SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Wow. Shit just got a whole lot realer, kids. Whatever doubts there were are certainly looking way, way shakier now.



Where do we go from here?

Rusty STAPLES.

Principle of law: one can not create its own evidence.

Satoshi's original WP complete with coffee stains, rusty staples and penned in invisible ink ...

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Bump, Craig is a fraud.

I see him rather catching all the anno and anarcho frauds who try to do all sorts of illegal stuff with crypto

No wonder they hate him and want him to be called out...

Like impersonating Satoshi
Like plagiarism
Like tax fraud
Like faking diplomas
Like contempt of Court
Like Perjury
Like using fake emails from dead people
Like writing shit about Hal Finney, Martti Malmi and other people
Like filling a blockchain with BS data, the weather blockchain
Like promoting a fork as being Bitcoin

Which blockchain has stored child pronography? -> Bitcoin SV

Well said, except that the last point is an issue that can happen to any blockchain, it's not entirely their fault.
The unnecessary high size limit of blocks surely helps such situations, but just a low quality image would be store-able in most blockchains I suppose.

You are right, as long as the data fits the block size you can put shit in any blockchain. BUT, as you said, on some blockchains you can put 1MB of shit if you can afford the TX cost (very costly on the real Bitcoin), on BSV you can fit 2GB of trash, and they're planning for trash unlimited with their unlimited block size.

Notice that Cryddit employs two spaces after a full stop. Cryddit's goes by Edward as in Snowden.

Cryddit is Ray Dillinger. I am sure you know who that is.

Color me confused ...

Assuming you're Ray Dillinger - is that conversation public anywhere? I don't recall reading it on http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg10005.html

Uhh, I don't remember ever agreeing to keep it secret, but we didn't talk about it on the list either.  At that time Hal was elbows-deep in the transaction scripting code, and I was checking Satoshi's work on the crypto on the blockchain architecture.  

Finney had a lot to worry about with the transaction scripting and wound up blocking out about a dozen more opcodes than Satoshi had wanted to, but I found essentially nothing wrong with the block structure.  I am still freakin' amazed how tight he got that blockchain design.  

And, yeah, I'm Ray Dillinger.

Interesting - thanks for posting. I always assumed that all of those initial-state decisions had been made *before* Satoshi posted the whitepaper. I guess because of that comment he made in that list thread to the effect of "I'm almost ready to post the code."

It's a little amusing - if bitcoin continues to grow, economists will no doubt be horrified by the levity (relative to an econ committee mtg) with which these decisions were made. Not saying that's a bad thing, or that they weren't rationally through - it actually shows how strong the system is in that there were many possible "reasonable" initial conditions that could've been selected, since the system is largely self-equilibriating anyway.

Re Finney - if he was blocking bitcoin op-codes, I wonder what he would've thought of Ethereum's scripting lang.


(and I had to ask if you were Ray cuz your early posts on here were signed "Edward")

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Rusty STAPLES.

Well if CSW's handiwork in the fraudulent evidence department so far is anything to go by they'll likely be proven to have come out of the factory in 2014.

And the coffee stain will be from a Starbucks blend not introduced until 2015.

"My guess would be [Bitcoin] ORANGE pumpkin spice."

[RivAngE]

Rusty STAPLES.

Well if CSW's handiwork in the fraudulent evidence department so far is anything to go by they'll likely be proven to have come out of the factory in 2014.

And the coffee stain will be from a Starbucks blend not introduced until 2015.

"My guess would be [Bitcoin] ORANGE pumpkin spice."

lol be careful, you might get banned from Trump for being a national threat to the USA!
(ye, I'm butthurt with Huawei's ban >.>)

[hv_]

Not a scam, but the nightmare of any other crypto project in the space?

https://patents.google.com/?assignee=nchain&oq=nchain&dups=language

733 of today, I hear about 700 to come in


Sure, that triggers a lot of trolls,... nearly all

[TheNewAnon135246]

I wouldn't be surprised if those patents are filled with plagiarism, like most of the papers Craig has published:

"Anatomy of a fraud — A deep dive into one of Craig Wright’s plagiarized papers” by Sam Williams https://link.medium.com/PlaWifEpA0

[tmfp]

Not a scam, but the nightmare of any other crypto project in the space?

https://patents.google.com/?assignee=nchain&oq=nchain&dups=language

733 of today, I hear about 700 to come in


Sure, that triggers a lot of trolls,... nearly all

Talking of trolls, it also resembles the behavior of the patent variety.

[nutildah]

While this thread is more about CSW's ongoing attempts to defraud the cryptocurrency community, I was interested in reading more about what Ray Dillinger (Cryddit) had to say about the block size debate, and found some interesting tidbits. Here's a few of his musings on big block forks, from an interview last year:

Technically speaking, there is not much wrong with any of these forks. They address certain problems in different ways slightly favoring the interests of different groups, but not seriously to anyone’s disadvantage.  None of them was entirely without technical merit.

On the other hand none of them make more than a tiny amount of difference.  None helped with the bandwidth or transaction volume by anything more than a small constant factor, so the problem they were supposedly about solving was not in fact solved, nor even very much affected.

So while none of the proposed changes were objectionable in themselves, there was really no *very* compelling reason for any of them to be implemented.  Each of those ideas is merely a stopgap that pushes the rock down the road another foot or two without moving it out of the way. If you want to move that rock out of the road, you will need a much more powerful idea.

Hint: the "much more powerful idea" isn't limitless blocks.

Edit: he also said this, which was seemingly overlooked by HardFireMiner:

And the technical problem with scale is real.  I haven't seen any worthwhile approach to dealing with it - not the one I suggested nor any of the others.  

Thus, resurrecting Cryddit to support your big blocker argument is just dumb.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

While this thread is more about CSW's ongoing attempts to defraud the cryptocurrency community, I was interested in reading more about what Ray Dillinger (Cryddit) had to say about the block size debate, and found some interesting tidbits. Here's a few of his musings on big block forks, from an interview last year:

Technically speaking, there is not much wrong with any of these forks. They address certain problems in different ways slightly favoring the interests of different groups, but not seriously to anyone’s disadvantage.  None of them was entirely without technical merit.

On the other hand none of them make more than a tiny amount of difference.  None helped with the bandwidth or transaction volume by anything more than a small constant factor, so the problem they were supposedly about solving was not in fact solved, nor even very much affected.

So while none of the proposed changes were objectionable in themselves, there was really no *very* compelling reason for any of them to be implemented.  Each of those ideas is merely a stopgap that pushes the rock down the road another foot or two without moving it out of the way. If you want to move that rock out of the road, you will need a much more powerful idea.

Hint: the "much more powerful idea" isn't limitless blocks.

According to CSW, a "much more powerful idea" is a weather rock in the middle of the road ...

The BSV archives the weather results each second from around the world on its blockchain. Genius! Madness!

[xtraelv]

https://static.coindesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Order-_CSW.pdf

The court documents make it fairly clear.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.284.0.pdf

CSW filed for a 30 day extension before the order is finalized.

[HardFireMiner]

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.284.0.pdf

CSW filed for a 30 day extension before the order is finalized.

It was a joint motion, between plaintiff and CSW. Yesterday they made another joint motion, for another 30 days.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.284.0.pdf

CSW filed for a 30 day extension before the order is finalized.

It was a joint motion, between plaintiff and CSW. Yesterday they made another joint motion, for another 30 days.

"I knew I should've trademarked '30 days' when I did such for 'In Two Weeks'."

[gentlemand]

Our special friend is appearing here - https://cc-forum.com/agenda/ for a wonderful and illuminating fireside chat entitled 'what was your purpose as Satoshi writing the white paper?'

Get those tickets ASAP for this highly credible event.

[Hueristic]

Rusty STAPLES.

Well if CSW's handiwork in the fraudulent evidence department so far is anything to go by they'll likely be proven to have come out of the factory in 2014.

And the coffee stain will be from a Starbucks blend not introduced until 2015.

Hah, classic!

...

Edit: he also said this, which was seemingly overlooked by HardFireMiner:

And the technical problem with scale is real.  I haven't seen any worthwhile approach to dealing with it - not the one I suggested nor any of the others.  

Thus, resurrecting Cryddit to support your big blocker argument is just dumb.

Nice find, i too went down the rabbit hole of that thread and am glad i did.

Damn I keep getting waylaid and can't catch up on any threads.

This was a good read.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/id-known-what-we-were-starting-ray-dillinger

[xtraelv]

Latest order for more time:

[nutildah]

Interesting... I wonder what the settlement is going to be comprised of. No doubt Craig's handlers will engineer it so that he can somehow "save face" in the minds of those who have already drunk the Kool Aid. He will somehow continue the ruse that he is Satoshi into infinity, even if it will only be entertained by ever-reducing slivers of the most mentally feeble of supporters.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Interesting... I wonder what the settlement is going to be comprised of. No doubt Craig's handlers will engineer it so that he can somehow "save face" in the minds of those who have already drunk the Kool Aid. He will somehow continue the ruse that he is Satoshi into infinity, even if it will only be entertained by ever-reducing slivers of the most mentally feeble of supporters.

I admire the prose.

[JayJuanGee]

Latest order for more time:

Wow!!!!!!

Parties might be able to enjoy a decent amount of flexibility in terms of settling some of the matters involving payments to each other, including attornies' fees and damages and perhaps even the construction of statements regarding the extent to which they agree (or not) that the fraudster is satoshi... however, the sanctions matter would remain something that is of public concern, and I doubt that any agreement between the parties would have much, if any, affect upon the court's deliberations on those kinds of public concerns, so getting any potential sanctions leniency would be a matter regarding how persuasive the fraudster's attorney is able to be in presenting the fraudster's various defenses and justifications to present facts and argue logic (maybe asking for mercy or forgiveness) for why that diptwat should not be sanctioned with severe consequences.

[xtraelv]

Wow!!!!!!

Parties might be able to enjoy a decent amount of flexibility in terms of settling some of the matters involving payments to each other, including attornies' fees and damages and perhaps even the construction of statements regarding the extent to which they agree (or not) that the fraudster is satoshi... however, the sanctions matter would remain something that is of public concern, and I doubt that any agreement between the parties would have much, if any, affect upon the court's deliberations on those kinds of public concerns, so getting any potential sanctions leniency would be a matter regarding how persuasive the fraudster's attorney is able to be in presenting the fraudster's various defenses and justifications to present facts and argue logic (maybe asking for mercy or forgiveness) for why that diptwat should not be sanctioned with severe consequences.

The biggest sanctions are that the court has publicly voiced that Dr Wright intentionally submitted fraudulent documents to the court,  obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurious  testimony.

My opinion:

He has effectively forgone his ability to present evidence and now has zero credibility in court. It now is only a matter of how much it will cost him.

Any time he lies in the process just gives the plaintiffs the ability to re-litigate any settlement. CSW lying is a gift that just keeps on giving to them.

For the plaintiff -  the only part they have to gain by negotiations is the ease of getting an actual settlement without having to chase the payment through various jurisdictions and getting physical possession.

For CSW - his liberty and all his (and those in trusts) worldly possessions are potentially on the line. 

[JayJuanGee]

Wow!!!!!!

Parties might be able to enjoy a decent amount of flexibility in terms of settling some of the matters involving payments to each other, including attornies' fees and damages and perhaps even the construction of statements regarding the extent to which they agree (or not) that the fraudster is satoshi... however, the sanctions matter would remain something that is of public concern, and I doubt that any agreement between the parties would have much, if any, affect upon the court's deliberations on those kinds of public concerns, so getting any potential sanctions leniency would be a matter regarding how persuasive the fraudster's attorney is able to be in presenting the fraudster's various defenses and justifications to present facts and argue logic (maybe asking for mercy or forgiveness) for why that diptwat should not be sanctioned with severe consequences.

The biggest sanctions are that the court has publicly voiced that Dr Wright intentionally submitted fraudulent documents to the court,  obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurious  testimony.

My opinion:

He has effectively forgone his ability to present evidence and now has zero credibility in court. It now is only a matter of how much it will cost him.

Any time he lies in the process just gives the plaintiffs the ability to re-litigate any settlement. CSW lying is a gift that just keeps on giving to them.

For the plaintiff -  the only part they have to gain by negotiations is the ease of getting an actual settlement without having to chase the payment through various jurisdictions and getting physical possession.

For CSW - his liberty and all his (and those in trusts) worldly possessions are potentially on the line.  

Good point to indicate that it is quite likely that abilities to submit evidence about the already determinations resubmitting fraud docs, obstructing proceedings and proving perjurious testimony would be limited, yet there should still be various appeal processes - and courts frequently will error on the side of making sure that parties are allowed to provide evidence and arguments (which surely, like you suggested, might not take them very far, but still CSW likely still has those kinds of rights).

Regarding liberty, he might not want to show up.  Regarding assets, I am sure that he already has attempted to employ a fairly aloof system of hiding assets, to the extent that he has any that are actually owned outright.