Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

Whoo it's spicy in here tonight.

I don't agree with the way he's saying it, nevertheless, norway has a point.

Craig was Satoshi, and he now has the copywrite of the Bitcoin name to prove it. If you don't agree with that, I suggest you take it up with the US patent office. I've also witnessed a signing in slack (many months ago) where he signed several of the earliest blocks. The argument must move on, he is .. deal with it.


BU's articles of federation state in the very first one.

"I. Satoshi's original vision: a scalable Bitcoin. Bitcoin Unlimited adheres to Satoshi Nakamoto's vision for a system that could scale up to a worldwide payment network and a decentralized monetary system."

As secretary it's highly inappropriate to prejudice a vote, especially when the member concerned has valid grievances, despite expressing them poorly.

The more important issue now, is why does Bitcoin Unlimited no longer follow Satoshis original whitepaper design for bitcoin? Deviating from the articles of federation by not supporting BSV and further deviating by including new ordering, Schnorr signatures (potentially turning the BCH chain from legal to illegal) moving checkpoints and implicitly miner/exchange collusion?

@solex @theZerg and @Peter R It's time you spoke up and explained your grievances with Bitcoin as it was intended? Reading between the lines, this copywrite will now probably mean not being able to use the Bitcoin name, if this path is not reversed.

 

[cypherdoc]

silence, of the doubters.

yep, this has come to the point of embarrassment, I'd say. which is probably a major reason for them going into hiding from what they used to call home; GCBU.

 

[freetrader]

this copywrite will now probably mean not being able to use the Bitcoin name, if this path is not reversed.

Apparently totally bananas

 

[cypherdoc]

If nChain decided to introduce a hardfork with PoS and they updated the software to version 0.3.0 with a new license that restricts that software to the PoS chain, one would still be able to use the 0.2.0 software on any of the two BSV chains and modify as they like.

I think my main concern has to do with radical soft fork changes, like Segwit. the only viable response would then be a hard fork to a new ticker, as I outlined yesterday.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Beware of the Viking

 

[cypherdoc]

Kudos to to the guy starting this thread, wherever he is.

busy traveling and having fun. altho checking in here from time to time has been pretty fun too. even for the author of this thread. it just means no sleep.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Some misconceptions to clear up:

1) "Only $2500 penalty for false registration," except that one of the two registrations is to the Bitcoin 0.1.0 codebase, which isn't just laying claim to a work of unknown origin but rather laying claim to a copyright given in the original code as "Copyright (c) 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto." This doubles as a formal legal claim of Satoshihood, which would be a much more severe fraud (if Craig were not Satoshi).
2) "Anyone can register a copyright," except that those claims will now be rejected (regardless of the validity of Craig's registration). [EDIT: This is incorrect. The image below is talking about duplicate registrations from the same claimant. Nevertheless, it's a terrible idea to perjure yourself to the federal government so I wouldn't recommend people file claims for Internet points.]CSW's registrations on the whitepaper and the codebase are the only ones the US Copyright Office has ever granted.*

3) "This is just copyright, not trademark, so use of the Bitcoin name is unaffected," except that this is copywrighting of a work, a work named Bitcoin. Despite there being no direct infringement of any trademark, calling something else "Bitcoin" could be deemed passing off. The law around that is more complicated but could well mean that only BSV is allowed to use the Bitcoin name.

4) On the other side, "This proves he is Satoshi" is false. It just means he would now be risking a lot more on that claim, including prison time if someone else turned out to be Satoshi and pressed the issue. Cease & desist letters or lawsuits relying on this copyright registration will up the ante yet again. I'm curious what the skeptics would say if such suits commence.

*There was a 2016 registration to a paper filed "under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto" by a Ronald Keala Kua Maria in Hawaii but it had a different name ("AN EQUITY BASED ELECTRONIC RESERVE CURRENCY PEER TO PEER ELECTRONIC CASH SYSTEM" instead of "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"), so it is irrelevant here.

 

[lunar]

Go home freetrader, that is; unless you are a copywrite lawyer, or have sufficient legal knowledge to explain why the granted copywirte wouldn't be enforceable throughout US and most likely EU and UK too?

Otherwise you're just sliding and not bringing anything to the discussion.

 

[Norway]

busy traveling and having fun. altho checking in here from time to time has been pretty fun too. even for the author of this thread. it just means no sleep.

Yeah, just tried to pay (deserved) respect to you
[doublepost=1558490062][/doublepost]All the "bitcoins" out there will get a brand problem, lol.

 

[freetrader]

Go home freetrader, that is; unless you are a copywrite lawyer, or have sufficient legal knowledge to explain why the granted copywirte wouldn't be enforceable throughout US and most likely EU and UK too?

Otherwise you're just sliding and not bringing anything to the discussion.

Sure, I am a "copywrite lawyer" called Satoshi Kopimetoo

 

[lunar]

sliding and not bringing anything to the discussion

 

[Norway]

If someone didn't get the memo:

Yes, we will do everything in our power to kill shitcoins. We are not doing Kumbah Yah. We kill competition as soon as possible.

 

[freetrader]

Keep it up, bananas

that is; unless you are a copywrite lawyer, or have sufficient legal knowledge to explain why the granted copywirte would be enforceable throughout US and most likely EU and UK too?

Otherwise you're just sliding and not bringing anything to the discussion.

 

[Norway]

The BCH response is to give away T-shirts. Good luck with that strategy....

 

[79b79aa8]

Who said anything about Craig wanting to patent Christmas?

thatwasthejoke.jpg

 

[Bloomie]

The U.S. Copyright Office will register any work, received from any person, as long as he or she pays a $35 fee. It does not investigate authorship or ask any questions other than your name, address, and date of authorship. The Copyright Office will also grant registration of the same work to multiple people claiming authorship. If 5,000 members of this forum print out https://bitco.in/bitcoin.pdf and send it to the Copyright Office with a form and a fee, all of them will be granted registration.

 

[lunar]

posted from the Bitcoin © blockchain

Thats a 1.4GB block with 360k transactions, plus 4 more >1GB+ blocks

 

[Epilido]

I've also witnessed a signing in slack (many months ago) where he signed several of the earliest blocks.

Do you happen to have screen shots of those signings for independent verifications?

 

[cypherdoc]

posted from the Bitcoin © blockchain

Thats a 1.4GB block with 360k transactions, plus 4 more >1GB+ blocks

gaud, the embarrassment just won't stop.
[doublepost=1558500199][/doublepost]id also like alot more info on these signings. @lunar, why haven't we heard of this before?
[doublepost=1558500797,1558500142][/doublepost]$111?

BSV's head scratch moment has arrived that will probably last years as we drag the BCH and BTC naysayers way higher kicking and screaming.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The U.S. Copyright Office will register any work, received from any person, as long as he or she pays a $35 fee. It does not investigate authorship or ask any questions other than your name, address, and date of authorship. The Copyright Office will also grant registration of the same work to multiple people claiming authorship. If 5,000 members of this forum print out https://bitco.in/bitcoin.pdf and send it to the Copyright Office with a form and a fee, all of them will be granted registration.

Yes, this is correct. I had that part wrong above and have removed it.

Note that you CAN apply for registration but it is fraud and/or perjury to do so on false premises, so the other three points still very much apply. You might want to add "(c) Craig S. Wright 2009" to the whitepaper on the site just to be safe
[doublepost=1558502236][/doublepost]

posted from the Bitcoin © blockchain

Thats a 1.4GB block with 360k transactions, plus 4 more >1GB+ blocks

Now we rockin'
[doublepost=1558502328][/doublepost]

I've also witnessed a signing in slack (many months ago) where he signed several of the earliest blocks.

I don't think that was yet verifiable.