Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany
Why he does not sign publicly is indeed a mystery to me. Maybe for tax reasons? Maybe he thinks the authorities would come after him?

But he intends to prove him being Satoshi in court to a legal standard. Whatever consequences he feared will manifest anyway.

He signed privately. There are no plausible theories for how he could have conned those three cryptographers whose reputation is very good. So he does have the keys and he could sign if he chose to do so.

Others have claimed that he signed for them privately. Shadders said he was offered but declined.

Maybe the best explanation is spitefulness? "You want me to sign, you have been hounding me for years. I'm not gonna do it!".
 
  • Like
Reactions: torusJKL and Norway

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
I called everything the Tulip Trust.
Yeah right /s
I've called lots of things Tulip Trust.
I think somehow the court was still not convinced.

So glad CSW found people who will "work around the crock" to legitimize his fraud.
[doublepost=1562578607][/doublepost]
CSW said he'd used this lawsuit to prove to the world he's Satoshi. that ain't happening. instead, there's more confusion than ever (not that i think it matters for BSV's success). why doesn't he sign for those first several blocks with the private keys he got from the Seychelles Trustee to end this once and for all? i don't buy that it couldn't/wouldn't be taken as almost definitive proof.
Oh brother.
[doublepost=1562578738][/doublepost]
Am I being bamboozled?
Yes, in fact you are. Unless you are part of the bamboozling squad.
[doublepost=1562578799][/doublepost]
The critical thinking is so poor and only getting worse.
For once something I can agree on.

This thread has turned into a CSW apologist idiot sandwich factory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richy_T

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
he said he was going to prove he was Satoshi in court. he's actually doing the opposite by the inconsistencies in testimony. for example, he said he was going to crash the btc market next year but then turns around and said all btc will go to charity. which is it? he's creating more doubt than anything, to my mind. given the norm to prove ownership of BTC to date is to sign with the private key, why won't he do this publicly given he's supposedly done it in private multiple times already ? the goodwill and fulfillment of what mostly the crypto community and others have considered to be a standard of evidence would propel the BSV price significantly, imo. so what he gains is profit. that should be enough. what he loses in personal security is minimal since he's been claiming to be Satoshi for years now and everybody knows Satoshi owns alot of coins, so he's already put himself at risk.
I don't think there is inconsistency in testimony, I think he's revealing piecemeal that the plaintiff's don't actually understand what is going on. In doing so he is building credibility that he knows the ins and outs of everything that went on at inception, and that this is a fishing expedition. (Ira isn't denying he is satoshi, and I think progression of the case with that assumption at its heart merely cements it in the public eye. The non-"cryptoproof or gtfo"-interested public, that is.)

If you are naive enough to believe that he won't perjure himself (I am that naive yes!), then you tend to take everything he says at face value. Multiple trusts and multiple schemes, and multiple slices - novel encryption schemes, with the earliest coins. Knowledge of the multiple involved parties, organisations. Occam's suggests he's just recounting facts.

There is no reason at all to give Ira's side *any* help at all (bar that ordered by the court). I think that answering with the minimum detail to satisfy the court seems like perfectly sensible strategy during discovery. Let's not forget this is not yet the trail. Let them get to that with the weakest hand, then play your aces!

Whilst I accept that cryptographic proof is very robust, I'm in the "proof of possession of keys" camp, not "proof of satoshi".

Now, since hearing about exactly how things are secured, a demonstration of this SSSS key slice reconciliation and address generation process *as well* as signing, would in the end be even more robust proof to my mind than a simple signed message. I don't think that will come any time soon though.

I cant recall exactly the quote about crashing BTC market, but I do recall words to that effect. Maybe and idle threat, maybe part of a longer game - (has the hash war been won yet - many would have you believe its over - finite vs infinite game anyone!).

I do know that in his court testimony that he uses the phrase "the bitcoin" to refer to the coins he wants to use to fund these charities. He believes, and quite often re-iterates Bitcoin is BSV. So I think he is talking about the million+ BSV that he owns. (This also ties in with him later talking about working as hard as he can to make it worth as much as he can - he's talking about making the BSV worth more). None of this precludes him dumping the BTC he holds - to crash the market or otherwise - the public declaration (in the face of SEC regulations about such things) is also consistent with that theory. Whatever he does, I don't think it will be rash.

I think mostly this has been a stalling game, whilst he waits for the bonded courier to happen or not. Would have been preferable to wait for that I would think, but circumstances have forced his hand.
[doublepost=1562581391,1562580282][/doublepost]
Yeah right /s
I think somehow the court was still not convinced.
The court operates on the premise that the witness is under oath.

CSW explained at great length the details of each trust, the m-of-n access slices required.

Which part of what the court said makes you think that they were "not convinced"?
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
This thread has turned into a CSW apologist idiot sandwich factory.
Our former developer mutates into a full-time Satan Cult member with no further interests.
While the Fyookball starts to believe that Craig has been there from the beginning.
Like Chris Pacia before he joined the Satan Cult:

And what I’m going to argue here is not only is the probabilty that he is Satoshi non-zero, I think an honest reading of the evidence would cause one to conclude that it’s likely he is (likely meaning >50% probability).
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
it is also quite possible to liquidate BTC and donate the proceeds to charity. i can teach you how.

however that may be, i think CSW is confirming that one thing is to think about the law at a theoretical level, to apprehend its high-level principles, and another to face the vicissitudes of a case in court. it's similar to politics. one thing is to be guided by locke or mill, another to participate in and be dragged through the political mud.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@cypherdoc , @freetrader and everyone else reading this thread:

Let's assume Craig Wright did not invent bitcoin.
What could be his agenda/plan/motive given what we know?

Break out the hypothetical theories!
(I have my own, as I think it's 0.6% chance CSW is not Satoshi Nakamoto. But you should go first.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgbett

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
The graph to the right is the most interesting one in terms of use/organic growth. The graph to the left is the most interesting one in terms of miner income and security of the network.

EDIT: This graph is the most interesting one in terms of currency speculation.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@cypherdoc , @freetrader and everyone else reading this thread:

Let's assume Craig Wright did not invent bitcoin.
What could be his agenda/plan/motive given what we know?

Break out the hypothetical theories!
(I have my own, as I think it's 0.6% chance CSW is not Satoshi Nakamoto. But you should go first.)
like i've been consistently saying, for me it doesn't even matter if CSW is or isn't Satoshi; the BSV code and vision stands on it's own. i assume all these different dev groups are compromised in one way or the other. thus, i support whichever code is currently most following the original WP principles TODAY and hopefully tomorrow. if BSV deviates b/c of CSW, then hard fork yet again. even if CSW is fake, i believe that he will be forced to tow/follow the WP line when BSV skyrockets in use and price. he'll have every economic incentive to do so.
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
if it turns out that CSW is satoshi, that will be taken as sufficient reason for the people now enraged by him to stay away from BSV. it will be additionally be claimed that the original bitcoin is old or flawed technology in any case.

on the other hand, anyone serious about investing in BSV must take into account the possibility that CSW is not satoshi.

the discussion around CSW is thus mostly besides the point.

meanwhile, as @Christoph Bergmann warned, BCH has acquired all the trappings of an altcoin. what's coming up on the next hard fork?

the question is of course rhetorical, i know i won't be dignified with an answer.
 
Last edited:

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Satoshi walked away, and Bitcoin being used for the worst human activities is actually a pretty good reason if you step outside the cryptoanarchist bubble and into the more normal world of classical liberals which is what Satoshi always struck me as.

It makes good sense that he wanted to be certain that his project wasn't going to be a tool for evil. He felt strongly enough to move on to "other things" (WTF could be more important than Bitcoin??). Thus any support he later decides to give to Bitcoin is going to be heavily conditioned on its being used and seen as a tool for supporting civilization in the classical liberal tradition, not for tearing it down.

Signing with keys as proof feeds into the cryptoanarchy, code is law, "we don't need no stinkin' courts," tear it all down narrative; sticklerishly doing everything via due process in courts of law underscores to the world in a striking way, over and over and in multiple facets in painstaking detail, that Bitcoin works within law and supports civilization and its traditions.

In the meantime, he gets to clean up what he sees as the worst elements of the space. For someone who wants Bitcoin to be seen as a tool of light and not as the enemy or some newfangled anti-government thing, what he seems to be doing is akin to a thorough cleaning and buffing of Bitcoin's image from all angles. "Not only is it not dark, it's sunshine incarnate. Not only is it not anti-law money, it's law enforcement on steroids. Hyperlaw. A just government's best friend." His strategy makes perfect sense to me.

Signing would convince most everyone, but critically that includes his enemies, and at this stage signing would instantly shift their narrative to, "Satoshi was an idiot anyway. Just happened to be in the right place at the right time to add inflation to control to Hashcash. We have learned so much more since Satoshi, and he went insane. Should we even let him move his coins?" There's good strategic value in keeping your enemies in the dark as long as possible, especially if they stand to get rich if they learn the truth too soon; even better if they are so in the dark they open the door to litigation where you can really cut deep.
 
Last edited:

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156
Hi everybody, I'm back after a long break where a lot of things happenede in my life :)

I could not read everything but it seems like BSV got a lot of supporters, and that's a bit unexpected.

So I'm wondering if there could be enough interest to add official BSV support to Melis.

This would bring the most advanced multisignature and multiuser wallet into the BSV world, and also one of the most advanced way to securely store funds.

If there is someone willing to donate something to fund the (small) development necessary please write me privately.

Thanks!
I liked the advanced features of Melis and I would definitely welcome it on BSV.

But note that BSV will be sun-setting P2SH and hence you would need to implement the advanced features in a different way.
 

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156
Sorry but does this chart account for batching, lightning, exchange2exchange, coinjoin, BITMEX!? Looks like it doesn't even include segwit!? I'm honestly not sure what it's trying to prove?
All these optimizations are nice but they are too little, too late.

The BSV transaction growth will dwarf all of the small transaction count increases made possible by the above optimizations.
[doublepost=1562653590][/doublepost]
Thanks for posting this here.

I enhanced it a little yesterday based on feedback that ASM was a poor choice.
We now use the raw hex string to create the hash.

@Norway would Ka-Ching be able to sign with this scheme?
 

RollieMe

Member
May 6, 2018
27
49
Excuse the noob question, but I was just reading one of Satoshi's later posts about potentially merge mining BitDNS (now Namecoin) with BTC for the following benefits:

Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.​

And then I read Slushpool are apparently doing just that (as well as merge mining Rootstock).

So I was wondering, given BCH's and BSV's minority hash position whether merge mining might be a valid interim survival strategy. Is there anything preventing merge mining BTC with BCH and/or BSV?
 

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156
Merged mining is a double edged sword.

It can help secure your network but the miners also get a free way to destroy the merge mined coin if they choose to do so.

I think the later has been done in the past.
[doublepost=1562654877][/doublepost]
Serious question: what is with this capitalization of BitCoin?
People made fun of CSW when he spelled Bitcoin with a capital C and said that he can't possibly be Satoshi because Satoshi would never spell Bitcoin this way.

It turned out that the joke was on them because in the original source code Satoshi spelled it BitCoin.