery process in Kleiman v Wright made public a trove of documentation including tax documents, loans, contracts for equity, invoices, and trust documents which paint a picture of Dr. Wright routinely dealing in large quantities of Bitcoin in its early days. These include (with links to docket submissions as well as third party summaries):
● Testimony from various witnesses (testifying on behalf of plaintiff and defendant) who place Dr. Wright talking about and sending documents pertaining to Bitcoin before and shortly after its release
● ATO (Australian Tax Office) documents and testimony about Dr. Wright’s 2009 Bitcoin R&D spend
Deposition and documentary evidence which paint a picture of a complex structure of legal entities formed between 2009 and 2015 by Dr. Wright and related parties
● 2011 IP Licensing Agreement paid for with ~3% of total BTC supply (over 200,000 BTC) (page 20)
● 2012 Deed of Loan documents collateralized by 650,000 BTC from Dr. Wright owned entities (page 11)
● 2013 contracts for equity in Bitcoin related companies in exchange for 323,000 BTC (page 1)
● 2015 email (page 12) detailing invoices between Dr. Wright related entities (DeMorgan) and Panamanian firm HighSecured for IaaS services rendered paid for with 60,000 BTC with on-chain corroboration.
● The 2017 Tulip Trust Document which owns the rights to all of Dr. Wright’s assets which he will become eligible to control after June 2020 (page 27)
The last document in this list is possibly the most consequential and will likely be central to the court case. The Tulip Trust is a 2011 Seychelles trust that purports to own the rights to over one million bitcoin and valuable Bitcoin related intellectual property. The document has allegedly been updated three times, with its most recent version dated July 6, 2017 (page 27). Portions of this trust document remain redacted but the readable portions give us the following key information:
● The trust is set up to promote the work of Dr. Craig Wright (named alongside his alias Satoshi Nakamoto), to progress the legal nature of Bitcoin, and to build a scaled financial system on top of bitcoin that can achieve over 1 trillion transactions per second
● The trust grants its trustees access to Wright International Investments and Tulip Trading Ltd assets
◇ Wright International Investments: the “Satoshi Million” Bitcoin mined before 2010 can only be spent after a full meeting of members between the dates of December 2019 and the end of 2020
◇ Tulip Trading Ltd: Any recoverable assets owned by the Dr. Wright related entities including the Bitcoin purchased in 2011 which originally capitalized the companies
● The trust has an activation date in January 2020
● The trust was set up by Dr. Wright but access to the document was explicitly withheld from him during the period of July 10 2017 until December 15 2019. Dr. Wright will be able to become a trustee by a vote of members ONLY AFTER June 2020.
A significant amount of evidence submitted in discovery has been sealed or redacted. We expect some of this additional evidence to be presented at trial, details of which will be presented later in this analysis.
There have also been multiple “motions to seal” in the discovery process. This indicates there exists evidence that has been shared with the plaintiff which may be used at trial that is not yet publicly accessible on the docket. However, descriptions of what these documents include is available in the “Trial Exhibit List”. Noteworthy exhibits we could expect to see in the coming days and weeds include Exhibit Numbers D142 and D143 titled “Multiple 2008 Receipts.” Dr. Wright has hinted in a 2019 blog post that the domain to “Bitcoin.org,” the website which hosted the Bitcoin whitepaper, was done with a credit card. If this information is produced in trial and corroborated by records from the credit card issuer, this would likely be compelling to crypto whales who have not been following post 2016 developments which ought to change their assessment of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto.
Extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and Satoshi
For many who are working in the BSV space, the most notable evidence of the past five years since 2016 is the extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and its origin. Between talks at conferences, podcast appearances, blog posts, academic papers, patents, and extended commentary in the semi-private slack group, Metanet ICU—Dr. Wright has generated thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of hours of content about Bitcoin, the underlying technology, the creation of Bitcoin, and the follies of BTC and other blockchains like Ethereum. To many, this wealth of commentary has provided numerous unique insights—many of which have facilitated the creation of BSV, both from a technical standpoint and by helping to define numerous value props for Bitcoin and blockchain technology which were previously unknown or under-explored.
While there are many ongoing, valid arguments against specific points being argued by Dr. Wright, the quantity and quality of his commentaries are exceptional, even for what one might expect from Satoshi. For a fraud, they are almost unimaginable. Virtually all of these commentaries on Bitcoin by Dr. Wright were created after 2016, although many of Dr. Wright’s arguments can trace their roots back to the original Satoshi writings.
Negative media filter against Dr. Wright
It’s understandable that the average Bitcoin investor might not be up-to-date on the information about Dr. Wright since his 2016 outing, but what explains the media, particularly the cryptocurrency media’s, lack of interest? Why, for example, are you just now hearing about the information likely to become public through this historically large trial. Put simply, the cryptocurrency media is biased against Dr. Wright and filters their reporting accordingly.
Take CoinDesk as an example. They are one of the most prominent cryptocurrency media organizations. CoinDesk is owned by Digital Currency Group which has an extensive portfolio of investments in the cryptocurrency space, the vast majority of which would suffer should the narrative around Dr. Wright shift from “kooky fraud pretending to be Satoshi” to “the inventor of Bitcoin.” Does Digital Currency Group want the inventor of Bitcoin publicly criticizing their investments? Clearly not. How has CoinDesk reported on the Kleiman v Wright story thus far? Their first reporting on the case was titled ‘Satoshi’ Craig Wright Is Being Sued for $10 Billion which outlined the case from the position of highlighting Dr. Wright’s alleged “scheme against Dave’s estate” to “seize Dave’s Bitcoin and his rights to certain intellectual property” and somewhat downplaying the implication that the Plaintiff assumes Dr. Wright played a central role in Bitcoin’s creation. In fairness, CoinDesk was doing this reporting early after the lawsuit was filed and before more newsworthy information had come out during the discovery process.
So, how did CoinDesk’s reporting evolve once this information was made public? Very little. CoinDesk’s coverage has largely stuck to the frame of “Dr. Wright is being sued for massive fraud” ignoring most of the extremely newsworthy information available for reporters to uncover in the docket. Some additional headlines from CoinDesk on this case from over the years include:
Craig Wright Ordered to Disclose Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Court Case (May 6, 2019)
Craig Wright Spars With Kleiman Lawyers in Combative Courtroom Appearance (June 28, 2019)
Judge Blasts Craig Wright’s Evidence, ‘Inconsistent’ Testimony in Kleiman Trial (August 15, 2019)
Craig Wright ‘Abusing’ Privilege to Block 11,000 Documents, Kleiman Lawyers Say (February 4, 2020)
Craig Wright Challenges Court Order Criticizing His Evidence in $4B Kleiman Case (March 26, 2020)
Craig Wright Called ‘Fraud’ in Message Signed With Bitcoin Addresses He Claims to Own (May 25, 2021)
Ex-Wife’s Testimony Suggests Craig Wright ‘Defrauded’ Court, Kleiman Lawyers Claim (August 5, 2020)
Craig Wright Must Face Trial Over Alleged $11B Bitcoin Fortune as Request for Summary Judgment Denied (September 21, 2020)
The bias of CoinDesk is easy to discern from the way they emotionally conjugate their headlines. What about more recent updates? After all, the trial starts this week. A Google advanced search for the most recent CoinDesk publications featuring the terms “Kleiman,” “Wright,” or “Trial” shows that the most recent update (at the time of writing*) is their May 10, 2021 post (over 5 months old) which notes the trial’s delay until November 1 2021.
Earlier this week, CoinDesk.tv did include a section of their “All About Bitcoin” weekly round-up video on the trial. CoinDesk’s Managing Editor of Technology, Christine Harkin, briefly summarized the trial as she understood it. This summary mentions a dispute between Dr. Wright and the Kleiman estate over IP and Bitcoins but is vague as to which Bitcoins are in question, despite the idea of “the Satoshi Million,” or a trove of dormant Bitcoin’s mined by Satoshi in its early years, being a well understood subset of Bitcoins within the cryptocurrency space. Harkin also mentions that “…of course there have been any number of other internet and Bitcoin sleuths out there who’ve been hard at work debunking so much of what Craig Wright has claimed in terms of his involvement with the development of Bitcoin.”
The apparent bias of the cryptocurrency media has a downstream effect on the reporting from the broader financial and tech media, many of whom seem to outsource a lot of their sensemaking in the blockchain space to cryptocurrency publications or thought leaders who are of the mindset outlined above. The cryptocurrency media presenting the Kleiman v Wright case as either a forgone conclusion OR something not worth much attention almost certainly has played a role in the near media blackout on what stands to be one of the largest individual civil IP disputes in US history.
*Since writing this section, CoinDesk has published an article on the case, their first significant coverage since May
Significant conflicts of interest may lead to media bias
There are significant conflicts of interest present in crypto media which may have created an incentive to paint Dr. Wright as an unreliable source, and more recently, to downplay achievements of BSV. The most prominent of these conflicts of interest is the significant investment stake that Mastercard ventures has in Digital Currency Group (DCG). DCG owns CoinDesk and has many significant investments which depend on the success of BTC. DCG is also an investor in Blockstream, an organization which has helped to set a technical direction for BTC which we think is very favorable to Mastercard whereas the vision of Bitcoin first articulated by Satoshi and now articulated by Dr. Wright and embodied by BSV represents a significant threat to Mastercard’s core business.
Mastercard and other credit cards typically charge a fee of around $0.25 and 2% per transaction. Transaction fees on BTC are typically in excess of $10 whereas transaction fees on BSV are typically under $0.001. This significant disparity is primarily due to a self-imposed limitation by BTC, restricting the maximum block size—the amount of data that can be added to the blockchain in any given period of time. By placing a cap on data, there is a cap on transactions which leads to a shortage of available transactions relative to total demand for transactions.
There is no such limitation on BSV. Miners are free to mine as large or small blocks as they choose. This has led to a consistent increase in block sizes over time as miners capabilities improve and demand for BSV blockspace has increased. Allowing blocks to grow has allowed fees to stay small. We think that a blockchain with scalable, cheap transactions is a threat to Mastercard’s business. On the other hand, an unscalable, expensive blockchain is not. We are not sure that Mastercard’s investments are designed to cripple the technical capabilities of Bitcoin, but in important ways, they have had that effect.
It is important to note that these limitations have been accepted because authoritative sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream endorse them as being necessary. Because Dr. Wright is such a vocal advocate of BSV’s unlimited block size approach, if he is recognized as Satoshi, this may supersede the authority of sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream and lead to a broad recognition of the superiority of the BSV path. The BSV path is also gaining empirical verification as the blockchain’s usage continues to increase. The market lacked this empirical evidence when decisions to pursue the Blockstream path on BTC were made. Continued adoption of BSV as a cheap payments solution could ultimately present a significant threat to Mastercard. We do not know whether or not Mastercard has interfered in the market in this way, but the presence of the conflict of interest is an important part of the story nonetheless.
Why won’t he sign? A conflict of visions
With the wealth of evidence that has emerged since 2016 pointing to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it may surprise some that he is not more widely recognized as Satoshi. What must be understood, is that for many, only one piece of evidence will suffice—a signature made with keys assumed to be controlled by Satoshi. This is in line with the crypto ethos—“Not your keys, not your crypto.” Implied by this ethos is that if you don’t prove possession of Satoshi’s keys, you are not Satoshi.
While for many, a digital signature with Satoshi’s keys will be required to prove that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, we think it is easy to understand how Dr. Wright could be Satoshi and have refrained from signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. The first reason is somewhat straightforward—we know Satoshi wanted to stay anonymous. If Dr. Wright had signed, he would be in a much more public position facing greater scrutiny. While he acknowledges that he is Satoshi, he has not been publicly acknowledged. This is in line with what one would expect to be Satoshi’s preference.
Another important motivating factor for Dr. Wright not to sign may have been his desire to improve his positioning and his ability to profit from and control the Bitcoin space. Through nChain, Dr. Wright and his partners have filed over 1200 patents and built a leading enterprise-facing blockchain organization, all while other companies like IBM were not paying attention to him or his research, instead emulating chains like Ethereum which Dr. Wright considers inferior. In this time, his and others work have led the creation of a significant industry around BSV. Importantly, BSV has also successfully restored the original Bitcoin protocol—a feat that may not have been possible with greater scrutiny. If he can later engineer a reorientation of the crypto markets around BSV, he stands to gain immensely by having laid this groundwork.
A more technical reason may exist for why Craig has not signed. The trial has revealed that the Satoshi coins were controlled by a trust. Further, we suspect that this trust may be digitally enforced by having spent the Satoshi coins into transactions which could not be re-spent until a certain point in time. While we know that Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen report to have witnessed a demonstration of a signature, it is also possible that the trustees did not allow him to publicly sign or move coins. This suggestion has been put forward by financial cryptographer Ian Grigg who was an early recipient of the Bitcoin whitepaper as a member of the cryptography mailing list in 2008, and someone who claims to have been involved with the post-outing process after Dr. Wright’s doxxing and eventual public acceptance of the Satoshi pseudonym. The trust may also have a technical enforcement mechanism which hinders Dr. Wright’s ability to move coins or sign at will.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dr. Wright has made clear that a conflict of visions exists between him and the mainstream crypto ethos. Dr. Wright is seeking to establish judicial supremacy over Bitcoin. He wants to prove that possession of keys in Bitcoin does not equal identity or ownership, the same way possessing a key to a car does not mean one owns that car. Craig has not only maintained that signing would not prove identity, but that he seeks to leverage courts, not just to prove his identity as Satoshi, but to engineer a movement of coins triggered by an order by courts. The purpose of this court-ordered coin movement would be to set a precedent that Bitcoin does not exist outside of the scope of existing laws and law enforcement mechanisms regarding the ownership of property. The mechanics and results of this type of movement are beyond the scope of this analysis. It’s importance is to help explain why someone who is Satoshi would not seek to prove their identity by creating a digital signature, the reason here being that proving identity with a signature endorses a worldview that Dr. Wright claims to oppose.
Dr. Wright’s background: Consistent with Satoshi
Craig has an impressive track record as both an academic and as an industry leader in computer security. He has dozens of degrees and certifications including a Doctorate of Philosophy, a Master of Statistics, an LLM in international commercial law, Masters of Information Security Engineering, Information Security Management, Information System Security, Management (IT), Networking and System Administration, and at least 19 certifications from GIAC, a leading computer security certifier. He has been an adjunct lecturer at Charles Sturt University where he received many of his degrees.
He has been widely published on information security, both formally and informally on his own extensive blogs. Before becoming fully involved with Bitcoin and after a stint as a Wesleyan minister, Craig had a prolific career as a computer security expert working for OzEmail, K-Mart, ASE, Mahindra & Mahindra, Lasseter’s Online, and BDO Kendalls, all done in conjunction with his academic career. He has also consulted for various government organizations and police departments, both before and after Bitcoin’s creation. His background in computer security as well as audit map well to Bitcoin – a secure, distributed, and time-stamped audit trail used to create a digital cash system.
While Dr. Wright is clearly brilliant to anyone who takes a close look, he is not a high EQ individual. This has impaired his ability to be understood by others. Much of his poor PR can be traced to being impatient, impolite, and overly specific to the point of failing to convey meaning. Craig admits to having Autism and Aspergers. It is not surprising that someone who saw what others missed with Bitcoin would be unlike others in significant ways.
‘Faketoshi’ narrative hides strong BSV fundamentals
Part of the bull case for BSV as a result of the trial is that BSV benefits from greater market scrutiny. Because BSV is seen by many as unreputable due to its association with Dr. Wright, many have overlooked the significant technical achievements and adoption of BSV. If the trial causes investors to see Dr. Wright as Satoshi and take a closer look at BSV, we think they will conclude that BSV is a significant competitor in the blockchain space and should be valued accordingly.
The value proposition of BSV is a scalable Bitcoin with its full features restored—the same scarce 21 million Bitcoins but without high fees and limited throughput and with the original scripting language and smart contracting capabilities restored. Businesses utilizing BSV are typically taking advantage of some combination of its micropayment capabilities—instant payments as low as 1/100th of a cent, utilizing the blockchain ledger for its immutability and transparency, and the smart contracting abilities of BSV which are similar to but more scalable than blockchains like Ethereum.
BSV began operating independently in late 2018. The major restoration of the original protocol was completed in February 2020 with the Genesis upgrade. Since 2018, BSV’s achievements include
Setting world record block sizes which recently reached 2 GB (BTC has 1 MB cap)
Surpassing BTC in total blockchain size
Over 16M transactions in a block on STN
Creation of horizontally scalable node software, Teranode, and demonstrating 50,000 TPS
Maintaining low fees, even with surging volume
Restoration of bitcoin script which is deprecated on BTC
Creation of scrypt and use of advance scripting functionality to create the game of life on Bitcoin, proving it’s turing completeness
Creation of dozens of additional on-chain protocols for tokens, smart contracts, data storage, data serialization, and more
Proliferation of wallets, many of which invented or first implemented advanced functionality such as paymail, threshold signatures, and true peer-to-peer infrastructure
Creation of many useful SDKs such as Handcash Connect which have enabled the creation hundreds of applications such as Haste Arcade
Adoption by nation of Tuvalu to create a national digital ledger
Major esports organization Built By Gamers partners with BSV companies to utilize and promote BSV-based technologies
Utilization of the chain as a data storage layer by metastreme, predict ecology for ESG data
Games like cryptofights achieving daily transaction volumes in excess of total Ethereum mainnet
Twetch, a BSV based social network, having over 60,000 users
Tokenized protocol being selected by Aquantium LLC to tokenize equity and debt instruments on the BSV blockchain
Maxthon, the default browser for over 600 million users, using BSV to create new types of browser functionality only possible with BSV
Vxpass, a BSV based vaccine passport solution, used by Kingdom of Lesotho
Domineum partnership with nChain
Bitboss launching the first FDIC backed stablecoin
Kensei adopted by Crucial Compliance
Kensei adopted by Kompany
Surviving 51% attacks unscathed
VOIB (voice over Bitcoin) – using Bitcoin to make a phone call
Mintblue used by Visma Group to record invoice data on BSV blockchain
Unisot utilizing BSV to track scandinavian supply chain for fish
EHR Data using BSV as a data ownership solution for the healthcare industry
And quite a bit more!
What is notable about these achievements is not just the achievements themselves. Also important is that many of the technical achievements directly contradict claims made by technical authorities in BTC and other crypto thought leaders. The current BTC roadmap was initiated based on a belief that Bitcoin could not scale in the manner that BSV is now demonstrating. This belief that Bitcoin cannot scale was in contrast to what Satoshi wrote pseudonymously in 2010. While it is not surprising that someone who claims to be Satoshi would recommend returning to the design created by Satoshi, what is notable about BSV’s success is that it has vindicated this original design to date. In fact, BSV’s success throws the entire roadmap of BTC and crypto into question and can change the perception of what is possible and desirable in the crypto and blockchain space.
*The significant growth of the BSV blockchain relative to BTC shows the accelerating adoption and scalability of BSV compared to BTC
While BSV’s achievements are significant and numerous, the coverage of BSV, especially by prominent crypto news outlets like CoinDesk, has been extremely unfavorable, highlighting only negative events, downplaying some achievements, and generally misrepresenting the space by overblowing issues and ignoring successes. It is unclear if this is explicitly coordinated. It is possible that this misrepresentation is simply due to bias resulting from the “Faketoshi” narrative. However, it is also possible that because BSV represents a competitive threat to existing chains, the owners of major crypto media publications such as Digital Currency Group, the owner of CoinDesk, who have significant investments into BTC and ETH are attempting to suppress knowledge of BSV’s successes to protect their existing investments as well as their reputations. Regardless, the negative media filters around BSV and Dr. Wright are evident. I encourage you to attempt to find positive media coverage of any of the above achievements from a media organization that is not explicitly focused on covering the BSV ecosystem such as CoinGeek or a simple press release.
Our expectations of the trial and its importance
Because our perspective is that Dr. Wright is likely Satoshi Nakamoto based on existing evidence, we also think it is likely that Dr. Wright has additional evidence to support his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. While significant evidence has already come out in the trial, a significant amount of evidence has been sealed. As mentioned the Exhibit List includes reference to receipts from 2008, “writings and notes” from 2007, “BOD (Board of Directors) meeting minutes” from 2007, email chains from 2008, and even potential Bitcoin predecessors like an entry titled “TimeChain v0.0.2 Alpha” from 2008. In addition to these new exhibits, we are expecting information to surface from witness testimony, perhaps most notably from Dr. Wright directly.
Allusions to the type of evidence which may come forward have been made by CSW himself. When one soberly divorces themselves from the “code is law” ethos of the broader crypto currency space which single-mindedly demands cryptographic evidence of someone being Satoshi Nakamoto, the myriad of other types of evidence that ought to exist becomes more clear. Things like the testimony of those with close relationships to Satoshi, documentation indicating interest and study in relevant domains, computer records pertinent to Bitcoin’s development, and more. In recent messages in the Metanet ICU slack, CSW has both indicated that he will bring such types of information forward AND begun to preempt likely responses from his PoSM-heavy (“proof of social media”, as opposed to Bitcoin’s “proof of work”) crowd of detractors.
Dr. Wright has also made several important predictions about the outcome of the trial. To summarize quite a few recent statements on the likely outcome of the trial, Craig is predicting his victory, that the outcome will determine that he is the creator of Bitcoin, and that the case will trigger events which will result in BTC being moved due to court orders.
In general, we think that the trial represents a turning point for Dr. Wright and his team. They have been operating in relative secrecy from the mainstream over the past few years. To meet their stated goals of making BSV a globally adopted technology and the new foundation of the internet stack, there will need to be a shift in public perception and significant investment in the BSV space. While this lawsuit was not initiated by Dr. Wright and his team, their actions and warnings paint a picture that they are using the trial as a turning point and are expecting to shift from operating in relative secrecy to step into the public mantle of being “Satoshi Nakamoto” and supporting BSV as Satoshi’s Bitcoin. They have indicated that they will go so far as to paint BTC as a “passed off” version of Bitcoin and attempt to make it illegal for institutions such as Coinbase and Robinhood to refer to BTC as Bitcoin.
While we don’t have a strong position on their likelihood for success pursuing the legal claim that exchanges like Coinbase are passing off BTC as Bitcoin, we think their attempts will increase the probability of greater public scrutiny of Dr. Wright, his claim to be Satoshi, and BSV. Also, we expect that due to Dr. Wright and his team’s broader ambitions for BSV and their legal crusade against BTC, they will be seeking media attention on the trial in general, and particularly the elements of the trial that further paint Dr. Wright as Satoshi. We think that greater scrutiny of these things will reveal a strong bull case for BSV. Accordingly, we expect whales who have already linked Dr. Wright with BSV to front-run this greater market recognition of Dr. Wright and BSV which could lead to a rapid price increase during the trial.
Market landscape
The current market landscape and market history of BSV further paint a bullish scenario for BSV during the trial. There is significant precedent for Dr. Wright news affecting the price of BSV. When Dr. Wright was granted the US copyright for the Bitcoin whitepaper, the price jumped 120%. Another large price surge occurred shortly after based on fake news circulating in the Chinese trading community which pointed towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi. Finally, when Dr. Wright confirmed receipt files from a bounded courier, an event detailed by the Tulip Trust, the price briefly rose around 300% before falling after it was made clear that this delivery would not immediately facilitate the movement of Satoshi’s coins. These events as well as other smaller examples paint a picture that the market may very rapidly start buying BSV upon the receipt of additional information pointing towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi.
BSV has also lagged significantly behind the rest of the crypto market over last year’s bull run, even though many significant achievements have occurred. This can be partly explained by the negative media filter around BSV. However, even negative events have not influenced BSV price, such as the block-reorg attacks over the summer. These attacks received extensive coverage even though the attacks did not disrupt network functioning, nor did they affect the price of BSV. BSV price movements have typically been in the form of sharp increases followed by long periods of decline. This increasingly uncorrelated BSV chart may be due to the very significant short volumes relative to other crypto currencies.
BSV has been one of the most heavily shorted assets, often the most shorted cryptoasset on a per capita basis. For most fund managers employing a long short strategy, BSV is a natural short pair. Until recently it had been highly correlated with BTC, and it is largely viewed as a scam or a version of Bitcoin with no chance of success. This coupled with underperformance relative to most of the cryptomarket makes it seem like one of the least risky assets to short in a market where shorting any cryptoasset comes with a large degree of risk. We think that this dynamic that has in part kept the price of BSV down relative to the rest of the cryptomarket could flip quickly if the perceived risk of a significant, uncorrelated BSV price increase occurs in the coming weeks.
We think that a meaningful BSV price increase could generate both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze. The gamma squeeze would be in part due to Unbounded Capital’s large OTM call options position with major OTC market makers in the crypto space. It is also important to note that BSV is not as liquid as other cryptoassets, in part due to delistings of BSV by major exchanges like Binance which were triggered by defamation lawsuits initiated by Dr. Wright. Controversy around Dr. Wright has kept BSV off of popular exchanges like Coinbase, although importantly, the asset is available on Robinhood. This restricted liquidity could exacerbate a significant price increase due to difficulties obtaining BSV compared to other similar assets.
Pricing in crypto is very subjective. The benchmark for BSV is clearly BTC. Currently the price ratio is around 400:1, an all-time relative high. If public perception of BSV is that it is Satoshi’s preferred version of Bitcoin, we expect that ratio to sharply decline, mainly due to an increase in BSV price.
Importantly, BSV has strong scalability fundamentals. We have recently seen a significant rise in the price of Solana, the blockchain seen as the greatest competitor to Ethereum due to it’s significantly higher scalability. We think BSV and BTC could mirror the relationship between Ethereum and Solana. One year ago, the ETH:SOL market cap ration was ~113:1. Today, it is only ~9:1. 9:1 BTC:BSV would result in a ~4000% increase in the price of BSV if BTC stayed at $61,000.
We think the major risk of negative alpha for BSV relative to the broader crypto market during the trial is that long-term holders may sell their positions if the trial does not have a significant result. However, we think for traders who are mainly speculating on the trial and do not have an independent bull case for BSV, having exposure across many years would not be a sensible approach. Rather, buying directly in advance of the trial would make the most sense. We have not seen a price run-up in advance of the trial. This is in line with our thesis that the crypto market underestimates the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. We believe that most BSV holders are bullish on the tech fundamentals in addition to price action related to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, and are therefore less likely to sell if the trial does not produce a result.
Potential trade mechanics
Unbounded Capital is primarily speculating on the trial outcome through deep OTM call options purchased OTC, an option not available to retail traders. Other trade mechanics one could consider include leveraged exposure on Bitfinex or perpetual swaps on FTX. For traders who are less advanced in general or who are not set up to trade on crypto exchanges, Robinhood is a highly accessible platform which makes taking a long position on BSV simple.
We believe that this trial does not simply represent a trading opportunity for BSV. We believe that this trial could have historical significance as a major landmark event which reveals Satoshi to the world. If so, it will have been very cool to be a part of this event, even if we are simply spectators and speculators.
Conclusion
The crypto market is operating on an outdated view of the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. Kleiman vs Wright represents an opportunity for additional evidence and greater media scrutiny to change the public and crypto market’s views on Dr. Wright. If public sentiment shifts towards recognizing Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it could cause BSV, the network Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin” which also has strong, overlooked fundamentals, to appreciate rapidly relative to its benchmark BTC. Market conditions are ripe for this type of rapid movement due to the high ratio of short exposure and potential for a gamma squeeze.
To stay up to date on the proceedings visit UnboundedCapital.com/trial for real time information from the courtroom.
CoinGeek will feature Kurt Wuckert Jr. in daily recap coverage which will be livestreamed on a daily basis at 6:30 p.m. EST on our YouTube Channel.
Watch our Day 1 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtxsbsPtiY
Watch our Day 2 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMXVtQrmVZc
New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.
Source: https://coingeek.com/how-we-are-trading-the-70-billion-dollar-lawsuit-over-satoshis-bitcoins/
Guest Contributor
This post originally appeared on the Unbounded Capital website, and we republished with permission from Jack Laskey.
TLDR; Long BSV (available on Robinhood)
Overview
A Florida civil suit over the $70+ billion Satoshi fortune that started November 1st could lead to broad market awareness that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. This could have significant short term price impacts on Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), a version of Bitcoin which Craig Wright is heavily associated with and endorses as “the real Bitcoin.” We believe that the market has an outdated perception of Craig Wright and the potential that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Additional scrutiny of existing evidence due to the high-profile nature of the trial as well as the potential for new evidence presented in trial could significantly change public sentiment regarding the likelihood that Craig Wright is Satoshi. We believe this could result in a rapid and significant price increase for BSV, due to its association with Craig Wright, its technical merits and market traction which have been overlooked to this point, and in part because of its accessibility to retail investors via Robinhood. BSV is also one of the most shorted cryptos, meaning that there is potential for both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze, the latter in part due to positions held by Unbounded Capital.
Background
One of the most important trials of the century begins today, Nov 1, 2021 at 10 a.m. Kleiman v Wright is a Florida civil suit over the ownership of around $70 billion dollars’ worth of Bitcoin. Not only is this a stunning sum, but the quality of these Bitcoins is also exceptional. Why? Because they are allegedly the Bitcoins that Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, mined in Bitcoin’s earliest days, from 2009-2011. Thus, the trial not only could determine the fate of Satoshi’s Bitcoins, but it could shed an extraordinary amount of light upon one of the biggest mysteries of the 21st century, the identity of the pseudonymous creator of a trillion-dollar invention.
Chances are, you probably haven’t heard about it. Why?
Both mainstream and crypto media have been shockingly quiet about this incredibly significant and intriguing case. The reason for this is that the media, most of the public, and perhaps most importantly, the market, have a major disagreement with both the plaintiff and defendant. The disagreement is whether or not Dr. Craig S Wright, the defendant in the trial and an Australian computer security expert and polymath, is the man, or one of the men behind the Satoshi pseudonym.
Ira Kleiman, the plaintiff, and Dr. Wright, however, are in agreement that Dr. Wright was involved in the creation of Bitcoin and the mining of Satoshi’s billions. The dispute is about Ira’s deceased brother, Dave Kleiman, and the degree to which his involvement in the creation of Bitcoin constitutes a partnership, and a claim on the Satoshi billions by his estate, now managed by Ira Kleiman. However, much of the crypto world thinks Craig is involved in an elaborate hoax—that he is pretending to be Satoshi. This has earned him the moniker “Faketoshi” and inspired t-shirt designs like what are pictured below.
A popular refrain “We are all Satoshi Except Craig Wright” was even made into a shirt worn by popular crypto influencers like Tone Vays
At Unbounded Capital, we believe that the “Faketoshi” narrative is out of date. Most people either formed their opinion about Dr. Wright in 2016 or inherited their opinion from someone who had. A lot has happened with Dr. Wright since then, much of it due to the ongoing discovery process in the trial. The result of this is that people have not been paying close attention to what is happening with Dr. Wright or Bitcoin SV, a fork of Bitcoin Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin.” We think the trial could change this, and we are placing our bets accordingly.
Our investment thesis behind the Satoshi trial
We think Dr. Wright is likely to both win the trial and also confirm his ownership over these Bitcoins in the process. However, what is most pertinent to our investment thesis is the possibility that the market increasingly perceives Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto due to new evidence and increased public scrutiny of existing evidence resulting from the trial. In other words, we believe the market is mispricing the probability that Kleiman v Wright will make it clear to the public that Dr. Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin.
BTC’s market cap is already over a trillion dollars. Why would a Satoshi reveal matter at this point? The answer is that Dr. Wright is perhaps the world’s biggest BTC bear. Dr. Wright has been publicly lamenting changes made in BTC which he believes cripple its functionality. Since 2017, he has supported alternate forks as “the real Bitcoin” and focused his efforts in these communities, first Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and for the last three years since its inception, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).
In particular, Dr. Wright has impressed his stamp on BSV, both from an influence standpoint as well as a reputation standpoint. BSV has been inextricably linked to Dr. Wright and has followed the development path prescribed by Dr. Wright—to return to the original Bitcoin protocol outlined by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008-2009. Not only has Dr. Wright placed his efforts and support behind BSV, but he has also been public about his plan to liquidate Satoshi’s BTC and BCH for BSV and USD and then to use the proceeds from the sale for charitable purposes. Keep in mind that because BTC, BCH, and BSV are all forks of the same chain, Satoshi’s ~1.1M Bitcoin fortune would apply to all of these forks. In other words, Satoshi is suspected to have ~1.1M of each BTC ($66.5B total value), BCH ($0.65B total value), and BSV ($0.17B total value). Craig’s warning is that he will convert the ~$67B of BTC and BCH into BSV and USD. The current market cap of BSV is ~$3.1B.
*Note that the trial was originally scheduled for July 2020. The delays were largely due to Covid.
While the broader investing public is not aware of this, most crypto whales are. We believe that meaningful evidence presented in the trial will likely result in the market front-running the perceived inevitability of an increase in BSV price. We feel that the lack of price movement until now indicates that these whales are not correctly evaluating the likelihood that the trial will lead to this evidence, presenting a window of where there is asymmetric upside in trading on a bullish trial result for BSV.
In the rest of this article, we will present more detailed evidence in support of our thesis including existing evidence that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, positive BSV fundamentals which are being overlooked due to a clear negative media filter, more detail about the conflict of visions which may bias the crypto investing public against the possibility that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, our expectations for the trial, and how current market conditions are ripe for a sharp increase in BSV price due to revelations from the trial.
The market’s view on ‘Faketoshi’ is outdated
Dr. Wright was exposed as Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired in 2015. He first denied it and later admitted to being Satoshi. When the crypto community were forming their opinions about his claim to be Satoshi in 2016, there was mixed evidence including the absence of evidence thought to be essential—signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. Dr. Wright orchestrated a private signing with then BTC chief developer, Gavin Andresen, and Bitcoin Foundation head, Jon Matonis. Gavin publicly affirmed that he was satisfied with this private demonstration, as did Jon, and other individuals came forward attesting to knowledge that Dr. Wright is Satoshi.
A public demonstration was offered but never delivered. This left many skeptical. A blog post that came out in 2016 was accused of being a fake proof attempt. While it is cryptic, a close reading of the post makes it clear that it was not a proof attempt. Still, the lack of public proof combined with concerns that Craig was changing and backdating blog posts and other documents led to the consensus view that Craig was a pretender, earning him the “Faketoshi” moniker.
In our view, there was nothing completely unreasonable about this conclusion in 2016. It was a strange story with the attestation of Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis combined with the lack of a public signing and strange incidents with suspected forgeries. The evidence was unsettling, but certainly inconclusive.
However, even if the view of Dr. Wright as Faketoshi was justifiable in 2016, it has become increasingly outdated in the ensuing years. Craig’s continued actions, the actions of his professional associates, Craig’s extensive commentary on Bitcoin’s creation and design, as well as evidence that has been presented through the Kleiman vs Wright discovery plus evidence put forth by Dr. Wright outside of the trial paints a significant likelihood that Dr. Wright is actually Satoshi or at least a significant part of a potential Satoshi team. We will also explore the significant conflicts of interest which exist in crypto media which may have contributed to the continued prevalence of the “Faketoshi” narrative.
Dr. Wright and associates’ work and actions
One of the most salient, and overlooked reasons to suspect that Dr. Wright is, in fact, Satoshi are his and his business partners’ continued actions. Dr. Wright currently acts as the Chief Scientist at nChain, a Bitcoin R&D firm which has now created and sold enterprise software products utilizing BSV. Dr. Wright and nChain have filed over 1200 patents on Bitcoin related technology. nChain has over 100 employees and recently launched their first enterprise product, Kensei, a data integrity solution, which is being used by Crucial Compliance, a compliance software provider for the online gaming industry, and others. In 2016, almost none of this existed, and what did exist was not well known. Dr. Wright’s professional work since 2016 is much more in line with what one would expect from the inventor of Bitcoin than from a fraud.
The chairman of nChain’s board is Stefan Matthews, who is also the CEO of a publicly traded mining company, [ur=https://www.taal.com/l]TAAL Distributed Information Technologies Inc.[/url] (CSE:TAAL | FWB:9SQ1 | OTC: TAALF), which is focused on creating services for the BSV blockchain. Stefan is an associate of Dr. Wright’s from before Bitcoin. Stefan has previously said that Craig offered him 50,000 Bitcoins in 2009, an offer which Stefan rejected. Stefan also claims to have seen a copy of the Bitcoin whitepaper before it’s publication in 2008. Stefan has now dedicated his career to working alongside Dr. Wright on BSV. This story and Stefan’s continued commitment to Dr. Wright and BSV was not known in 2016.
Stefan is also the connection between Dr. Wright and Calvin Ayre. Calvin Ayre is a billionaire who made his fortune through Bodog, a pioneering company in offshore gambling. The Kleiman v Wright trial has revealed that Dr. Wright, at least allegedly, placed Satoshi’s bitcoins into a trust. The inability to access Satoshi’s Bitcoins in 2015 combined with tax issues resulting from the 2015 outing of Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired placed Dr. Wright in a position where he was looking for an investor.
Calvin Ayre has staked a significant percentage of his fortune and his reputation behind Dr. Wright—an ongoing investment and involvement over the course of almost seven years. Given the fact that Dr. Wright offered private proof to Gavin Andresen, it would defy common sense to think that this same proof and more was not offered to Calvin Ayre. This relationship and the degree to which Calvin would continue to invest in and back Dr. Wright was not well known in 2016.
It is also important to note that many people, including many entrepreneurs, are building in the BSV space. We will address more specifics about BSV fundamentals soon. What is notable is that there is a significant entrepreneurial community that either believes that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, or is not dissuaded by uncertainty or unconcerned about being associated with a “scammer.” In other words, even though the market has largely stuck with the “Faketoshi” thesis, many individuals have rejected it with conviction by dedicating their professional lives to BSV, a phenomenon that was not present or possible in 2016 since BSV did not exist until the end of 2018.
Evidence of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto from Kleiman v Wright
Another important post-2016 development has been the discovery process from Kleiman v Wright. Prior suspicions of forged blog posts and other documents have lured the market into a state of comfort in ignoring additional evidence made public via discovery. However, this evidence should not be overlooked, both because of its pertinence and because the massive quantity of evidence makes the possibility of an elaborate hoax more and more unlikely.
What does this evidence include? Let’s start with the premise of the case. A standard document called the “Joint Neutral Statement of Case” is submitted to lay out, in plain English, what is being disputed in the legal action. Each party, Plaintiff and Defendant, describe what they are alleging. The Joint Neutral Statement of Case for Kleiman v Wright confirms that the case is predicated on the suggestion that Dr. Wright played a central role in the creation of Bitcoin. In other words, the Kleiman family, which is 4 years and, presumably, millions of dollars into this case, is convinced that Dr. Wright is at least part of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto.’
What about documentary evidence? The extensive discovery process in Kleiman v Wright made public a trove of documentation including tax documents, loans, contracts for equity, invoices, and trust documents which paint a picture of Dr. Wright routinely dealing in large quantities of Bitcoin in its early days. These include (with links to docket submissions as well as third party summaries):
● Testimony from various witnesses (testifying on behalf of plaintiff and defendant) who place Dr. Wright talking about and sending documents pertaining to Bitcoin before and shortly after its release
● ATO (Australian Tax Office) documents and testimony about Dr. Wright’s 2009 Bitcoin R&D spend
Deposition and documentary evidence which paint a picture of a complex structure of legal entities formed between 2009 and 2015 by Dr. Wright and related parties
● 2011 IP Licensing Agreement paid for with ~3% of total BTC supply (over 200,000 BTC) (page 20)
● 2012 Deed of Loan documents collateralized by 650,000 BTC from Dr. Wright owned entities (page 11)
● 2013 contracts for equity in Bitcoin related companies in exchange for 323,000 BTC (page 1)
● 2015 email (page 12) detailing invoices between Dr. Wright related entities (DeMorgan) and Panamanian firm HighSecured for IaaS services rendered paid for with 60,000 BTC with on-chain corroboration.
● The 2017 Tulip Trust Document which owns the rights to all of Dr. Wright’s assets which he will become eligible to control after June 2020 (page 27)
The last document in this list is possibly the most consequential and will likely be central to the court case. The Tulip Trust is a 2011 Seychelles trust that purports to own the rights to over one million bitcoin and valuable Bitcoin related intellectual property. The document has allegedly been updated three times, with its most recent version dated July 6, 2017 (page 27). Portions of this trust document remain redacted but the readable portions give us the following key information:
● The trust is set up to promote the work of Dr. Craig Wright (named alongside his alias Satoshi Nakamoto), to progress the legal nature of Bitcoin, and to build a scaled financial system on top of bitcoin that can achieve over 1 trillion transactions per second
● The trust grants its trustees access to Wright International Investments and Tulip Trading Ltd assets
◇ Wright International Investments: the “Satoshi Million” Bitcoin mined before 2010 can only be spent after a full meeting of members between the dates of December 2019 and the end of 2020
◇ Tulip Trading Ltd: Any recoverable assets owned by the Dr. Wright related entities including the Bitcoin purchased in 2011 which originally capitalized the companies
● The trust has an activation date in January 2020
● The trust was set up by Dr. Wright but access to the document was explicitly withheld from him during the period of July 10 2017 until December 15 2019. Dr. Wright will be able to become a trustee by a vote of members ONLY AFTER June 2020.
A significant amount of evidence submitted in discovery has been sealed or redacted. We expect some of this additional evidence to be presented at trial, details of which will be presented later in this analysis.
There have also been multiple “motions to seal” in the discovery process. This indicates there exists evidence that has been shared with the plaintiff which may be used at trial that is not yet publicly accessible on the docket. However, descriptions of what these documents include is available in the “Trial Exhibit List”. Noteworthy exhibits we could expect to see in the coming days and weeds include Exhibit Numbers D142 and D143 titled “Multiple 2008 Receipts.” Dr. Wright has hinted in a 2019 blog post that the domain to “Bitcoin.org,” the website which hosted the Bitcoin whitepaper, was done with a credit card. If this information is produced in trial and corroborated by records from the credit card issuer, this would likely be compelling to crypto whales who have not been following post 2016 developments which ought to change their assessment of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto.
Extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and Satoshi
For many who are working in the BSV space, the most notable evidence of the past five years since 2016 is the extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and its origin. Between talks at conferences, podcast appearances, blog posts, academic papers, patents, and extended commentary in the semi-private slack group, Metanet ICU—Dr. Wright has generated thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of hours of content about Bitcoin, the underlying technology, the creation of Bitcoin, and the follies of BTC and other blockchains like Ethereum. To many, this wealth of commentary has provided numerous unique insights—many of which have facilitated the creation of BSV, both from a technical standpoint and by helping to define numerous value props for Bitcoin and blockchain technology which were previously unknown or under-explored.
While there are many ongoing, valid arguments against specific points being argued by Dr. Wright, the quantity and quality of his commentaries are exceptional, even for what one might expect from Satoshi. For a fraud, they are almost unimaginable. Virtually all of these commentaries on Bitcoin by Dr. Wright were created after 2016, although many of Dr. Wright’s arguments can trace their roots back to the original Satoshi writings.
Negative media filter against Dr. Wright
It’s understandable that the average Bitcoin investor might not be up-to-date on the information about Dr. Wright since his 2016 outing, but what explains the media, particularly the cryptocurrency media’s, lack of interest? Why, for example, are you just now hearing about the information likely to become public through this historically large trial. Put simply, the cryptocurrency media is biased against Dr. Wright and filters their reporting accordingly.
Take CoinDesk as an example. They are one of the most prominent cryptocurrency media organizations. CoinDesk is owned by Digital Currency Group which has an extensive portfolio of investments in the cryptocurrency space, the vast majority of which would suffer should the narrative around Dr. Wright shift from “kooky fraud pretending to be Satoshi” to “the inventor of Bitcoin.” Does Digital Currency Group want the inventor of Bitcoin publicly criticizing their investments? Clearly not. How has CoinDesk reported on the Kleiman v Wright story thus far? Their first reporting on the case was titled ‘Satoshi’ Craig Wright Is Being Sued for $10 Billion which outlined the case from the position of highlighting Dr. Wright’s alleged “scheme against Dave’s estate” to “seize Dave’s Bitcoin and his rights to certain intellectual property” and somewhat downplaying the implication that the Plaintiff assumes Dr. Wright played a central role in Bitcoin’s creation. In fairness, CoinDesk was doing this reporting early after the lawsuit was filed and before more newsworthy information had come out during the discovery process.
So, how did CoinDesk’s reporting evolve once this information was made public? Very little. CoinDesk’s coverage has largely stuck to the frame of “Dr. Wright is being sued for massive fraud” ignoring most of the extremely newsworthy information available for reporters to uncover in the docket. Some additional headlines from CoinDesk on this case from over the years include:
Craig Wright Ordered to Disclose Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Court Case (May 6, 2019)
Craig Wright Spars With Kleiman Lawyers in Combative Courtroom Appearance (June 28, 2019)
Judge Blasts Craig Wright’s Evidence, ‘Inconsistent’ Testimony in Kleiman Trial (August 15, 2019)
Craig Wright ‘Abusing’ Privilege to Block 11,000 Documents, Kleiman Lawyers Say (February 4, 2020)
Craig Wright Challenges Court Order Criticizing His Evidence in $4B Kleiman Case (March 26, 2020)
Craig Wright Called ‘Fraud’ in Message Signed With Bitcoin Addresses He Claims to Own (May 25, 2021)
Ex-Wife’s Testimony Suggests Craig Wright ‘Defrauded’ Court, Kleiman Lawyers Claim (August 5, 2020)
Craig Wright Must Face Trial Over Alleged $11B Bitcoin Fortune as Request for Summary Judgment Denied (September 21, 2020)
The bias of CoinDesk is easy to discern from the way they emotionally conjugate their headlines. What about more recent updates? After all, the trial starts this week. A Google advanced search for the most recent CoinDesk publications featuring the terms “Kleiman,” “Wright,” or “Trial” shows that the most recent update (at the time of writing*) is their May 10, 2021 post (over 5 months old) which notes the trial’s delay until November 1 2021.
Earlier this week, CoinDesk.tv did include a section of their “All About Bitcoin” weekly round-up video on the trial. CoinDesk’s Managing Editor of Technology, Christine Harkin, briefly summarized the trial as she understood it. This summary mentions a dispute between Dr. Wright and the Kleiman estate over IP and Bitcoins but is vague as to which Bitcoins are in question, despite the idea of “the Satoshi Million,” or a trove of dormant Bitcoin’s mined by Satoshi in its early years, being a well understood subset of Bitcoins within the cryptocurrency space. Harkin also mentions that “…of course there have been any number of other internet and Bitcoin sleuths out there who’ve been hard at work debunking so much of what Craig Wright has claimed in terms of his involvement with the development of Bitcoin.”
The apparent bias of the cryptocurrency media has a downstream effect on the reporting from the broader financial and tech media, many of whom seem to outsource a lot of their sensemaking in the blockchain space to cryptocurrency publications or thought leaders who are of the mindset outlined above. The cryptocurrency media presenting the Kleiman v Wright case as either a forgone conclusion OR something not worth much attention almost certainly has played a role in the near media blackout on what stands to be one of the largest individual civil IP disputes in US history.
*Since writing this section, CoinDesk has published an article on the case, their first significant coverage since May
Significant conflicts of interest may lead to media bias
There are significant conflicts of interest present in crypto media which may have created an incentive to paint Dr. Wright as an unreliable source, and more recently, to downplay achievements of BSV. The most prominent of these conflicts of interest is the significant investment stake that Mastercard ventures has in Digital Currency Group (DCG). DCG owns CoinDesk and has many significant investments which depend on the success of BTC. DCG is also an investor in Blockstream, an organization which has helped to set a technical direction for BTC which we think is very favorable to Mastercard whereas the vision of Bitcoin first articulated by Satoshi and now articulated by Dr. Wright and embodied by BSV represents a significant threat to Mastercard’s core business.
Mastercard and other credit cards typically charge a fee of around $0.25 and 2% per transaction. Transaction fees on BTC are typically in excess of $10 whereas transaction fees on BSV are typically under $0.001. This significant disparity is primarily due to a self-imposed limitation by BTC, restricting the maximum block size—the amount of data that can be added to the blockchain in any given period of time. By placing a cap on data, there is a cap on transactions which leads to a shortage of available transactions relative to total demand for transactions.
There is no such limitation on BSV. Miners are free to mine as large or small blocks as they choose. This has led to a consistent increase in block sizes over time as miners capabilities improve and demand for BSV blockspace has increased. Allowing blocks to grow has allowed fees to stay small. We think that a blockchain with scalable, cheap transactions is a threat to Mastercard’s business. On the other hand, an unscalable, expensive blockchain is not. We are not sure that Mastercard’s investments are designed to cripple the technical capabilities of Bitcoin, but in important ways, they have had that effect.
It is important to note that these limitations have been accepted because authoritative sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream endorse them as being necessary. Because Dr. Wright is such a vocal advocate of BSV’s unlimited block size approach, if he is recognized as Satoshi, this may supersede the authority of sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream and lead to a broad recognition of the superiority of the BSV path. The BSV path is also gaining empirical verification as the blockchain’s usage continues to increase. The market lacked this empirical evidence when decisions to pursue the Blockstream path on BTC were made. Continued adoption of BSV as a cheap payments solution could ultimately present a significant threat to Mastercard. We do not know whether or not Mastercard has interfered in the market in this way, but the presence of the conflict of interest is an important part of the story nonetheless.
Why won’t he sign? A conflict of visions
With the wealth of evidence that has emerged since 2016 pointing to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it may surprise some that he is not more widely recognized as Satoshi. What must be understood, is that for many, only one piece of evidence will suffice—a signature made with keys assumed to be controlled by Satoshi. This is in line with the crypto ethos—“Not your keys, not your crypto.” Implied by this ethos is that if you don’t prove possession of Satoshi’s keys, you are not Satoshi.
While for many, a digital signature with Satoshi’s keys will be required to prove that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, we think it is easy to understand how Dr. Wright could be Satoshi and have refrained from signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. The first reason is somewhat straightforward—we know Satoshi wanted to stay anonymous. If Dr. Wright had signed, he would be in a much more public position facing greater scrutiny. While he acknowledges that he is Satoshi, he has not been publicly acknowledged. This is in line with what one would expect to be Satoshi’s preference.
Another important motivating factor for Dr. Wright not to sign may have been his desire to improve his positioning and his ability to profit from and control the Bitcoin space. Through nChain, Dr. Wright and his partners have filed over 1200 patents and built a leading enterprise-facing blockchain organization, all while other companies like IBM were not paying attention to him or his research, instead emulating chains like Ethereum which Dr. Wright considers inferior. In this time, his and others work have led the creation of a significant industry around BSV. Importantly, BSV has also successfully restored the original Bitcoin protocol—a feat that may not have been possible with greater scrutiny. If he can later engineer a reorientation of the crypto markets around BSV, he stands to gain immensely by having laid this groundwork.
A more technical reason may exist for why Craig has not signed. The trial has revealed that the Satoshi coins were controlled by a trust. Further, we suspect that this trust may be digitally enforced by having spent the Satoshi coins into transactions which could not be re-spent until a certain point in time. While we know that Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen report to have witnessed a demonstration of a signature, it is also possible that the trustees did not allow him to publicly sign or move coins. This suggestion has been put forward by financial cryptographer Ian Grigg who was an early recipient of the Bitcoin whitepaper as a member of the cryptography mailing list in 2008, and someone who claims to have been involved with the post-outing process after Dr. Wright’s doxxing and eventual public acceptance of the Satoshi pseudonym. The trust may also have a technical enforcement mechanism which hinders Dr. Wright’s ability to move coins or sign at will.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dr. Wright has made clear that a conflict of visions exists between him and the mainstream crypto ethos. Dr. Wright is seeking to establish judicial supremacy over Bitcoin. He wants to prove that possession of keys in Bitcoin does not equal identity or ownership, the same way possessing a key to a car does not mean one owns that car. Craig has not only maintained that signing would not prove identity, but that he seeks to leverage courts, not just to prove his identity as Satoshi, but to engineer a movement of coins triggered by an order by courts. The purpose of this court-ordered coin movement would be to set a precedent that Bitcoin does not exist outside of the scope of existing laws and law enforcement mechanisms regarding the ownership of property. The mechanics and results of this type of movement are beyond the scope of this analysis. It’s importance is to help explain why someone who is Satoshi would not seek to prove their identity by creating a digital signature, the reason here being that proving identity with a signature endorses a worldview that Dr. Wright claims to oppose.
Dr. Wright’s background: Consistent with Satoshi
Craig has an impressive track record as both an academic and as an industry leader in computer security. He has dozens of degrees and certifications including a Doctorate of Philosophy, a Master of Statistics, an LLM in international commercial law, Masters of Information Security Engineering, Information Security Management, Information System Security, Management (IT), Networking and System Administration, and at least 19 certifications from GIAC, a leading computer security certifier. He has been an adjunct lecturer at Charles Sturt University where he received many of his degrees.
He has been widely published on information security, both formally and informally on his own extensive blogs. Before becoming fully involved with Bitcoin and after a stint as a Wesleyan minister, Craig had a prolific career as a computer security expert working for OzEmail, K-Mart, ASE, Mahindra & Mahindra, Lasseter’s Online, and BDO Kendalls, all done in conjunction with his academic career. He has also consulted for various government organizations and police departments, both before and after Bitcoin’s creation. His background in computer security as well as audit map well to Bitcoin – a secure, distributed, and time-stamped audit trail used to create a digital cash system.
While Dr. Wright is clearly brilliant to anyone who takes a close look, he is not a high EQ individual. This has impaired his ability to be understood by others. Much of his poor PR can be traced to being impatient, impolite, and overly specific to the point of failing to convey meaning. Craig admits to having Autism and Aspergers. It is not surprising that someone who saw what others missed with Bitcoin would be unlike others in significant ways.
‘Faketoshi’ narrative hides strong BSV fundamentals
Part of the bull case for BSV as a result of the trial is that BSV benefits from greater market scrutiny. Because BSV is seen by many as unreputable due to its association with Dr. Wright, many have overlooked the significant technical achievements and adoption of BSV. If the trial causes investors to see Dr. Wright as Satoshi and take a closer look at BSV, we think they will conclude that BSV is a significant competitor in the blockchain space and should be valued accordingly.
The value proposition of BSV is a scalable Bitcoin with its full features restored—the same scarce 21 million Bitcoins but without high fees and limited throughput and with the original scripting language and smart contracting capabilities restored. Businesses utilizing BSV are typically taking advantage of some combination of its micropayment capabilities—instant payments as low as 1/100th of a cent, utilizing the blockchain ledger for its immutability and transparency, and the smart contracting abilities of BSV which are similar to but more scalable than blockchains like Ethereum.
BSV began operating independently in late 2018. The major restoration of the original protocol was completed in February 2020 with the Genesis upgrade. Since 2018, BSV’s achievements include
Setting world record block sizes which recently reached 2 GB (BTC has 1 MB cap)
Surpassing BTC in total blockchain size
Over 16M transactions in a block on STN
Creation of horizontally scalable node software, Teranode, and demonstrating 50,000 TPS
Maintaining low fees, even with surging volume
Restoration of bitcoin script which is deprecated on BTC
Creation of scrypt and use of advance scripting functionality to create the game of life on Bitcoin, proving it’s turing completeness
Creation of dozens of additional on-chain protocols for tokens, smart contracts, data storage, data serialization, and more
Proliferation of wallets, many of which invented or first implemented advanced functionality such as paymail, threshold signatures, and true peer-to-peer infrastructure
Creation of many useful SDKs such as Handcash Connect which have enabled the creation hundreds of applications such as Haste Arcade
Adoption by nation of Tuvalu to create a national digital ledger
Major esports organization Built By Gamers partners with BSV companies to utilize and promote BSV-based technologies
Utilization of the chain as a data storage layer by metastreme, predict ecology for ESG data
Games like cryptofights achieving daily transaction volumes in excess of total Ethereum mainnet
Twetch, a BSV based social network, having over 60,000 users
Tokenized protocol being selected by Aquantium LLC to tokenize equity and debt instruments on the BSV blockchain
Maxthon, the default browser for over 600 million users, using BSV to create new types of browser functionality only possible with BSV
Vxpass, a BSV based vaccine passport solution, used by Kingdom of Lesotho
Domineum partnership with nChain
Bitboss launching the first FDIC backed stablecoin
Kensei adopted by Crucial Compliance
Kensei adopted by Kompany
Surviving 51% attacks unscathed
VOIB (voice over Bitcoin) – using Bitcoin to make a phone call
Mintblue used by Visma Group to record invoice data on BSV blockchain
Unisot utilizing BSV to track scandinavian supply chain for fish
EHR Data using BSV as a data ownership solution for the healthcare industry
And quite a bit more!
What is notable about these achievements is not just the achievements themselves. Also important is that many of the technical achievements directly contradict claims made by technical authorities in BTC and other crypto thought leaders. The current BTC roadmap was initiated based on a belief that Bitcoin could not scale in the manner that BSV is now demonstrating. This belief that Bitcoin cannot scale was in contrast to what Satoshi wrote pseudonymously in 2010. While it is not surprising that someone who claims to be Satoshi would recommend returning to the design created by Satoshi, what is notable about BSV’s success is that it has vindicated this original design to date. In fact, BSV’s success throws the entire roadmap of BTC and crypto into question and can change the perception of what is possible and desirable in the crypto and blockchain space.
*The significant growth of the BSV blockchain relative to BTC shows the accelerating adoption and scalability of BSV compared to BTC
While BSV’s achievements are significant and numerous, the coverage of BSV, especially by prominent crypto news outlets like CoinDesk, has been extremely unfavorable, highlighting only negative events, downplaying some achievements, and generally misrepresenting the space by overblowing issues and ignoring successes. It is unclear if this is explicitly coordinated. It is possible that this misrepresentation is simply due to bias resulting from the “Faketoshi” narrative. However, it is also possible that because BSV represents a competitive threat to existing chains, the owners of major crypto media publications such as Digital Currency Group, the owner of CoinDesk, who have significant investments into BTC and ETH are attempting to suppress knowledge of BSV’s successes to protect their existing investments as well as their reputations. Regardless, the negative media filters around BSV and Dr. Wright are evident. I encourage you to attempt to find positive media coverage of any of the above achievements from a media organization that is not explicitly focused on covering the BSV ecosystem such as CoinGeek or a simple press release.
Our expectations of the trial and its importance
Because our perspective is that Dr. Wright is likely Satoshi Nakamoto based on existing evidence, we also think it is likely that Dr. Wright has additional evidence to support his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. While significant evidence has already come out in the trial, a significant amount of evidence has been sealed. As mentioned the Exhibit List includes reference to receipts from 2008, “writings and notes” from 2007, “BOD (Board of Directors) meeting minutes” from 2007, email chains from 2008, and even potential Bitcoin predecessors like an entry titled “TimeChain v0.0.2 Alpha” from 2008. In addition to these new exhibits, we are expecting information to surface from witness testimony, perhaps most notably from Dr. Wright directly.
Allusions to the type of evidence which may come forward have been made by CSW himself. When one soberly divorces themselves from the “code is law” ethos of the broader crypto currency space which single-mindedly demands cryptographic evidence of someone being Satoshi Nakamoto, the myriad of other types of evidence that ought to exist becomes more clear. Things like the testimony of those with close relationships to Satoshi, documentation indicating interest and study in relevant domains, computer records pertinent to Bitcoin’s development, and more. In recent messages in the Metanet ICU slack, CSW has both indicated that he will bring such types of information forward AND begun to preempt likely responses from his PoSM-heavy (“proof of social media”, as opposed to Bitcoin’s “proof of work”) crowd of detractors.
Dr. Wright has also made several important predictions about the outcome of the trial. To summarize quite a few recent statements on the likely outcome of the trial, Craig is predicting his victory, that the outcome will determine that he is the creator of Bitcoin, and that the case will trigger events which will result in BTC being moved due to court orders.
In general, we think that the trial represents a turning point for Dr. Wright and his team. They have been operating in relative secrecy from the mainstream over the past few years. To meet their stated goals of making BSV a globally adopted technology and the new foundation of the internet stack, there will need to be a shift in public perception and significant investment in the BSV space. While this lawsuit was not initiated by Dr. Wright and his team, their actions and warnings paint a picture that they are using the trial as a turning point and are expecting to shift from operating in relative secrecy to step into the public mantle of being “Satoshi Nakamoto” and supporting BSV as Satoshi’s Bitcoin. They have indicated that they will go so far as to paint BTC as a “passed off” version of Bitcoin and attempt to make it illegal for institutions such as Coinbase and Robinhood to refer to BTC as Bitcoin.
While we don’t have a strong position on their likelihood for success pursuing the legal claim that exchanges like Coinbase are passing off BTC as Bitcoin, we think their attempts will increase the probability of greater public scrutiny of Dr. Wright, his claim to be Satoshi, and BSV. Also, we expect that due to Dr. Wright and his team’s broader ambitions for BSV and their legal crusade against BTC, they will be seeking media attention on the trial in general, and particularly the elements of the trial that further paint Dr. Wright as Satoshi. We think that greater scrutiny of these things will reveal a strong bull case for BSV. Accordingly, we expect whales who have already linked Dr. Wright with BSV to front-run this greater market recognition of Dr. Wright and BSV which could lead to a rapid price increase during the trial.
Market landscape
The current market landscape and market history of BSV further paint a bullish scenario for BSV during the trial. There is significant precedent for Dr. Wright news affecting the price of BSV. When Dr. Wright was granted the US copyright for the Bitcoin whitepaper, the price jumped 120%. Another large price surge occurred shortly after based on fake news circulating in the Chinese trading community which pointed towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi. Finally, when Dr. Wright confirmed receipt files from a bounded courier, an event detailed by the Tulip Trust, the price briefly rose around 300% before falling after it was made clear that this delivery would not immediately facilitate the movement of Satoshi’s coins. These events as well as other smaller examples paint a picture that the market may very rapidly start buying BSV upon the receipt of additional information pointing towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi.
BSV has also lagged significantly behind the rest of the crypto market over last year’s bull run, even though many significant achievements have occurred. This can be partly explained by the negative media filter around BSV. However, even negative events have not influenced BSV price, such as the block-reorg attacks over the summer. These attacks received extensive coverage even though the attacks did not disrupt network functioning, nor did they affect the price of BSV. BSV price movements have typically been in the form of sharp increases followed by long periods of decline. This increasingly uncorrelated BSV chart may be due to the very significant short volumes relative to other crypto currencies.
BSV has been one of the most heavily shorted assets, often the most shorted cryptoasset on a per capita basis. For most fund managers employing a long short strategy, BSV is a natural short pair. Until recently it had been highly correlated with BTC, and it is largely viewed as a scam or a version of Bitcoin with no chance of success. This coupled with underperformance relative to most of the cryptomarket makes it seem like one of the least risky assets to short in a market where shorting any cryptoasset comes with a large degree of risk. We think that this dynamic that has in part kept the price of BSV down relative to the rest of the cryptomarket could flip quickly if the perceived risk of a significant, uncorrelated BSV price increase occurs in the coming weeks.
We think that a meaningful BSV price increase could generate both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze. The gamma squeeze would be in part due to Unbounded Capital’s large OTM call options position with major OTC market makers in the crypto space. It is also important to note that BSV is not as liquid as other cryptoassets, in part due to delistings of BSV by major exchanges like Binance which were triggered by defamation lawsuits initiated by Dr. Wright. Controversy around Dr. Wright has kept BSV off of popular exchanges like Coinbase, although importantly, the asset is available on Robinhood. This restricted liquidity could exacerbate a significant price increase due to difficulties obtaining BSV compared to other similar assets.
Pricing in crypto is very subjective. The benchmark for BSV is clearly BTC. Currently the price ratio is around 400:1, an all-time relative high. If public perception of BSV is that it is Satoshi’s preferred version of Bitcoin, we expect that ratio to sharply decline, mainly due to an increase in BSV price.
Importantly, BSV has strong scalability fundamentals. We have recently seen a significant rise in the price of Solana, the blockchain seen as the greatest competitor to Ethereum due to it’s significantly higher scalability. We think BSV and BTC could mirror the relationship between Ethereum and Solana. One year ago, the ETH:SOL market cap ration was ~113:1. Today, it is only ~9:1. 9:1 BTC:BSV would result in a ~4000% increase in the price of BSV if BTC stayed at $61,000.
We think the major risk of negative alpha for BSV relative to the broader crypto market during the trial is that long-term holders may sell their positions if the trial does not have a significant result. However, we think for traders who are mainly speculating on the trial and do not have an independent bull case for BSV, having exposure across many years would not be a sensible approach. Rather, buying directly in advance of the trial would make the most sense. We have not seen a price run-up in advance of the trial. This is in line with our thesis that the crypto market underestimates the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. We believe that most BSV holders are bullish on the tech fundamentals in addition to price action related to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, and are therefore less likely to sell if the trial does not produce a result.
Potential trade mechanics
Unbounded Capital is primarily speculating on the trial outcome through deep OTM call options purchased OTC, an option not available to retail traders. Other trade mechanics one could consider include leveraged exposure on Bitfinex or perpetual swaps on FTX. For traders who are less advanced in general or who are not set up to trade on crypto exchanges, Robinhood is a highly accessible platform which makes taking a long position on BSV simple.
We believe that this trial does not simply represent a trading opportunity for BSV. We believe that this trial could have historical significance as a major landmark event which reveals Satoshi to the world. If so, it will have been very cool to be a part of this event, even if we are simply spectators and speculators.
Conclusion
The crypto market is operating on an outdated view of the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. Kleiman vs Wright represents an opportunity for additional evidence and greater media scrutiny to change the public and crypto market’s views on Dr. Wright. If public sentiment shifts towards recognizing Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it could cause BSV, the network Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin” which also has strong, overlooked fundamentals, to appreciate rapidly relative to its benchmark BTC. Market conditions are ripe for this type of rapid movement due to the high ratio of short exposure and potential for a gamma squeeze.
To stay up to date on the proceedings visit UnboundedCapital.com/trial for real time information from the courtroom.
CoinGeek will feature Kurt Wuckert Jr. in daily recap coverage which will be livestreamed on a daily basis at 6:30 p.m. EST on our YouTube Channel.
Watch our Day 1 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtxsbsPtiY
Watch our Day 2 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMXVtQrmVZc
New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.
Source: https://coingeek.com/how-we-are-trading-the-70-billion-dollar-lawsuit-over-satoshis-bitcoins/
This post and the previous one sum up the situation perfectly.
You have been warned
Dixit the guy who calls for the manipulation of markets in public ...
Quote
Let me guess your usual technique ... Now you're going to attack BSV again & again with your pathetic Princess Gang friends
Oh noOo it's unbelievable ... !!!Oh, I almost forgot ... For your new public threats, write them down on a piece of paper, roll it up tight, suck it greedily from the bottom up again and then shove it up your ass
Quote
And how are my favourite scammers doing? Sucking and bending as usual?
Hey!!! 👋 Baldie, we are still here!!! Your wife too!!! She still likes BSV strength and gives you a big kiss, see ...
Bisoo BisOoo
About your wife, It's a joke as you can imagine...So have you tried Handcash Apps and the Đuro mode? What do you think?
If you haven't tried it yet... To proceed, install the app, then create a nickname called "handle" which starts with the "$" symbol, after that send or share your nickname if you want, to whoever you want, to exchange or receive.
There is a variant with the like button, it's the Clappy Button, which can be configured in 2 or 3 clicks, without knowing computer programming. https://www.clappybutton.com/
Come and join us on Twitter with the BSV community, we'll send you some concrete surprises and above all to prove to you that it works, it's instantaneous, it's very economical and practical because it replaces all the FIATs in the world!
If you're asking what Duro is then I can tell you, is just 500 satoshis unity name!
You are very welcome, same for your Princess Gang!
⭐ Merited by hv_ (5)
Quote
Quote
Amazing 🚀 It seems that decentralized finance like DeFi has been launched on Bitcoin protocol!
Another technological breakthrough on BitcoinSV 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Source: https://tswap.io
Quote
Satoplay is a mainly Asian crew that innovates with a scaled, stable and secure tool > BitcoinSV
OVTS on https://tswap.io is the native token at https://satoplay.com/. Here is the satoplay.com team, a unique platform that currently deploys iGaming on the BitcoinSV blockchain.
The platform is fully blockchainized thanks to horizontal integrations. It works well and is established with the Token protocol aka Sensible Contract https://coingeek.com/token-protocols-on-bsv-sensible-contract.
In addition to the possibility of advanced simulations and interactive data management, the features include the inclusion of interactive NFTs associated with Additive Data in games and in augmented reality!
If they manage to expand then perhaps satoplay could be a powerful catalyst for entering new emerging Industry 4.0 markets
Another very interesting point is the innovation of supporting collaborative augmented reality carried on blockchain in peer-to-peer channels which is among other things possible thanks to the Sensible Contract L2 protocol, thus running on the Bitcoin protocol! This is insane!
What is going to happen in the next few years is going to be a technological slap in the face!
Here is a picture of the Satoplay crew
Source: https://twitter.com/SensibleBitcoin/status/1381769776561676288/photo/2
OVTS on https://tswap.io is the native token at https://satoplay.com/. Here is the satoplay.com team, a unique platform that currently deploys iGaming on the BitcoinSV blockchain.
The platform is fully blockchainized thanks to horizontal integrations. It works well and is established with the Token protocol aka Sensible Contract https://coingeek.com/token-protocols-on-bsv-sensible-contract.
In addition to the possibility of advanced simulations and interactive data management, the features include the inclusion of interactive NFTs associated with Additive Data in games and in augmented reality!
If they manage to expand then perhaps satoplay could be a powerful catalyst for entering new emerging Industry 4.0 markets
Another very interesting point is the innovation of supporting collaborative augmented reality carried on blockchain in peer-to-peer channels which is among other things possible thanks to the Sensible Contract L2 protocol, thus running on the Bitcoin protocol! This is insane!
What is going to happen in the next few years is going to be a technological slap in the face!
Here is a picture of the Satoplay crew
Source: https://twitter.com/SensibleBitcoin/status/1381769776561676288/photo/2
Thanks for sharing!
Hey, welcome here! It's a pleasure to find you here! We strive to share information about the progress of BitcoinSV (highlighted in yellow to distinguish it from the trolling of the legendary BTC Princess Gang around here). If you find information that the world should know about, please feel free to share it in the forum!
You have been warned
Of what, Princess? You're the one attacking BSV
...bsv is doing great but i am not impressed with it other bitcoin fork projects are taking lead on bitcoin SV. right now BSV price is 173 $ by my point of view BSV price should hit above 420$ in current market situation. i think need some more and better updates that attract more investors
Quote
"A man's capital is his intelligence. "Developing your intelligence and analysis will allow you to attain other knowledge that may be useful to you (maybe) 
:
https://bitcoinassociation.net/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-bitcoin-sv-technical-standards-committee-roadmap/
: https://bitcoinassociation.net/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-bitcoin-sv-technical-standards-committee-roadmap/
Quote
I don't think intelligent people put money into a coin that's so vulnerable to attack
Hi Princess, so you got yourself a new girlfriend finally?
Repeated attacks on the BSV blockchain have not resulted in any known double costs.
That said, the anonymous perpetrator(s) had "fun" attacking for a minimum hit of over $350,000 in electricity costs per day! Several million seems to have been spent just to be thrown out the window seems to be just greed?
Here is more "behavioural" evidence that BitcoinSV is up and running but BSV still bothers dishonest activists and other morons like you who have a narrow and obtuse view on various things in life!
But these attacks have helped to establish MetaID as a quality label to distinguish honest miners on the network. So he/she is burned.
More information about this was published by the Bitcoin Association https://bitcoinassociation.net/bitcoin-sv-block-re-organisation-attacks-and-network-response-explained/
@Block_Dojo is launching its new incubator program for #BSVblockchain start-ups with a Japanese-themed summer BBQ night in #London with Dr #CraigWright tomorrow.
Tune in to watch LIVE at at 8pm (BST): https://orlo.uk/Bx6Rp
Tune in to watch LIVE at at 8pm (BST): https://orlo.uk/Bx6Rp