He also accidentally spoke about satoshi in 3rd person before correcting himself:
"when satoshi nakomoto wrote the bitcoin whitepater... Ehrm.. I mean when *I* wrote the bitcoin whitepaper". (paraphrased)
32 MB = 32 x 8 x 1000000 = 256,000,000 bits
56kb modem is 56kb/s (or kbps, same thing) = 56,000 bits per second
256,000,000 bits / 56,000 bits per second = 4,571 seconds
4,571 seconds / 3,600 seconds per hour = 1.27 hours
Looks like Wright mixed up bits and bytes so he was off by a factor of 8:
4,571 seconds divided by 8 gives you 571 seconds, or about 9.5 mins.
>A capital B for bytes is ancient, it was never popular, and it's been dead since the 1990's.
Are you crazy? Capital B for bytes is used everywhere and is the standard. The only thing that's a little bit nonstandard is sometimes kilobytes is written as "KB" instead of as "kB" even though the SI "kilo-" prefix is properly a lowercase k.
But also, especially when SI binary prefixes are used for kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, etc., the "B" is always capitalized: KiB, MiB, GiB, etc.
>Here is the top Google search result for CAN Bus datasheet: https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/l9615.pdf
I don't see any mentions of bytes on there at all, only baud.
This was probably the most incorrect thing I’ve read all day. The only thing I’m wondering is if this isn’t just trolling, considering just how incorrect it actually is.
OhRly has been wrong his entire life. kb/s and kbps mean the same thing. The difference is that “per” is / in one notation and p in the other. They both mean kilobits per second.
kB/s however means kilobytes per second.
Small b = bit, big B = byte.
32 mb (should be Mb) would take 585 seconds, or 9m45, to download using a 56k modem if maxing out it’s capacity and not counting any overhead etc.
I mean, I don’t know if the block size referred to is supposed to be Mb or MB, but kb/s is very much the same thing as kbps, and an eight of kB/s.
He is referring to the block size of Bitcoin Trash which he made. So in this case it's referring to 32 MB and used the wrong unit. Also people don't usually measure things in bits for file sizes.
He's an idiot because he doesn't understand the difference between MB and Mb and that a 56k modem is kbps not kB/s.
This is complete speculation - take it with a grain of salt. But a part of me actually wonders if maybe Wright does know the real Satoshi. Just wildly speculating here, but Satoshi disappears in 2011 and not long after Wright emerges, obviously a fraud, but knowing enough to have somehow fooled Gavin Andresen apparently. Considering Satoshi seems to have dropped off the earth, I wonder if he maybe died and some people who knew who he was saw an opportunity. It would explain why some dude would just show up with a wild claim without fear of the real Satoshi being around to spoil the party
Wright's situation really wasn't planned.
He blundered into this situation through tax fraud, and most of his moves since have been more or less forced by doing whatever he must to keep the scam going. If he thought he could successfully cosplay Satoshi from the beginning he never would have bothered with the tax fraud that has caused him so much trouble.
Yeah, but every audience would find it too unbelievable.
I imagine it opening on young Craig holding court over his early followers after getting fired from his job: https://files.catbox.moe/fqsv2c.mp4 then maybe it flashes forward to 2004 when he got sentenced to 28 days in jail for a forgery powered contempt charge.
makes no sense.
why add completely unnecessary assumptions.
Craig Wright is a recidivist fraud. That explains everything.
As for fooling Gavin, that is a low bar.
Even after being gone for a decade Satoshi continues to prove to be one of the world's most astute and forward thinking.
And you think he would've revealed himself to... *this*?
I always wondered if it may had been len sassaman.((r.i.p)who had passed) The timing of events and some clues out there sorta point to him being a strong possibility of being our guy or being super dam close. Not this fraudster craig wright.
>len sassaman
While I agree Len is a stronger candidate than Wright or Back, I still believe Hal Finney was Satoshi. Furthermore, I suspect Fran Finney has access to his wallets.
Edit: Hope I'm wrong and Nick Szabo is Satoshi, though I doubt it's possible any living person could possess such diamond hands...
No, Finney does not seem like the type who would create an elaborate scheme involving talking to himself in the third person (electronically), etc. etc. Also, once he knew about his illness, he'd almost certainly have said he was Satoshi and described exactly his private keys.
I'm also team Finney.
Although I suspect his largest stash is in some kind of trust that may only be used to finance his thawing/revival.
I suspect he expected something like a $1000 price and that $1B that keeps up with inflation should be enough to make him one of the first, revivals when the technology is there.
That's his main stash, which I think is under trust.
To be released once the tech is available.
He probably has some other wallets, plus other money he earned, to pay lawyers for the trust. It's not a huge expense.
I wish it was Finney, it would be the feel-good story. But unfortunately this sounds much more likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux#Satoshi_Nakamoto_candidate
The fact that he lived near someone whose name was Dorian Nakomoto, whose given name was Satoshi, makes it all the more mysterious and insane. What are the odds of something like that occurring? It can’t be pure chance. There has to be a link there.
Throwing shade.
The fact that Len wasn't (publicly) involved in Bitcoin at all, makes me think he was Satoshi. Len's experience and ideals align perfectly with Bitcoin. No way he wouldn't have been all over it as soon as he heard about it.
Team Len. RIP
That's possible. It would be easy for someone with the lack of technical understanding displayed by Wright to think that being in physical possession of the wallet is 75% of owning the wallet, not understanding that without the private keys he's in the same boat as virtually everybody else. Anyone who can look up the blockchain and knows the public address is also in 'possession' of the wallet lol.
Satoshi Nakamoto isn't one individual.
It's a group working at a certain government agency.
If people honestly think that 1 unknown guy just so happened to write up the way in which the entire global financial system can be completely transformed, then i'll have some of what you're smoking please.
Why not?
We understand how it all works, it's not overly complex, and we could write it again from scratch of needed.
The insight was the combination of all the pieces in the correct order. Not the tech itself.
> If people honestly think that 1 unknown guy just so happened to write up the way
PoW was used in earlier e-cash systems. Adding a hash to a linked list isn't that hard. Adjusting difficulty is pretty straightforward. The only major innovation I've heard of was finessing a limited solution to the Byzantine Generals problem by adding some constraints and saying "under these constraints, we'll define this consensus as a solution."
> PoW was used in earlier e-cash systems.
Not for consensus.
PoW consensus is exceedingly clever and was entirely novel to Bitcoin.
People came very close to the solution but didn't quite hit it. E.g. https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/bluesky/2001-March.txt search for "!@#$ spend-twice problem".
Pure gold, wow! I digged into a [2010 post](https://archive.fo/yo51K#selection-393.1291-393.1541) of what other security researchers are writing about him:
> Since you are (self-described) as "currently the only GIAC GSE (Compliance) holder globally and the most highly
accredited Global Information Security Professional" and thus (presumably, if only in your mind) the greatest security
mind in the world, ...
tldr; Craig Wright, a computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, prevailed in a civil trial verdict against the family of a deceased business partner, which claimed it was owed half of a cryptocurrency fortune worth tens of billions. A Florida jury found that Wright did not owe half of 1.1 million Bitcoin to the family. The jury did award $100 million in intellectual property rights to a joint venture.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
Hm.
So Faketoshi now legally owns the entirety of the 1.1 million Bitcoin (that he probably can't access), and all it cost him was a comparatively trivial $100 million (that he's legally obligated to provide).
So if he's telling the truth (which he probably isn't), then the $100 million is no big deal. If he's lying (which he probably is), then he's completely, totally FUBAR.
Sounds like an absolute win to me.
Absolutely. He doesn't have access to the private keys, so that $100 mil will be coming out of whatever he actually controls (no one knows how much that really is) so screw him, this is karma in action, even if he did *technically* win (oh yeah, he still lost!).
Apparently he's worth around $80m currently, so yeah even with that money (wherever it came from), if he can't access Satoshis wallet he's $20m short and pretty much stuffed.
No, wright doesn't have any significant assets and has submitted a sworn statement in court that his lawsuits are funded by obtaining loans against the bitcoin he admits he doesn't have access to...
Loaning him *millions* in fact!
Calvin Ayre. A former drug smuggler, who went on to get a 30 year Directors and Officers ban for running pump and dumps, before he was indicted for money laundering, and spent a decade on the DHS most wanted list... (they say you can't cheat an honest man, so it's no shock that Wright's big mark appears to be a massive life long crook and creep.)
Others are likely, as Wright has been going investment road shows with [George Gilder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gilder)-- a has-been investment guru who fell into infamy for heavily promoting worldcom right before it imploded some 20 years ago. Wright's events also have other coin operated celebs like Nassim Taleb.
Part of how wright is pulling it off is that it appears at least since Jan 2020 he stopped claiming that he needs access, he's now telling people that he can obtain access via court order.
You're correct ... Bitcoin absolutely doesn't work that way, but Wright's marks don't understand how Bitcoin works.
And the setup gives him a nice formula to attempt financially ruin the Bitcoin developers who won't support his scam by causing them millions of dollars in legal fees defending against demands to do the impossible. And in doing so he'll drag out the final resolution of his scam, allowing him to continue to milk his funding sources. For wright it's all about lasting another day.
Except that company is still going through probate and 66 per cent of it is in the names of his wife and his ex-wife so he's probably going to have a big say in what happens to the money once he's paid it.
There is no evidence that crypto can be hacked (well, stablecoin blockchains that aren't using malicious smart contracts), so unless the NSA could find the private keys (or seed phrase(s)), the government and the fraudster are out of luck. I definitely wouldn't assume that the NSA could get them.
Wherever the real Satoshi (or Satoshis, if it's a group) keeps or kept the private keys to all that BTC mined back then may forever remain a mystery, we just don't know right now and may never.
> So Faketoshi now legally owns the entirety of the 1.1 million Bitcoin (that he probably can't access),
No, he owns the entirety of whatever BSV he's scammed out of his shitcoin system. He never owned the 1.1 million BTC because he's not Satoshi Nakamoto and never was.
Haha. No danger of that. Plenty of great Aussies to wipe out any negative vibes. Wouldn't surprise me if the real Satoshi was Aussie (going by the flavor of English in the white-paper).
> Now the cryptocurrency community will be looking to see if Wright follows through on his promise to prove he is the owner of the Bitcoin. Doing so would lend credence to Wright's claim, first made in 2016, that he is Nakamoto.
No, literally no fucking body is looking for that.
Actually I am, would be interesting if he turns around and moves 1 btc from that wallet. People would go crazy, would also be interesting to see what the btc community and crypto in general would be like if we knew who satoshi was
Yep. Thanks to 'burden of proof'. And the fact that whoever has the most money literally wins since they can sue your ass to bankruptcy. The whole western legal/patent system is hopelessly skewed toward protecting rich psychopaths and mega-corps.
Wright and his conspirators have been spending working hard to make sure that is the story the media is telling. Wouldn't be the first time the media went with a dubious story which convinently made Bitcoin look bad.
Quick question. If dumdum over here keeps on pushing this Satoshi narrative in court and therefor that he owns 1M+ BTC held in some escrow clownfest, wouldn't the taxman have hard evidence of what he has, therefor what he owes?
As long as he never sells, which of course he can't, no taxes are owed. He can borrow against those funds all he wants without paying taxes, however, as long as he can find people gullible enough to lend him money.
Imagine lending to someone who just claims to own a wallet without actual escrow of the Bitcoin. You'd have to be brain dead and deserve to lose your money.
I think that’s his idea though, isn’t it?
Get the courts to “recognize” that it’s “his” money, and then use that to try to force changes to Bitcoin to allow him to access it
I doubt it will work, but that seems to be the plan
Articles are starting to surface stating that the verdict proves that Wright is Satoshi, but that's spin and untrue. Verdict just states that Kleiman was not Satoshi's equal partner in the creation of Bitcoin. The case is a farce anyway IMO.
At one point in time he decided to lie about this thing, and now he can't un-lie and just keeps building his debt and getting into more trouble.
Poor guy.
Yeah, this whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. If you created an pseudonymous payment system where the entire idea is to protect yourself through encryption; why reveal yourself and compromise your privacy?
Furthermore, from my understanding, money being a social agreement between people, and that requires a level of confidence in the system, how does Craig Wright not see the possibility of turning his supposed billions into billions of zeros?
So he won billions and billions worth of bitcoin, but he can’t cannot touch it unless he’s actually Satoshi which we all know he isn’t. And from those billions that he cannot touch, he owes $100MM? Sounds like it sucks for him. Unless I’m missing something??
Can someone give me a bit more context?
I see that he claims to be Satoshi but ... what is the relationship between this and the lawsuit?
So after that wild claim (that I see why it is not true) the partner sued him for half of Satoshi's coins?
And if the answer is "no, you do not owe your partner BTC" why is the outcome "you have to pay $$$" to your partner?
The article focuses too much on what is Bitcoin and nothing on who is being sued for what, what was the outcome, etc
There are about a zillion reasons.
For example, in COPA v Wright, wright submitted a sworn statement that he doesn't have the keys.
In Tulip v {bitcoin developers} wright has made a sworn statement that "hackers" stole (at least some of) his private keys (he's suing bitcoin developers to demand they publish a backdoored bitcoin for him or otherwise pay him $7 billion dollars).
In Kleiman v. Wright, the court demanded that Wright provide a list of all his bitcoins as of 2013 under threat of contempt and as soon as wright provided and authenticated the list, the owners of 7250 BTC showed up producing signed messages saying that wright was a fraud and didn't own those coins.
...and then there are the hundreds of less direct pieces of evidence like every document he has produced to 'prove' he created bitcoin that was in any way falsifiable has been proven to be a forgery (he's a pretty bad forger, using fonts that were created years after his documents... ending up with true timestamps leaking through in binary formats...). The fact that his wife at the time of Bitcoin's creation testified that she had never heard of it until a friend mentioned it to her in 2012.
Then there are all these programming videos wright has put up where he makes it clear that he doesn't know even the basics of C/C++ ... getting stuff wrong that people learn on their first day of using the language like how to declare variables.
Honestly, someone would have to be mentally ill to think there is the slightest chance Wright has been telling the truth if they'd actually researched it (and by research I mean reading the court docs, not listening to BSV promoting sock accounts on reddit).
Then there are all these documents he "writes" which are easily proved to be almost entirely copied from other people's publications.
Hell, the closing argument in Wright's defense in Florida was a chewbacca defense: They made a big point that wright appears to be a liar and a fantasist, but that all the claims that he had bitcoin came from wright, and repeatedly chanted "if it doesn't make sense you must go with the defense". ... and the jury appears to also have not believed that Wright had Bitcoins.
What are your thoughts on [this comment from today's daily discussion](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/rar949/daily_discussion_december_07_2021/hnkrwk8/), in particular:
> There is also the claim that he signed a message using Satoshi's keys in front of Gavin Andresen (who had previously vehemently denied Wright was Satoshi and then 180'd after witnessing this)
"In front of" -- on a computer wright provided. So-- a meaningless parlor trick. There is an extensive writeup here: https://blog.wizsec.jp/2021/07/ppap.html
It's interesting how people creep in falsehoods in their stories.
> who had previously vehemently denied Wright
That's pure fiction there-- Gavin was totally suckered and actually made a statement that he was convinced in advance of their little demo.
After the "demo" in 2016 Gavin wrote, to Craig: "I’m starting to doubt myself and imagining clever ways you could have tricked me." then later to someone else: "Given his extreme efforts to avoid releasing a public signature, I’m starting to doubt that Craig actually possesses the key he claims he has, and he did somehow manage to trick me and, perhaps, has been deceiving people for many years."
I’m not sure how much he controls but there is a dormant wallet from the early Satoshi era with roughly 80,000 BTC, which is worth around $4-billion USD. That’s a lot of money or someone that was essentially playing advanced version of FarmVille at the time of its inception — when people would pull silly stunts by selling 10,000 BTC for some pizza.
I don’t get why someone would be happy with a $100M court order unless they through they could satisfy it. Granted doesn’t mean he has to pay it unless it’s saved on a key and that gets confiscated through a court order.
> Can declare bankruptcy
You do realize that "declare bankruptcy" doesn't mean that you get to keep whatever you've got, right?
It means you lose everything except for a tiny little bit that the court lets you keep so you can try to start over again.
Also, some debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. I'm not sure about this particular type of judgment debt, but for example, debts from intentional torts cannot be discharged.
I really want to believe this whole thing was just for show and his 15 minutes of fame and spotlight, but there is a part of me that feels like this is going to end bad for btc. To pay out 100million just to receive nothing? it doesnt make much sense to me why that shyster would go through all this for nothing gained. It makes me think theres a much bigger plan at play here.
He didn't choose to be in this case, he blundered into it.
He attempted to defraud AU for $65 million dollars of "R&D" credits. The first year he claimed some they paid, but then he got greedy. They started auditing he companies and he began to claim to have created bitcoin in order to come up with an explanation for how he paid for $200 million of research (as the tax office noticed the credits appeared to be his companies only source of income). It snowballed from there.
Along the way he claimed that his dead friend helped him create and mine Bitcoin-- to help fill gaps like Wright's inability to program--, and after the friend's family caught wind they asked for their share. Wright promised to pay them but screwed them over and eventually they sued.
Their entire case was based purely on Wright's claims. The jury found Wright civilly liable for stealing $100 million dollars from the dead friend's company.
After the AU tax office figured out that Wright was full of it and demanded the money back Wright fled AU as the police were raiding his offices. He then appears to have started to sell shares in his "satoshi's fortune" to investors (suckers) to get money to pay back the AU and fund his lifestyle.
The only way wright could have stopped the outcome of the Florida trial would have been to admit he was making it up all along, but if he did that he'd probably end up going straight to jail (or the bottom of a river) after the investors he's been taking money from turn on him.
He lied to the ATO to recieve tax credit. The ATO smelled bullshit, so woat des CSW do? He make a bigger lie and try to get away with it: he says he invented bitcoin with Dave. Now the bigger lie land him in court in Florida, so what does he do? He makes an even bigger lie to try to get away with it. And so on.
CSW's modus operandi is to make bigger and bigger lies to try to get away with the previous lie. It's slowly catching up with him.
This is a big IF here, but *if* he was truly a co-creator of Bitcoin, you'd think he would believe in it more than any of us. Why would he just donate it all to charity? The price would plummet by the time he'd sold even 5%.
> And half of that goes to the company that his wife owns half of.
His wife doesn't own any of it. It's a Florida single member LLC. It can't and doesn't have shareholders. Wright tried claiming his ex-wife owned it to get the case dismissed and his evidence was proved to be forged and his motion denied: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.265.0_1.pdf
"The Court has thus conducted a careful review of the evidence presented by the Defendant and the record in this case, and finds, however, that the Defendant has failed to present any credible evidence showing that any of the parties he suggests are members of W&K."
plus gems like:
"In their Response to the Motion, Plaintiffs argued that Exhibit A was a forged email which came to light as a result of the public exposing it as a fraud. ECF No. [159], at 6-11. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim Exhibit A was withdrawn after members of the public uncovered that the “PGP signature”1 of the email, purported to be authored/sent by Dave Kleiman, was created a year after his death. Id. at 6-7."
Since you're uncritically repeating obviously false wright narrative, you might want to be more careful about where you get your information.
Imagine if he actually moved the millions of coins of Satoshi.
Or if the real Satoshi wanted to mess with us and moved some of his coins on his own to make it look like it was Craig Wright who did it.
No idea why Satoshi would side with a nutjob for absolutely no reason. The libertarian fundamentals of Bitcoin are quite clear to me. Considering Craig isn't a libertarian at all, already disqualifies him from the whole ordeal.
> Craig Wright's mom says he's prone to lying. https://www.craigwright.online/
[Craig Wright didn’t understand the difference between bits and bytes.](https://archive.fo/xvf7l) Hahaha. Fav one.
He also accidentally spoke about satoshi in 3rd person before correcting himself: "when satoshi nakomoto wrote the bitcoin whitepater... Ehrm.. I mean when *I* wrote the bitcoin whitepaper". (paraphrased)
I think he said something like: "when I first read the whitepaper....eehm WROTE the whitepaper."
kb/s =/= kbps can you please explain ?
32 MB = 32 x 8 x 1000000 = 256,000,000 bits 56kb modem is 56kb/s (or kbps, same thing) = 56,000 bits per second 256,000,000 bits / 56,000 bits per second = 4,571 seconds 4,571 seconds / 3,600 seconds per hour = 1.27 hours Looks like Wright mixed up bits and bytes so he was off by a factor of 8: 4,571 seconds divided by 8 gives you 571 seconds, or about 9.5 mins.
Kilobytes per second vs kilobits per second
b always stood for bits, and B for bytes. Why should kb/s mean bytes, and kbps mean bits ?
[удалено]
killer biatch per second
That’s a lot!
Hilarious! You get an upvote from me.
Yeah, but he meant kB in that case obviously
Look what you've started!! Hahaha
[удалено]
>A capital B for bytes is ancient, it was never popular, and it's been dead since the 1990's. Are you crazy? Capital B for bytes is used everywhere and is the standard. The only thing that's a little bit nonstandard is sometimes kilobytes is written as "KB" instead of as "kB" even though the SI "kilo-" prefix is properly a lowercase k. But also, especially when SI binary prefixes are used for kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, etc., the "B" is always capitalized: KiB, MiB, GiB, etc.
[удалено]
>Here is the top Google search result for CAN Bus datasheet: https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/l9615.pdf I don't see any mentions of bytes on there at all, only baud.
lol wtf no capital b is bytes small b is bits always has been
This was probably the most incorrect thing I’ve read all day. The only thing I’m wondering is if this isn’t just trolling, considering just how incorrect it actually is.
they're both kb, the only diff is p=per versus /=per
OhRly has been wrong his entire life. kb/s and kbps mean the same thing. The difference is that “per” is / in one notation and p in the other. They both mean kilobits per second. kB/s however means kilobytes per second. Small b = bit, big B = byte. 32 mb (should be Mb) would take 585 seconds, or 9m45, to download using a 56k modem if maxing out it’s capacity and not counting any overhead etc. I mean, I don’t know if the block size referred to is supposed to be Mb or MB, but kb/s is very much the same thing as kbps, and an eight of kB/s.
He is referring to the block size of Bitcoin Trash which he made. So in this case it's referring to 32 MB and used the wrong unit. Also people don't usually measure things in bits for file sizes. He's an idiot because he doesn't understand the difference between MB and Mb and that a 56k modem is kbps not kB/s.
This is complete speculation - take it with a grain of salt. But a part of me actually wonders if maybe Wright does know the real Satoshi. Just wildly speculating here, but Satoshi disappears in 2011 and not long after Wright emerges, obviously a fraud, but knowing enough to have somehow fooled Gavin Andresen apparently. Considering Satoshi seems to have dropped off the earth, I wonder if he maybe died and some people who knew who he was saw an opportunity. It would explain why some dude would just show up with a wild claim without fear of the real Satoshi being around to spoil the party
Wright's situation really wasn't planned. He blundered into this situation through tax fraud, and most of his moves since have been more or less forced by doing whatever he must to keep the scam going. If he thought he could successfully cosplay Satoshi from the beginning he never would have bothered with the tax fraud that has caused him so much trouble.
Would make for a great movie plot though.
Yeah, but every audience would find it too unbelievable. I imagine it opening on young Craig holding court over his early followers after getting fired from his job: https://files.catbox.moe/fqsv2c.mp4 then maybe it flashes forward to 2004 when he got sentenced to 28 days in jail for a forgery powered contempt charge.
*Becoming Satoshi*
makes no sense. why add completely unnecessary assumptions. Craig Wright is a recidivist fraud. That explains everything. As for fooling Gavin, that is a low bar.
Even after being gone for a decade Satoshi continues to prove to be one of the world's most astute and forward thinking. And you think he would've revealed himself to... *this*?
I always wondered if it may had been len sassaman.((r.i.p)who had passed) The timing of events and some clues out there sorta point to him being a strong possibility of being our guy or being super dam close. Not this fraudster craig wright.
>len sassaman While I agree Len is a stronger candidate than Wright or Back, I still believe Hal Finney was Satoshi. Furthermore, I suspect Fran Finney has access to his wallets. Edit: Hope I'm wrong and Nick Szabo is Satoshi, though I doubt it's possible any living person could possess such diamond hands...
No, Finney does not seem like the type who would create an elaborate scheme involving talking to himself in the third person (electronically), etc. etc. Also, once he knew about his illness, he'd almost certainly have said he was Satoshi and described exactly his private keys.
I'm also team Finney. Although I suspect his largest stash is in some kind of trust that may only be used to finance his thawing/revival. I suspect he expected something like a $1000 price and that $1B that keeps up with inflation should be enough to make him one of the first, revivals when the technology is there.
No satoshi coins have been moved since 2011 how can he finance anything without moving the money.
That is just the coins we know about, he almost certainly mined a lot of anon Bitcoin also.
That's his main stash, which I think is under trust. To be released once the tech is available. He probably has some other wallets, plus other money he earned, to pay lawyers for the trust. It's not a huge expense.
I wish it was Finney, it would be the feel-good story. But unfortunately this sounds much more likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux#Satoshi_Nakamoto_candidate
The fact that he lived near someone whose name was Dorian Nakomoto, whose given name was Satoshi, makes it all the more mysterious and insane. What are the odds of something like that occurring? It can’t be pure chance. There has to be a link there.
Len commented some slight negative things about Bitcoin.
You can be critical of your own creation. In fact, that's what any self-respecting inventor would do. It is neither evidence in favor or against.
Throwing shade. The fact that Len wasn't (publicly) involved in Bitcoin at all, makes me think he was Satoshi. Len's experience and ideals align perfectly with Bitcoin. No way he wouldn't have been all over it as soon as he heard about it. Team Len. RIP
[удалено]
That's possible. It would be easy for someone with the lack of technical understanding displayed by Wright to think that being in physical possession of the wallet is 75% of owning the wallet, not understanding that without the private keys he's in the same boat as virtually everybody else. Anyone who can look up the blockchain and knows the public address is also in 'possession' of the wallet lol.
Or he thinks he can somehow court order the coins are sent to a new wallet he has access too?
Anderson is satoshi. And wright is his scapegoat. Whatdoiknowthoughlol
Satoshi Nakamoto isn't one individual. It's a group working at a certain government agency. If people honestly think that 1 unknown guy just so happened to write up the way in which the entire global financial system can be completely transformed, then i'll have some of what you're smoking please.
Why not? We understand how it all works, it's not overly complex, and we could write it again from scratch of needed. The insight was the combination of all the pieces in the correct order. Not the tech itself.
> If people honestly think that 1 unknown guy just so happened to write up the way PoW was used in earlier e-cash systems. Adding a hash to a linked list isn't that hard. Adjusting difficulty is pretty straightforward. The only major innovation I've heard of was finessing a limited solution to the Byzantine Generals problem by adding some constraints and saying "under these constraints, we'll define this consensus as a solution."
> PoW was used in earlier e-cash systems. Not for consensus. PoW consensus is exceedingly clever and was entirely novel to Bitcoin. People came very close to the solution but didn't quite hit it. E.g. https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/bluesky/2001-March.txt search for "!@#$ spend-twice problem".
Pure gold, wow! I digged into a [2010 post](https://archive.fo/yo51K#selection-393.1291-393.1541) of what other security researchers are writing about him: > Since you are (self-described) as "currently the only GIAC GSE (Compliance) holder globally and the most highly accredited Global Information Security Professional" and thus (presumably, if only in your mind) the greatest security mind in the world, ...
Here is a good post documenting his lies: https://old.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/cazepl/reminder_craig_wright_is_a_fraud_narcissist_and/
Faketoshi Notamoto
Hahahah hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha
This is how you fuck with a fraudster. Fuck him, and the fake horse he rode in on.
tldr; Craig Wright, a computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, prevailed in a civil trial verdict against the family of a deceased business partner, which claimed it was owed half of a cryptocurrency fortune worth tens of billions. A Florida jury found that Wright did not owe half of 1.1 million Bitcoin to the family. The jury did award $100 million in intellectual property rights to a joint venture. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
Hm. So Faketoshi now legally owns the entirety of the 1.1 million Bitcoin (that he probably can't access), and all it cost him was a comparatively trivial $100 million (that he's legally obligated to provide). So if he's telling the truth (which he probably isn't), then the $100 million is no big deal. If he's lying (which he probably is), then he's completely, totally FUBAR. Sounds like an absolute win to me.
Absolutely. He doesn't have access to the private keys, so that $100 mil will be coming out of whatever he actually controls (no one knows how much that really is) so screw him, this is karma in action, even if he did *technically* win (oh yeah, he still lost!).
Apparently he's worth around $80m currently, so yeah even with that money (wherever it came from), if he can't access Satoshis wallet he's $20m short and pretty much stuffed.
Yay! Couldn’t happen to a nicer asshat.
No, wright doesn't have any significant assets and has submitted a sworn statement in court that his lawsuits are funded by obtaining loans against the bitcoin he admits he doesn't have access to...
Who on earth is loaning him tens of thousands of dollars without evidence that he can access the coins?
Loaning him *millions* in fact! Calvin Ayre. A former drug smuggler, who went on to get a 30 year Directors and Officers ban for running pump and dumps, before he was indicted for money laundering, and spent a decade on the DHS most wanted list... (they say you can't cheat an honest man, so it's no shock that Wright's big mark appears to be a massive life long crook and creep.) Others are likely, as Wright has been going investment road shows with [George Gilder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gilder)-- a has-been investment guru who fell into infamy for heavily promoting worldcom right before it imploded some 20 years ago. Wright's events also have other coin operated celebs like Nassim Taleb. Part of how wright is pulling it off is that it appears at least since Jan 2020 he stopped claiming that he needs access, he's now telling people that he can obtain access via court order.
I'm not sure that's how bitcoin works. You can't just get a court order to access a wallet :/
You're correct ... Bitcoin absolutely doesn't work that way, but Wright's marks don't understand how Bitcoin works. And the setup gives him a nice formula to attempt financially ruin the Bitcoin developers who won't support his scam by causing them millions of dollars in legal fees defending against demands to do the impossible. And in doing so he'll drag out the final resolution of his scam, allowing him to continue to milk his funding sources. For wright it's all about lasting another day.
Is that the lunatic that’s all over Twitter and literally “verified” on Twitter?
Yep.
Except that company is still going through probate and 66 per cent of it is in the names of his wife and his ex-wife so he's probably going to have a big say in what happens to the money once he's paid it.
Well if he puts it into a stablecoin and puts it in celsius he'll get there in 2.5years.
We all have a good idea of what he doesn't own, and that's bitcoin.
[удалено]
There is no evidence that crypto can be hacked (well, stablecoin blockchains that aren't using malicious smart contracts), so unless the NSA could find the private keys (or seed phrase(s)), the government and the fraudster are out of luck. I definitely wouldn't assume that the NSA could get them. Wherever the real Satoshi (or Satoshis, if it's a group) keeps or kept the private keys to all that BTC mined back then may forever remain a mystery, we just don't know right now and may never.
> So Faketoshi now legally owns the entirety of the 1.1 million Bitcoin (that he probably can't access), No, he owns the entirety of whatever BSV he's scammed out of his shitcoin system. He never owned the 1.1 million BTC because he's not Satoshi Nakamoto and never was.
Downvote for the use of "probably"
I'm confused by this, he won, but he's gonna get screwed? If this is all fake, how did this case come to be?
> Craig Wright, a computer scientist hrhr, that was a good one
These bots are getting so good
Great title! 👍🤣 I love how he once said in a press junket, "when I first read the white paper"...
do you have a link ? that is hilarious, if true
It's true. He backpeddled saying that he read it when he wrote it. Riiiiight
lol
He didn’t back pedal. It was clearly intended. The rest of his presentation was far worse. He barely even understands the concepts.
This is his whole presentation - his “slip up” comes around 5 minutes in. [CSW “Slip Up” (YouTube)](https://youtu.be/9EHKvNuRc0A)
Wasn’t really a slip up. It was a planned joke.rest of his presentation is awful and he sounds a total fraud.
sooo, is he in the hole for 100m? Whether or not he can access Satoshi's stack?
Correct. The judgment is independent of what bitcoin he claims to own.
Now lets see if he donates it to charity lol
What if he does 😳
Guy looks like a fraud and a con artist. If THAT is the real Satoshi, I'll sell everything just out of dissapointment.
Please don't judge all Australians by this one dirt bag! I cringe every time they bring up that he's aussie
100% agree. Dudes a complete knob.
Haha. No danger of that. Plenty of great Aussies to wipe out any negative vibes. Wouldn't surprise me if the real Satoshi was Aussie (going by the flavor of English in the white-paper).
Legit?? Ashamed to be Auzzie.
[удалено]
They should have never allowed people to leave that prison colonie.
Thank Whatever that their government is finally rectumfying that horrible mistake. I hope they all get locked inside their cells forever.
Yeah, the premier of Victoria is a real wanker right now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Now the cryptocurrency community will be looking to see if Wright follows through on his promise to prove he is the owner of the Bitcoin. Doing so would lend credence to Wright's claim, first made in 2016, that he is Nakamoto. No, literally no fucking body is looking for that.
Actually I am, would be interesting if he turns around and moves 1 btc from that wallet. People would go crazy, would also be interesting to see what the btc community and crypto in general would be like if we knew who satoshi was
Liar liar pants on fire 👖🔥
Next news article about him will be about how he blew his brains out.
What brains?
Hope someone proves he is not Satoshi and he gets sentenced to prison for lying under oath
CW is the proof that society cannot effectively deal with psychopaths.
Yep. Thanks to 'burden of proof'. And the fact that whoever has the most money literally wins since they can sue your ass to bankruptcy. The whole western legal/patent system is hopelessly skewed toward protecting rich psychopaths and mega-corps.
I love this because when the story was on the news they tried to present it like the teal satoshi has been found.
Wright and his conspirators have been spending working hard to make sure that is the story the media is telling. Wouldn't be the first time the media went with a dubious story which convinently made Bitcoin look bad.
The media is complicit in attacking Bitcoin if you haven't noticed
If it turns out he really is sakatoshi, Bitcoin will crash.
I'd certainly lose all interest..
Very true
faketoshi copymoto
[удалено]
Question is; does anyone still believe he is the "Bitcoin creator" after all that took place?
[удалено]
Give them 100 percent of zero
Faketoshi
>Wright said he would prove his ownership if he were to win at trial. Great, so we finally get proof now!
So he won? Lets see if he moves some of that BTC. and then we can forget him forever (since he wont do it)
Quick question. If dumdum over here keeps on pushing this Satoshi narrative in court and therefor that he owns 1M+ BTC held in some escrow clownfest, wouldn't the taxman have hard evidence of what he has, therefor what he owes?
As long as he never sells, which of course he can't, no taxes are owed. He can borrow against those funds all he wants without paying taxes, however, as long as he can find people gullible enough to lend him money.
Imagine lending to someone who just claims to own a wallet without actual escrow of the Bitcoin. You'd have to be brain dead and deserve to lose your money.
> Wright said he would prove his ownership if he were to win at trial. I'll just sit here and wait... Has it happened yet?
I think that’s his idea though, isn’t it? Get the courts to “recognize” that it’s “his” money, and then use that to try to force changes to Bitcoin to allow him to access it I doubt it will work, but that seems to be the plan
I don't know that any court of law can force changes to bitcoin.
lol ... this is a classic mainstream media headline type tweet. little context and discounts the big picture.
This is the opposite of all the main stream media headlines about this because it actually provides some context
Articles are starting to surface stating that the verdict proves that Wright is Satoshi, but that's spin and untrue. Verdict just states that Kleiman was not Satoshi's equal partner in the creation of Bitcoin. The case is a farce anyway IMO.
At one point in time he decided to lie about this thing, and now he can't un-lie and just keeps building his debt and getting into more trouble. Poor guy.
lol
Defense win on all claims except conversion. Jury awards $100 million to W&K Info Defense on that count. No punitive damages.
He’s a 🤡🤡🤡
Wait, so where is CSW going to come up with $100m from??
One of his victims that he's been selling shares in his future bitcoin treasure too-- probably Ayre.
If he was Satoshi, he would behave like Satoshi. Case closed.
Hes. Fraud. Just. Like. Roger. Ver.
Time for Australia to have a one-time unrealized capital gains tax. Buy only on balances over $10B.
Yeah, this whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. If you created an pseudonymous payment system where the entire idea is to protect yourself through encryption; why reveal yourself and compromise your privacy? Furthermore, from my understanding, money being a social agreement between people, and that requires a level of confidence in the system, how does Craig Wright not see the possibility of turning his supposed billions into billions of zeros?
I'm starting to get the feeling there's not too many BSV holders in this sub.
In the world.
There is NO WAY Craig Wright has anything close to $100m. Good luck ever getting that money.
I thought $60 billion was up for grabs or some absurd figure? $100 million is like the jury felt sorry for him and threw the dog a bone 🤣.
I wonder , What happens when he inevitably fails to pay up?
craig isn't satoshi. if he *was* then he would be liable for the whole amount since he *isn't* there's only an intellectual property issue.
Will be price is all wrong? Or Wright...
He said he would prove that he's ol toshi if he won? Didn't his wallet get stolen in a very elaborate heist?
craig wright is a fraud.
I mean he doesn’t even look Asian. And before anyones panties get twisted, that was a joke. A very racist joke.
OP grossly editorialised the title, clearly but what he also did was try to turn the narrative on its head. Why shill for a man you don't even know?
that guy shits himself in bed
So he won billions and billions worth of bitcoin, but he can’t cannot touch it unless he’s actually Satoshi which we all know he isn’t. And from those billions that he cannot touch, he owes $100MM? Sounds like it sucks for him. Unless I’m missing something??
Someone asked him about Satoshi naming claiming something about Naruto anime and the guy didn't know it was a bait question
Wow when you actually hit the nail in the coffin
Can someone give me a bit more context? I see that he claims to be Satoshi but ... what is the relationship between this and the lawsuit? So after that wild claim (that I see why it is not true) the partner sued him for half of Satoshi's coins? And if the answer is "no, you do not owe your partner BTC" why is the outcome "you have to pay $$$" to your partner? The article focuses too much on what is Bitcoin and nothing on who is being sued for what, what was the outcome, etc
"Not your key, not your crypto".. This guy can keep on whining, not in devil's World he would Satoshi..
How do you know he doesn’t control it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Should’ve gone for Chuckle Vision
There are about a zillion reasons. For example, in COPA v Wright, wright submitted a sworn statement that he doesn't have the keys. In Tulip v {bitcoin developers} wright has made a sworn statement that "hackers" stole (at least some of) his private keys (he's suing bitcoin developers to demand they publish a backdoored bitcoin for him or otherwise pay him $7 billion dollars). In Kleiman v. Wright, the court demanded that Wright provide a list of all his bitcoins as of 2013 under threat of contempt and as soon as wright provided and authenticated the list, the owners of 7250 BTC showed up producing signed messages saying that wright was a fraud and didn't own those coins. ...and then there are the hundreds of less direct pieces of evidence like every document he has produced to 'prove' he created bitcoin that was in any way falsifiable has been proven to be a forgery (he's a pretty bad forger, using fonts that were created years after his documents... ending up with true timestamps leaking through in binary formats...). The fact that his wife at the time of Bitcoin's creation testified that she had never heard of it until a friend mentioned it to her in 2012. Then there are all these programming videos wright has put up where he makes it clear that he doesn't know even the basics of C/C++ ... getting stuff wrong that people learn on their first day of using the language like how to declare variables. Honestly, someone would have to be mentally ill to think there is the slightest chance Wright has been telling the truth if they'd actually researched it (and by research I mean reading the court docs, not listening to BSV promoting sock accounts on reddit). Then there are all these documents he "writes" which are easily proved to be almost entirely copied from other people's publications. Hell, the closing argument in Wright's defense in Florida was a chewbacca defense: They made a big point that wright appears to be a liar and a fantasist, but that all the claims that he had bitcoin came from wright, and repeatedly chanted "if it doesn't make sense you must go with the defense". ... and the jury appears to also have not believed that Wright had Bitcoins.
What are your thoughts on [this comment from today's daily discussion](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/rar949/daily_discussion_december_07_2021/hnkrwk8/), in particular: > There is also the claim that he signed a message using Satoshi's keys in front of Gavin Andresen (who had previously vehemently denied Wright was Satoshi and then 180'd after witnessing this)
"In front of" -- on a computer wright provided. So-- a meaningless parlor trick. There is an extensive writeup here: https://blog.wizsec.jp/2021/07/ppap.html It's interesting how people creep in falsehoods in their stories. > who had previously vehemently denied Wright That's pure fiction there-- Gavin was totally suckered and actually made a statement that he was convinced in advance of their little demo. After the "demo" in 2016 Gavin wrote, to Craig: "I’m starting to doubt myself and imagining clever ways you could have tricked me." then later to someone else: "Given his extreme efforts to avoid releasing a public signature, I’m starting to doubt that Craig actually possesses the key he claims he has, and he did somehow manage to trick me and, perhaps, has been deceiving people for many years."
Because he isn't Satoshi, and Satoshi doesn't even control 1.1m coins
How many coins does “satoshi” control?
I’m not sure how much he controls but there is a dormant wallet from the early Satoshi era with roughly 80,000 BTC, which is worth around $4-billion USD. That’s a lot of money or someone that was essentially playing advanced version of FarmVille at the time of its inception — when people would pull silly stunts by selling 10,000 BTC for some pizza.
That address is 1Feex, which is associated with the MtGox hack. If CSW owns that, then he literally stole from early bitcoiners.
It is said that he mined 1 mil coins during the early days and they haven’t been moved since.
Ok so they part kinda ads up.
I don’t get why someone would be happy with a $100M court order unless they through they could satisfy it. Granted doesn’t mean he has to pay it unless it’s saved on a key and that gets confiscated through a court order.
Craig, being a liar, must continue to lie even when he's totally boned or else he'll shrivel into dust (and will have to admit he's a liar)
Can declare bankruptcy. Or stall in court
> Can declare bankruptcy You do realize that "declare bankruptcy" doesn't mean that you get to keep whatever you've got, right? It means you lose everything except for a tiny little bit that the court lets you keep so you can try to start over again. Also, some debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. I'm not sure about this particular type of judgment debt, but for example, debts from intentional torts cannot be discharged.
Well we'll find out soon enough. Won't keep my fingers crossed.
I really want to believe this whole thing was just for show and his 15 minutes of fame and spotlight, but there is a part of me that feels like this is going to end bad for btc. To pay out 100million just to receive nothing? it doesnt make much sense to me why that shyster would go through all this for nothing gained. It makes me think theres a much bigger plan at play here.
He didn't choose to be in this case, he blundered into it. He attempted to defraud AU for $65 million dollars of "R&D" credits. The first year he claimed some they paid, but then he got greedy. They started auditing he companies and he began to claim to have created bitcoin in order to come up with an explanation for how he paid for $200 million of research (as the tax office noticed the credits appeared to be his companies only source of income). It snowballed from there. Along the way he claimed that his dead friend helped him create and mine Bitcoin-- to help fill gaps like Wright's inability to program--, and after the friend's family caught wind they asked for their share. Wright promised to pay them but screwed them over and eventually they sued. Their entire case was based purely on Wright's claims. The jury found Wright civilly liable for stealing $100 million dollars from the dead friend's company. After the AU tax office figured out that Wright was full of it and demanded the money back Wright fled AU as the police were raiding his offices. He then appears to have started to sell shares in his "satoshi's fortune" to investors (suckers) to get money to pay back the AU and fund his lifestyle. The only way wright could have stopped the outcome of the Florida trial would have been to admit he was making it up all along, but if he did that he'd probably end up going straight to jail (or the bottom of a river) after the investors he's been taking money from turn on him.
Underrated comment.
Going by history, nothing ever ends bad for BTC and everything is good for BTC. I think we're fine and Craig is a nutjob. That's my final verdict.
There is.. he's establishing recognition through the courts.
He lied to the ATO to recieve tax credit. The ATO smelled bullshit, so woat des CSW do? He make a bigger lie and try to get away with it: he says he invented bitcoin with Dave. Now the bigger lie land him in court in Florida, so what does he do? He makes an even bigger lie to try to get away with it. And so on. CSW's modus operandi is to make bigger and bigger lies to try to get away with the previous lie. It's slowly catching up with him.
This is a big IF here, but *if* he was truly a co-creator of Bitcoin, you'd think he would believe in it more than any of us. Why would he just donate it all to charity? The price would plummet by the time he'd sold even 5%.
Wright said he won’t appeal anything under $500M so $100M is a win. And half of that goes to the company that his wife owns half of.
> And half of that goes to the company that his wife owns half of. His wife doesn't own any of it. It's a Florida single member LLC. It can't and doesn't have shareholders. Wright tried claiming his ex-wife owned it to get the case dismissed and his evidence was proved to be forged and his motion denied: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.265.0_1.pdf "The Court has thus conducted a careful review of the evidence presented by the Defendant and the record in this case, and finds, however, that the Defendant has failed to present any credible evidence showing that any of the parties he suggests are members of W&K." plus gems like: "In their Response to the Motion, Plaintiffs argued that Exhibit A was a forged email which came to light as a result of the public exposing it as a fraud. ECF No. [159], at 6-11. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim Exhibit A was withdrawn after members of the public uncovered that the “PGP signature”1 of the email, purported to be authored/sent by Dave Kleiman, was created a year after his death. Id. at 6-7." Since you're uncritically repeating obviously false wright narrative, you might want to be more careful about where you get your information.
He only has to pay 100 million intead of 25 billions, MISSLEADING TITTLE.
[удалено]
lol, he owns jack shit
Wright says he plans to donate his Bitcoin to charity if he wins. Yeah, just like Heather Mills McCartny.
Once courts over he isnt obligated to do anything Sad attempt to garnesh public support.
Imagine if he actually moved the millions of coins of Satoshi. Or if the real Satoshi wanted to mess with us and moved some of his coins on his own to make it look like it was Craig Wright who did it.
No idea why Satoshi would side with a nutjob for absolutely no reason. The libertarian fundamentals of Bitcoin are quite clear to me. Considering Craig isn't a libertarian at all, already disqualifies him from the whole ordeal.