Craig Steven Wright. Self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto ...
Craig Wright - Bitcoin Wiki
Craig Wright - MarketsWiki, A Commonwealth of Market Knowledge
Craig Wright - Wiki
05-26 00:14 - '"Bitcoin is a peer to peer electronic cash system created by Dr. Craig Wright under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto."' (wiki.bitcoinsv.io) by /u/redditor157b removed from /r/Bitcoin within 12-22min
In December 2015, two parallel investigations by Wired and Gizmodo suggested that Wright may have been the inventor of bitcoin. Subsequent reporting, however, raised concerns that Wright was engaged in an elaborate hoax. Hours after Wired published their allegations, Wright's home in Gordon, New South Wales and associated business premises in Ryde, New South Wales were raided by the Australian Federal Police. According to the AFP, the raid was part of an Australian Tax Office investigation. On 2 May 2016, the BBC and The Economist published articles claiming that Wright had digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of bitcoin's development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or "mined" by Satoshi Nakamoto
Self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor Craig Wright has appeared to claim that he was the hacker of Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox in 2011, when 79,956 Bitcoin—worth $751 million today—was stolen. In a letter sent to Bitcoin services provider Blockstream, Wright’s law firm SCA Ontier alleges that he has control over two Bitcoin addresses. One of the addresses specified is the same address that received the Bitcoin stolen from Mt. Gox, according to then Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles.
Wright's Ph.D. flying the coop? Shouldn't have put his eggs in one basket! Who did he think was that gull-ible?
This post might ruffle feathers but no sense incubating a lark. I'm just going to wing it. After years of Wright puffin up his accomplishments some hawk-eyed observer spotted that most of them were parroted! He probably thought leaving twitter was da skies enough to avoid being caged for his ill eagle activities but he should have spent more time defending his nest and stayed out of Satoshi's territory. While some might applaud his respect for national tradition, I don't think that this albatross is anything to emu-late. His raven about Bitcoin's Turing completeness generated much mocking but those it flew over were left thinking of him as Coq-of-the-walk. Now even his flock will know that he's a turkey. Even CSU has to find this too hard to swallow. Degree printer may go Brrrrrr but Brrrr-d is a cardinal sin! Letting it stand would cheepen their reputation. Wright's migration to the UK has no doubt made handling the ensuing flap pretty cuckoo. Although I'm sure he'll keep preening, I bet he privately r-egrets hatching this plan. I fully expect he'll be dis-quail-ified. Once he re-terns his ducktorate will he get a booby prize or will he be left brooding over a goose egg? Either way I don't think it will be long before his fowl play goes entirely tits up and we hear the swan song of a caw-nvicted jail bird and, at last, the end of his robin.
We now know the answer to the "mystery" of why Craig failed his Theory of Computation class. It turns out a decade before he took the class Craig got and then recovered from cancer. The 10+ year old memory of his cancer made him understandably unable to pass his class.
My favourite parts of that transcript dump are Craig's grades, which range from mediocre to actively terrible, and that it shows Craig literally failing the course that would have taught him what Turing Complete meant.
To which a CSW super-fan replied:
You mean when he didn't receive credits because he had dropped out temporarily because he had cancer.
Public CodeValley/Emergent Consensus questioning and investigation Thread. Ask your hard questions and dispel your doubts here.
What is going on here? I am asking some hard questions for the CodeValley Company, which recently proposed a new revolutionary software development paradigm called Emergent Coding at the latest big Bitcoin Cash conference in Australia. I am asking these questions because, as I (and ~150 people who agreed with me) noticed, there are stunning similarities between CodeValley and the companies who have tried and succeeded in crippling Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash: nChain and Blockstream. According to me, as it looks now, similarities between these 3 companies (nChain, Blockstream, CodeValley) are the following: }- Sources of funding are extremely unclear or openly hostile to Bitcoin }- At first and even second glance, there is no product, no way to make money }- Whitepaper & Documentation is missing, hollow or total abstract bullshit, company has no logical sense of existence }- Detailed specifications or proofs of operation are not available }- Main products are closed-source patented blobs (BSV, Liquid, Emergent Coding) }- They have huge influences in the industry or try to establish themselves in such position to have the infuences I am here (and you are here, I assume) because we want to find out the truth, whatever the truth is. The point of this topic is to ask the hardest possible questions in order to estimate the probability of CodeValley company being legit. But this is also a chance for CodeValley to clear their name by providing sufficient information that proves that (after 4 years of having working company and 10+ years of having patents [Archived]) they actually have a working product and are a legit company, and not an infiltrator designed and paid by banks/TPTB in order to cripple and destroy Bitcoin Cash. Also if they truly are what they claim and they truly have such a revolutionary technology, this is a great opportunity for promotion. To show the world that the tech actually works. I will ask my questions and you can ask your questions as well. Don't make them easy. Don't have mercy (but these things work better when you are polite). Let's begin the trial by fire! Calling nlovisa My Questions/Tasks for CodeValley: [Of course you actually don't have to answer any of them or you can give us bullshit answers again, but in such case the community may conclude that you actually are next nChain/Blockstream and an enemy infiltrator, reject you and shoot down all your efforts. So the choice is yours] @@@@ 1. Please upload your actual businessplan which you presented to the people in power who gave you funding(VCs? Government?) to create $50 Million BCH tech park. A businessplan which is supposed to explain spending of $50 million AUD should have at least 7 pages (but more probably 20+). Some names and unimportant details (but NOT money/financial numbers) can be redacted. -- You have 6 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 2. Please list your current VCs and >%5 shareholders, with CEO names and HQ locations of each of them. -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 3. Few days ago you promised to upload freely-accessible documentation to https://codevalley.com/docs subpage which would describe emergent coding in greater details. @ - What happened to that promise? @@@@ 4. After I accused that your company is bullshit and your product is hollow, you immediately started to praise me and offered me a trip to Australia [Archived]. @ - So, do you always praise and offer a paid trip across the world to Australia to all people on the Internet who heavily criticize you? Is this a common practice in your company? @@@@ 5. A travel from Poland to Australia and back would cost something under $2000 AUD, counting buses, with hotels that would make something close to $2500 AUD even for few days. Based on this, I estimate your "invite random people from the internet to Australia in order to show them the product" budget has to consist of at least $50.000 AUD yearly (but $100.000 - $200.000 is more probable of course). @ A) In your financial books, what exactly is called the Excel position of your budget expenses under which would your secretary put my trip's expenses? @ B) How do you maintain such a large budget for such frivolous spending and how do you explain it to your shareholders/VCs? @@@@ 6. Few days ago you answered somebody a question: "The trust model is also different. The bulk of the testing happens before the project is designed not after. Emergent Coding produces a binary with very high integrity and arguably far more testing is done in emergent coding than in incumbent methods you are used to.". @ A) Who EXACTLY does the testing? People? Software? AI? Non-bullshit answer, please. @ B) Why exactly is there "more testing" in Emergent Coding than in normal software creation paradigm? Why is emergent coding different? Do the developers who work in this paradigm are somehow special? Are the programming languages magical? @ C) What are the specific software tools used for this "testing"? "Agents" is a non-answer, so don't even try. @@@@ 7. Please provide a simple demo binary of a simple program created completely using your "Emergent Coding" and also provide all the binary sub-component files that make up the final binary. Requirements: There has to be a minimum of 3 sub - binaries making up the final big binary for this to be valid. 2 or less does not count. None of the binaries can be obfuscated, they have to be clean X86/X86_64 machine code binaries. Notes: It should be incredibily simple, quick and easy task for you, since designing such a complex and apparently breakthough system must have required thousands, tens of thousands if not hundereds of thousands tests. All of these tests produced working binaries - after all you wouldn't claim you have a working marvellous revolutionary product without extensive testing, right? -- You have 18 hours for this task -- Of course, If you are saying the truth and have truly developed this revolutionary "emergent coding" binary-on-the-fly-merging technology, this should normally take you under 18 minutes to just find the test samples and upload them. @@@@ 8. Please construct a simple (binary or source) single-use-compiler demo that will combine 3 or more sub-binaries into final working product. Please upload the sub-binaries and the "single-use compiler" to publicly available site so people in our community can verify that your product is actually working. The single-use-compiler binary can be obfuscated with proper tool in order to hide your precious intellectual property. The 3 sample sub-binaries cannot be obfuscated. They have to be pure, clean, binary X86/X86_64 machine code. Everything has to be working and verifable of course. -- You have 72 hours to complete this task -- I understand all your technologies are patented with patents that basically predate Bitcoin and you are giving us obfuscated binaries, so you don't have to worry about anybody stealing your company's intellectual property, right? @@@@ 9. You mentioned the only application I need to create programs using Emergent Coding is the pilot app. @ - What programming language(s) is the pilot app written in? @@@@ 10. When you developed the Emerging Coding, before it started existing, you couldn't have used emergent coding to create the first (test & development) applications because it is a chicken and egg problem. @ - What programming language did you use to create first client/serveapi/daemon/tool used to merge multiple binaries into one in Emergent Coding? @@@@ 11. Please list all of your current programmers and programming language each of them is using next to their name. Also provide LinkedIn profiles if applicable. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 12. Please also list all Development Environments (IDEs) used by your current programmers next to their name. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 13. Please list all compilers used by your current programmers next to their name. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 14. So if I understand correctly CodeValley will be the company who runs $50 million BCH tech park and the tech will house multiple Bitcoin Cash-related startup and companies. Let's say I have a BCH startup and I would like to rent a loft/spot in your "tech park". A) Please provide a PDF of sample basic contract you have (hopefully) prepared for such startups. -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- B) How much does the rent cost per a room (or m2/sqft) for a month and for a year? @@@@ 15. Please submit the list of compilers that produce X86/X86_64/ARM binaries compatibile with Emergent Coding "mash-it-together" "binary compiler". -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 16. Is it possible for Emergent Coding to merge multiple non-binary applications (like Python or PHP programs) together? Or is it just binaries? Who are you? I am a freedom thinker and individual independent from all infuences who just does what he finds appropriate at the moment. Disclaimer to preempt questions: }- I do not work for anybody }- I do not have any hidden agenda }- I am only doing what I think is right }- I am a born revolutionist, this is why I am in Bitcoin Why are you doing this? }- Because I believe in truth above all. Truth will save us. }- Because I believe in Satoshi's peer-to-peer cash for the world vision and I will not stray from this path. }- Because most people are apparently missing psychological immune system which is why attempts like Blockstream, nChain appear and are repetedly [at least partially] successful. I have an anti-bullshit immune system that works great against this type of attacks. I was actually one of the first to be banned in /Bitcoin sub for pointing out their lies with manipulations and to spot Craig Wright's attempt to infiltrate and bend /btc sub to his will.. }- Because I was fooled twice by entities similar to CodeValley before (namingly nChain and Blockstream) and I will not be fooled again. Bitcoin Cash will not be co-opted easily as long as I am here. }- Because if Bitcoin Cash community is an organism, then I became a B lymphocyte cell. I produce antibodies. I show you how to defend yourself from bullshit, lies and manipulation. This is my basic function. }- Because I am here to kill the bank
The nightmare scenario - never tested code ~never works
The obvious implementation of highly optimised mining with segregated witnesses will have the main codepath that creates blocks do no validation at all; if the current ecosystem's validationless mining is any indication the actual code doing this will be proprietary codebases written on a budget with little testing, and lots of bugs. At best the codepaths that actually do validation will be rarely, if ever, tested in production. Secondly, as the UTXO set can be updated without the witness data, it would not be surprising if at least some of the wallet ecosystem skips witness validation. With that in mind, what happens in the event of a validation failure? Mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain, producing blocks that in isolation appear totally normal and contain apparently valid transactions. It's easy to imagine this happening from an engineering perspective: a simple implementation would be to have the main mining codepaths be a separate, not-validating, process that receives "invalid block" notifications from another process containing a validating implementation of the Bitcoin protocol. If a bug/exploit is found that causes that validation process to crash, what's to guarantee that the block creation codepath will even notice? Quite likely it will continue creating blocks unabated - the invalid block notification codepath is never tested in production.
Basically it means over time, segwit could enable and cause bugs that allow invalid data to go unnoticed until it is buried deep in the chain. Once this happens what will miners do, will they abandon all their work and get rid of the invalid chain, or just allow the invalid chain to continue? This is a true nightmare scenario. Now remember Craig and others were screaming from rooftops warning people of this before segwit was activated. This was the main reason we even split off with Bitcoin Cash to preserve the ledger and the true Bitcoin, and protect it from segwit. Now lets talk about P2SH, which was activated in Core several years ago before segwit activated. P2SH sands for pay-to-script-hash. P2SH "allow transactions to be sent to a script hash (address starting with 3) instead of a public key hash (addresses starting with 1)". There can be many use cases for P2SH, but multi-sig is the most common use. This is sad because multi-sig could have been easily enabled on legacy type 1 addresses using known schemes like Shamir Secret Sharing inistead. When sending to an address beginning with a 3 as many exchanges and services give, you are likely sending to a multi-sig P2SH address or a segwit address. So as you can imagine, P2SH has spread and grown significantly, like a cancer on every Bitcoin ledger, including BSV. So why is this a problem? Because P2SH is not Bitcoin, its basically just segwit-lite. Andreas Antonopoulos for example tried to discredit Craig Wright's criticisms of segwit by saying the same thing would apply to P2SH:
"I disagree with Craig Wright about Segwit. The exact same risk could be said to exist with P2SH. Neither can be exploited with a 51% attack"
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? An analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). Part 3
Part 1 Part 2 So I have been subbed to /bitcoin since it had less than two thousand subs but haven't posted there in years. I think I took a break from researching bitcoin to take a foray into the world of conspiracy around 2014 and only got back in to it around the beginning of 2017 but with a bit of sense of skepticism and cynicism about everything. I think I returned to /bitcoin around that time but there had been a rift that had emerged in the community between those that said that bitcoin was censoring any discussion around big blocks but then also just censorship in general. This lead to the formation of /btc which became the main spot for big blockers to gather to talk about protocol development. Following the fork of Bitcoin Cash and SegWit (BTC) in August 2017 the camps were further divided when the fence sitters were denied their SegWit2x compromise. Many from the fence sitters then deferred back to the incumbent bitcoin as citing muh network effect, liquidity, and hashpower while some who felt betrayed by the failure of getting S2X through went to support BCH for some attempt at on chain scaling rather than through pegged side chains or Lightning Network. Bitcoin cash initially went with a modest doubling of the blocksize to 2MB but implemented some other features like a new more rapidly adjusting difficulty algorithm to protect themselves against hashpower fluctuations from the majority chain. In about July of that year I had seen what I potentially thought was someone LARPing on /biz/ but screencapped, that segwit2x which was scheduled for november 2017 would be called off and then hashpower would switch to BCH causing congestion and chain death spiral on BTC and BCH would pump massively. I was partial to the idea as the game theory and incentives on a big block bitcoin should attract miners. About a month after SegWit2x was indeed called off while the BTC blockchain was hugely congested, BCH went through a violent pump reaching 0.5 BTC/BCH on a European exchange called Kraken while it also pumped ridiculously on American exchange coinbase. Shortly afterwards the market took a giant dump all over those people who bought the top and it has since retraced to roughly 30:1 or so now. After that pump though BCH kind of gained some bagholders I guess who started to learn the talking points presented by personalities like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet. Craig S Wright by this time had been outed as Satoshi but had in 2016 publicly failed to convince the public with the cryptographic proof he provided. To which he later published the article I don't have the courage to prove I am the bitcoin creator. In essence this allowed many to disregard anything he offered to the crypto community though his company nChain was very much interested in providing the technical support to scale what he saw as the true implementation of bitcoin. Following debate around a set of planned protocol upgrades between a bitcoin node implementation by his company nChain and the developers of another client Bitcoin ABC (adjustable block cap), the two parties both dug their heels in and wouldn't compromise. As it became clear that a fork was imminent there was a lot of vitriol tossed out towards Wright, another big billionaire backer Calvin Ayre and other personalities like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Craig's credibility was disregarded because of his failure to provide convincing cryptographic proof but still people who wanted to pursue the protocol upgrades that nChain were planning (as it best followed their interpretation of the bitcoin white paper) pursued his variant, while others who followed the socia consensus deferred to the positions of their personalities like Wu, Ver, and Sechet but even developers from Ethereum and other protocols chimed in to convince everyone that CSW is a fraud. This was referred to as the hash war and was the first time that the bitcoin protocol had been contentiously hard forked. Hashpower is the CPU cycles you can commit to the Proof of Work function in bitcoin and the majority will generate the longest chain as they have the most proof of work. To win the contentious hard fork legitimately and make sure your chain will always be safe going forward you need to maintain your version of the blockchain with 51% of the hashpower on the network and force the other parties to continue to spend money on building a blockchain that is never going to be inserted in to the majority chain. As well as this you need to convince exchanges that you have the majority chain and have them feel safe to accept deposits and withdrawals so that they don't lose money in the chaos. This is how it would play out if both parties acted according to the rules of bitcoin and the Nakamoto Consensus. There was a lot of shit talking between the two parties on social media with Craig Wright making a number of claims such as "you split, we bankrupt you" "I don't care if there is no ability to move coins to an exchange for a year" and other such warnings not to engage in foul play.. To explain this aftermath is quite tedious so It might be better to defer to this video for the in depth analysis but basically Roger Ver had to rent hashpower that was supposed to be mining BTC from his mining farm bitcoin.com, Jihan Wu did the same from his Bitmain Mining Farm which was a violation of his fiduciary duty as the CEO of a company preparing for an IPO. In this video of a livestream during the hashwar where Andreas Brekken admits to basically colluding with exchange owners like Coinbase, Kraken (exchange Roger Ver invested in), Bitfinex and others to release a patched ABC client to the exchanges and introducing "checkpoints" in to the BCH blockchain (which he even says is arguably "centralisation") in order to prevent deep reorgs of the BCH blockchain. >"We knew we were going to win in 30 mins we had the victory because of these checkpoints that we released to a cartel of friendly businesses in a patch so then we just sat around drinking beers all day". By releasing a patched client that has code in it to prevent deep reorgs by having the client refer to a checkpoint from a block mined by someone who supported BCHABC if another group of hash power was to try to insert a new chain history, this cartel of exchanges and mining farm operators conspired in private to change the nature of the bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto Consensus. Since the fork there have been a number of other BCH clients that have come up that require funding and have their own ideas about what things to implement on the BCH chain. What began to emerge was actually not necessarily an intention of scaling bitcoin but rather to implement Schnorr signatures to obfuscate transactions and to date the ABC client still has a default blocksize of 2MB but advertised as 16MB. What this demonstrates for BCH is that through the collusion, the cartel can immediately get a favourable outcome from the developers to keep their businesses secure and from the personalities/developers to work on obfuscating records of transactions on the chain rather than scaling their protocol. After the SegWit fork, many from the BCH camp alleged that through the funding to Blockstream from AXA and groups that tied to the Bilderbergs, Blockstream would be beholden to the legacy banking and would be a spoke and hub centralised model, so naturally many of the "down with central banks anarcho capitalist types" had gathered in the BCH community. Through these sympathies it seems that people have been susceptible to being sold things like coin mixing and obfuscation with developers offering their opinions about how money needs to be anonymous to stop the evil government and central banks despite ideas like Mises’ Regression Theorem, which claims that in order for something to be money in the most proper sense, it must be traceable to an originally non-monetary barter commodity such as gold. What this suggests is that there is an underlying intent from the people that have mechanisms to exert their will upon the protocol of bitcoin and that if obfuscation is their first priority rather than working on creating a scalable platform, this demonstrates that they don't wish to actually be global money but more so something that makes it easier to move money that you don't want seen. Roger Ver has often expressed sentiments of injustice about the treatment of Silk Road found Ross Ulbricht and donated a large amount of money to a fund for his defence. I initially got in to bitcoin seeking out the Silk Road and though I only wanted to test it to buy small quantities of mdma, lsd, and mescaline back in 2011 there was all sorts of criminal activity on there like scam manuals, counterfeits, ID, Credit Card info, and other darknet markets like armoury were selling pretty crazy weapons. It has been alleged by Craig Wright that in his capacity as a digital forensics expert he was involved with tracing bitcoin that was used to fund the trafficking of 12-16 year olds on the silk road. There have been attempts at debunking such claims by saying that silk road was moderated for such stuff by Ulbricht and others, but one only has to take a look in to the premise of pizza gate to understand that there it may be possible to hide in plain site with certain code words for utilising the market services and escrow of websites like the silk road. The recent pedo bust from South Korea demonstrates the importance of being able to track bitcoin transactions and if the first thing BCH wanted to do after separating itself from Satoshi's Vision and running on developer and cartel agendas was to implement obfuscation methods, this type of criminal activity will only proliferate. Questions one must ask oneself then are things like why do they want this first? Are some of these developers, personalities and cartel businesses sitting on coins that they know are tarnished from the silk road and want to implement obfuscation practices so they can actually cash in some of the value they are unable to access? Merchants from the silk road 1 are still being caught even as recently as this year when they attempted to move coins that were known to have moved through the silk road. Chain analytics are only becoming more and more powerful and the records can never be changed under the original bitcoin protocol but with developer induced protocol changes like Schnorr signatures, and coinjoin it may be possible to start laundering these coins out in to circulation. I must admit with the cynicism I had towards government and law enforcement and my enjoying controlled substances occasionally I was sympathetic to Ross and donated to his legal fund back in the day and for many years claimed that I wouldn't pay my taxes when I wanted to cash out of bitcoin. I think many people in the space possess this same kind of mentality and subsequently can be preyed upon by people who wish to do much more in the obfuscation than dodge tax and party. Another interesting observation is that despite the fact that btc spun off as a result of censorship around big block scaling on bitcoin, that subreddit itself has engaged in plenty of censorship for basically anyone who wants to discuss the ideas presented by Dr Craig Wright on that sub. When I posted my part 2 of this series in there a week ago I was immediately met with intense negativity and ad hominems so as to discourage others from reading the submission and my post history was immediately throttled to 1 comment every 10 mins. This is not quite as bad as cryptocurrency where my post made it through the new queue to gather some upvotes and a discussion started but I was immediately banned from that sub for 7 days for reason "Content standards - you're making accusations based on no evidence just a dump of links that do nothing to justify your claims except maybe trustnodes link (which has posted fabricated information about this subreddit mods) and a Reddit post. Keep the conspiracy theories in /conspiracy" My post was also kept at zero in bitcoin and conspiracy so technically btc was the least censored besides C_S_T. In addition to the throttling I was also flagged by the u/BsvAlertBot which says whether or not a user has a questionable amount of activity in BSV subreddits and then a break down of your percentages. This was done in response to combat the "toxic trolls" of BSV but within bitcoincashSV there are many users that have migrated from what was originally supposed to be a uncensored subreddit to discuss bitcoin and many such as u/cryptacritic17 has have switched sides after having been made to essentially DOXX themselves in btc to prove that they aren't a toxic troll for raising criticisms of the way certain things are handled within that coin and development groups. Other prominent users such as u/jim-btc have been banned for impersonating another user which was in actual fact himself and he has uploaded evidence of him being in control of said account to the blockchain. Mod Log, Mod Damage Control, Mod Narrative BTFO. Interestingly in the comments on the picture uploaded to the blockchain you can see the spin to call him an SV shill when in actual fact he is just an OG bitcoiner that wanted bitcoin to scale as per the whitepaper. What is essentially going on in the Bitcoin space is that there is a battle of the protocols and a battle for social consensus. The incumbent BTC has majority of the attention and awareness as it is being backed by legacy banking and finance with In-Q-Tel and AXA funding blockstream as well as Epstein associates and MIT, but in the power vaccum that presented itself as to who would steward the big block variant, a posse of cryptoanarchists have gained control of the social media forums and attempted to exert their will upon what should essentially be a Set In Stone Protocol to create something that facilitates their economic activity (such as selling explosives online)) while attempting to leverage their position as moderators who control the social forum to spin their actions as something different (note memorydealers is Roger Ver). For all his tears for the children killed in wars, it seems that what cryptoanarchists such as u/memorydealers want is to delist/shut down governments and they will go to any efforts such as censorship to make sure that it is their implementation of bitcoin that will do that. Are we really going to have a better world with people easier able to hide transactions/launder money? Because of this power vacuum there also exists a number of different development groups but what is emerging now is that they are struggling for money to fund their development. The main engineering is done by self professed benevolent dictator Amaury Sechet (deadalnix) who in leaked telegram screen caps appears to be losing it as funding for development has dried up and money raised in an anarchist fashion wasn't compliant with laws around fundraising sources and FVNI (development society that manages BCH development and these donations) is run by known scammer David R Allen. David was founder of 2014 Israeli ICO Getgems (GEMZ) that scammed investors out of more than 2500 Bitcoins. The SV supported sky-lark who released this information has since deleted all their accounts but other users have claimed that sky-lark was sent personal details about themselves and pictures of their loved ones and subsequently deleted all their social media accounts afterwards. There are other shifty behaviours like hiring Japanese influencers to shill their coin, recruiting a Hayden Otto that up until 2018 was shilling Pascal Coin to become a major ambassador for BCH in the Australian city of Townsville. Townsville was claimed to be BCH city hosting a BCH conference there and claiming loads of adoption, but at the conference itself their idea of demonstrating adoption was handing a Point of Sale device to the bar to accept bitcoin payments but Otto actually just putting his credit card behind the bar to settle and he would keep the BCH that everyone paid. In the lead up to the conference the second top moderator of btc was added to the moderators of townsville to shill their coin but has ended up with the townsville subreddit wanting to ban all bitcoin talk from the subreddit. Many of the BCH developers are now infighting as funding dries up and they find themselves floundering with no vision of how to achieve scale or get actual real world adoption. Amaury has recently accused Peter Rizun of propagandising, told multiple users in the telegram to fuck off and from all accounts appears to be a malignant narcissist incapable of maintaining any kind of healthy relationship with people he is supposed to be working with. Peter Rizun has begun lurking in bitcoincashSV and recognising some of the ideas coming from BSV as having merit while Roger has started to distance himself from the creation of BCH. Interestingly at a point early in the BCH history Roger believed Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi, but once CSW wouldn't go along with their planned road map and revealed the fact he had patents on blockchain technology and wanted to go down a path that worked with Law, Roger retracted that statement and said he was tricked by Craig. He joined in on the faketoshi campaign and has been attempted to be sued by Dr Wright for libel in the UK to which Roger refused to engage citing grounds of jurisdiction. Ironically this avoidance of Roger to meet Dr Wright in court to defend his claims can be seen as the very argument against justice being served by private courts under an anarchocapitalist paradigm with essentially someone with resources simply being able to either flee a private court's jurisdiction or engage a team of lawyers that can bury any chances of an everyday person being able to get justice. There is much more going on with the BCH drama that can be explained in a single post but it is clear that some of the major personalities in the project are very much interested in having their ideals projected on to the technical implementation of the bitcoin protocol and have no qualms spouting rhetoric around the anti-censorship qualities of bitcoin/BCH while at the same time employing significant censorship on their social media forums to control what people are exposed to and getting rid of anyone who challenges their vision. I posit that were this coin to become a success, these "benevolent dictators" as they put it would love their new found positions of wealth/dominance yet if their behaviour to get there is anything to go by, would demonstrate the same power tripping practices of censorship, weasel acts, misleading people about adoption statistics and curating of the narrative. When the hashrate from Rogers bitcoin.com minging operation on BCH dropped dramatically and a lot of empty blocks were being mined, his employer and 2IC moderator u/BitcoinXio (who stepped in to replace roger as CEO) was in the sub informing everyone it was simply variance that was the reason when only a few days later it was revealed that they had reduced their hash power significantly. This is not appropriate behaviour for one of the primary enterprises engaged in stewarding BCH and encouraging adoption nor is the inability to be accountable for such dishonest practices as well. It seems bitcoin.com treats btc as their own personal spam page where Roger can ask for donations despite it being against the sub rules and spin/ban any challenge to the narrative they seek to create. Let's see how the censorship goes as I post this around a few of the same places as the last piece. Stay tuned for the next write up where I take a deep dive in to the coin that everyone doesn't want you to know about.
This post was inspired by the video “Roger Ver’s Thoughts on Craig Wright”. Oh, wait. Sorry. “Roger Ver’s Thoughts on 15th November Bitcoin Cash Upgrade”. Not sure how I mixed those two up. To get it out of the way first and foremost: I have nothing but utmost respect for Roger Ver. You have done more than just about anyone to bring Bitcoin to the world, and for that you will always have my eternal gratitude. While there are trolls on both sides, the crucifixion of Bitcoin Jesus in the past week has been disheartening to see. As a miner, I respect his decision to choose the roadmap that he desires. It is understandable that the Bitcoin (BCH) upgrade is causing a clash of personalities. However, what has been particularly frustrating is the lack of debate around the technical merits of Bitcoin ABC vs Bitcoin SV. The entire conversation has now revolved around Craig Wright the individual instead of what is best for Bitcoin Cash moving forward. Roger’s video did confirm something about difference of opinions between the Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV camps. When Roger wasn’t talking about Craig Wright, he spent a portion of his video discussing how individuals should be free to trade drugs without the intervention of the state. He used this position to silently attack Craig Wright for allegedly wanting to control the free trade of individuals. This appears to confirm what Craig Wright has been saying: that DATASIGVERIFY can be used to enable widely illegal use-cases of transactions, and Roger’s support for the ABC roadmap stems from his personal belief that Bitcoin should enable all trade regardless of legal status across the globe. Speaking for myself, I think the drug war is immoral. I think human beings should be allowed to put anything they want in their own bodies as long as they are not harming others. I live in the United States and have personally seen the negative consequences of the drug war. This is a problem. The debasement of our currency and theft at the hands of central banks is a separate problem. Bitcoin was explicitly created to solve one of these problems. Roger says in his video that “cryptocurrencies” were created to enable trade free from government oversight. However, Satoshi Nakamoto never once said this about Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto was explicitly clear, however, that Bitcoin provided a solution to the debasement of currency.
“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 02/11/2009
As we’ve written previously, the genesis block is often cited as a criticism of the 2008 bailout. However, the content of the article outlines that the bailout had already occurred. The article reveals that the government was poised to go a step further by buying up the toxic bank assets as part of a nationalization effort! In this scenario, according to the Times, "a 'bad bank' would be created to dispose of bad debts. The Treasury would take bad loans off the hands of troubled banks, perhaps swapping them for government bonds. The toxic assets, blamed for poisoning the financial system, would be parked in a state vehicle or 'bad bank' that would manage them and attempt to dispose of them while 'detoxifying' the main-stream banking system." The article outlines a much more nightmarish scenario than bank bailouts, one that would effectively remove any element of private enterprise from banking and use the State to seize the bank's assets. The United States is progressively getting to a point where cannabis can be freely traded and used without legal repercussion. As a citizen, each election has given me the opportunity to bring us closer to enacting that policy at a national level. However, I have never had the ability to have a direct impact on preventing the debasement of the United States dollar. The dollar is manipulated by a “private” organization that is accountable to no one, and on a yearly basis we are given arbitrary interest rates that I have no control over. The government uses its arbitrary control over the money supply to enable itself to spend trillions of dollars it doesn’t have on foreign wars. Roger Ver has passionately argued against this in multiple videos available on the internet. This is what Bitcoin promised to me when I first learned about it. This is what makes it important to me. When the Silk Road was shut down, Bitcoin was unaffected. Bitcoin, like the US dollar, was just a tool that was used for transactions. There is an inherent danger that governments, whether you like it or not, would use every tool at their disposal to shut down any system that enabled at a protocol level illegal trade. They, rightfully or wrongfully, did this with the Silk Road. Roger’s video seems to hint that he thinks Bitcoin Cash should be an experiment in playing chicken with governments across the world about our right to trade freely without State intervention. The problem is that this is a vast underestimation of just how quickly Bitcoin (BCH) could be shut down if the protocol itself was the tool being used for illegal trade instead of being the money exchanged on top of illegal trade platforms. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with Roger’s philosophy on what “cryptocurrencies” should be. However, I know what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is simply hard, sound money. That is boring to a lot of those in the “cryptocurrency” space, but it is the essential tool that enables freedom for the globe. It allows those in Zimbabwe to have sound currency free from the 50 billion dollar bills handed out like candy by the government. It allows those of us in the US to be free from the arbitrary manipulation of the Fed. Hard, sound, unchanging money that can be used as peer to peer digital cash IS the killer use case of Bitcoin. That is why we are here building on top of Bitcoin Cash daily. When Roger and ABC want to play ball with governments across the globe and turn Bitcoin into something that puts it in legal jeopardy, it threatens the value of my bitcoins. Similar to the uncertainty we go through in the US every year as we await the arbitrary interest rates handed out by the Fed, we are now going to wait in limbo to see if governments will hold Bitcoin Cash miners responsible for enabling illegal trade at a protocol level. This is an insanely dangerous prospect to introduce to Bitcoin (BCH) so early in its lifespan. In one of Satoshi Nakamoto’s last public posts, he made it clear just how important it was to not kick the hornet’s nest that is government:
“It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 12/11/2010
Why anyone would want to put our opportunity of sound monetary policy in jeopardy to enable illegal trading at a base protocol level is beyond me. I respect anyone who has an anarcho-capitalist ideology. But, please don’t debase my currency by putting it at risk of legal intervention because you want to impose that ideology on the world. We took the time to set up a Q&A with the Bitcoin SV developers Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly. We posted on Reddit and gathered a ton of questions from the “community”. We received insanely intelligent, measured, and sane responses to all of the “attack vectors” proposed against increasing the block size and re-enabling old opcodes. Jonathon Toomim spent what must have been an hour or so asking 15+ questions in the Reddit thread of which we obtained answers to most. We have yet to see him respond to the technical answers given by the SV team. In Roger’s entire video today about the upcoming November fork, he didn’t once mention one reason why he disagrees with the SV roadmap. Instead, he has decided to go on Reddit and use the same tactics that were used by Core against Bitcoin Unlimited back in the day by framing the upcoming fork as “BCH vs BSV”, weeks before miners have had the ability to actually vote. What Bitcoin SV wants to accomplish is enable sound money for the globe. This is boring. This is not glamorous. It is, however, the greatest tool of freedom we can give the globe. We cannot let ideology or personalities change that goal. Ultimately, it won’t. We have been continual advocates for miners, the ones who spend 1000x more investing in the network than the /btc trolls, to decide the future of BCH. We look forward to seeing what they choose on Nov 15th. Roger mentions that it is our right to fork off and create our own chains. While that is okay to have as an opinion, Satoshi Nakamoto was explicit that we should be building one global chain. We adhere to the idea that miners should vote with their hashpower and determine the emergent chain after November 15th.
“It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU proof-of-worker proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 11/09/2008
Connor of The BCH Boys
Edit: A clarification. I used the phrase "Bitcoin is boring". I want to clarify that Bitcoin itself is capable of far more than we've ever thought possible, and this statement is one I will be elaborating on further in the future.
An example of a high profile CSW shill /u/sharklaserrrrr [Arian Kuqi co-founder cryptonize.it] dishonest behavior - he lies 3x in a row and when called out for proof, he runs away with: "I actually have work to do"
It is important to expose lies, especially such blatant and clear cut ones such as this one, whenever or whoever makes them. This is even more important when a relatively high profile figure spreads lies because lies are what lead to hijacking of BTC, we need to expose them early to prevent the same fate for BCH. It is also important because the same modus operandi is employed by all of the astroturfers, be it CSW shills or any other kinds of shills. It's important to recognize. The lies that Ari told were in response to this thread where it is proven that the following passage was plagiarized from planetmath.org verbatim by CSW in his "Beyond Godel" paper where he purports to show that Bitcoin is Turing complete:
Starting from the simplest primitive recursive functions, we can build more complicated primitive recursive functions by functional composition and primitive recursion. In this entry, we have listed some basic examples using functional composition alone. In this entry, we list more basic examples, allowing the use of primitive recursion:
The source is from planetmath.org, and they explicitly state on their home page that ’The entries are contributed under the terms of the Creative Commons By/Share-Alike License’ and the license itself states: You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Right from the get go he is dishonest because the issue is plagiarism, which is completely different than copyright, but even on that point he is wrong because the license requires attribution so CSW is in breach of both:
He broke academic ethics by plagiarism
He broke copyright as he did not include attribution as the license requires
When this is pointed out to Ari is where the ugly lies commence. He points to Kleene, S., (1952) “Introduction to Metamathematics” as the original source of the claim, accusing planetmath.org of the actual plagiarism - this is a blatant lie, there are 0 results when you search for "In this entry" in that book And when this is pointed out to him, he runs away with a weak excuse as any common troll ever:
I actually have work to do so if you don’t mind, do your own research
2019 in Review: Community, Crime, Courtcases, Craig & Consolidation
https://preview.redd.it/r7dmpveldia41.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=f7dc87d5b58c4391d3e04359c4dc111d771246a1 2019 has been a tumultuous but amazing year for the development and advancement of blockchain technology. Following the rally to the all-time-highs at the end of 2017 and the intense infrastructure development and ongoing Bear Market of 2018 it was clear things were changing quickly. We are about to enter a new decase and the team at Aelf wanted to look back at 2019 and reflect on some of the events that occurred over the last year to see where the industry might be headed in 2020. https://preview.redd.it/tccwloemdia41.png?width=384&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c9feac47c8e8accc602dee7e738df86facc3e2e Although the year has been considered a continuation of the 2018 bear market, it didn’t stop development, progression and a myriad of crazy events from occurring. This included the challenges associated with global regulations, the upcoming Bitcoin halving event in May 2020, announcement of the Facebook Libra and Telegram Open Network’s (TON) launch delay. This year also saw a myriad of debacles from self-proclaimed Bitcoin creator Craig Wright, the Justin Sun and Warren Buffet lunch situation, the recent claim of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s goal to modify Twitter into a decentralized version of the platform, and President Trump’s Bitcoin statement, among others. Now let’s examine more of what took place during 2019 as we approach the start of the New Year in 2020. The SEC, Telegram, Facebook Libra, Kik and Blockchain’s Global Regulatory Environment Many of the world’s governments have been harsh towards blockchain technology in recent years. Particularly, the US Government and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been very reluctant to ease the regulatory framework for blockchain development in the country. This has become more evident in 2019, with the SEC combatting many blockchain projects this year including the $1.7 billion-dollar token offering of the Telegram Open Network and the Facebook Libra project. As well the SEC created controversy in a gruesome battle with Kik over its alleged illegal token offering that Kik has sworn to fight to their last breath. https://preview.redd.it/6yngxxfndia41.png?width=614&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc363d1a2225f461bad20786e8439e7cc3896d7d Many proponents of blockchain technology accuse the SEC of unfair policies to put a stranglehold on the development on blockchain in order to prevent the devaluation of the American monetary system. The reluctance for crypto exchanges to set up shop in the US is also becoming more prevalent because of the supposedly biased and unfavourable approach of the SEC. Nevertheless, there are also several major countries including China that have for the most part embraced the advancement of blockchain technology in 2019. China has also nearly finalized the development of the digital Chinese Yuan and announced that that country is going all in on blockchain development despite its sometimes anti-Bitcoin approach. The Bitcoin Halving Event and its Ongoing Effect on Market Conditions With the end of 2019 nearly upon us and the upcoming Bitcoin halving event set to take place during May of 2020 the market could be overdue for a bull market of mass proportions. Remember, the last bull market that took place was 2 years ago during December 2017 and was followed by an incredible dump from the all-time-high price of 20 thousand US Dollars to just 3300 USD in December 2018. For the most part, 2018 was a blood-bath for crypto markets and 2019 has not been all that much better. The price did briefly rally up to 14 thousand US Dollars during mid 2019 but has since been reduce by half with the Bitcoin price presently at just over 7000 US Dollars. Bitcoin was designed by its original creators with code written to mitigate the negative effects of inflation. In order to curb inflation, once every 4 years (or 210,000 blocks) the mining rewards that the network automatically generates are reduced in half. https://preview.redd.it/xuthhfiodia41.png?width=819&format=png&auto=webp&s=2cc8cbc7452d4aadb5076530915acfd5e755735a 3 Additional Stories to Watch in 2020 In June, the CEO of Tron, Justin Sun purchased tickets through eBay for a charity auction to have lunch with Warren Buffet. Sun paid a record $4.56 million US Dollars in the process becoming the highest bid in the 20-year history of the event. The purpose of the lunch from Sun’s standpoint is to change Mr. Buffet’s viewpoint towards crypto and blockchain tech by inviting several blockchain industry leaders to help sway the famous investor’s perspective. Sun subsequently missed the lunch he scheduled in September because of a sudden bout with kidney stones. At this time, the community will have to wait and see when Sun and Buffet will meet in 2020. Stay tuned. Back in December of 2015, Craig Wright claimed publicly to be the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Most believe Wright was lying to gain more fame and recognition in the industry. On November 18th, 2018 Bitcoin SV hard forked from the Bitcoin Cash Network to create it own chain. As noted above, the disgruntled CEO of Bitcoin SV, has for years maintained he led the initial development of Bitcoin. During February 2018, Wright was the subject of a 5.118-Billion-dollar lawsuit by Dave Kleiman claiming that Wright defrauded Kleiman of Bitcoin while working on the initial development of the Bitcoin Network between 2009 and 2013. In August 2019, Wright was ordered by a court of law to pay half the 5.11 Billion in Bitcoin back to Kleiman. Throughout 2019, Wright launched lawsuits against Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, Bitcoin Cash’s Roger Ver and others for calling him a fraud. It seems likely Wright will continue his ongoing Satoshi rhetoric in 2020. https://preview.redd.it/l977df8qdia41.png?width=547&format=png&auto=webp&s=f52d70a3c852b920ae665c8b5770a74cd8dadabe The CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey recently stated that he has hired 5 full-time employees to modify the Twitter platform and make it increasingly decentralized. This may seem like a small step initially, but this project could be expanded easily by someone of Dorsey’s reputation and wealth in the technology industry. Dorsey himself has been a long-term proponent of blockchain technology and an investor in Bitcoin. Binance CEO, Changpeng Zhao, recently offered to help Dorsey make this dream come to fruition. Additionally, Morgan Creek Capital founder Anthony Pompliano supported Dorsey’s statement noting that, “Jack Dorsey may understand the future better than any entrepreneur on the planet right now.” Conclusion This year we saw Kik, Telegram and Facebook Libra face fierce backlash from the most powerful regulatory body in the world, the SEC. We saw the Chinese government announce that they are all in on blockchain development and declare the upcoming launch of their own centralized digital Chinese Yuan. Justin Sun postponed his 4.56-million-dollar lunch with billionaire investor Warren Buffet because of health issues, while Jack Dorsey the CEO of Twitter proclaimed a more decentralized and open version of Twitter to prevent some of the abuse on the platform. In 2019, the 4-year long Craig Wright and Satoshi Nakamoto saga continued, and we finally are moving closer to the much-anticipated Bitcoin halving event of May 2020 that could change the trajectory of the Bitcoin price for much of 2020 and 2021. It is clear 2019 has been an incredible year for the blockchain industry. With no shortage of uncertainty and scepticism in the short-term, it is likely that 2019 will pale in comparison to the developments of 2020. As we approach 2020, the industry will continue to expand towards mass adoption and the mainstream evolution of blockchain technology. Nevertheless, with the global regulatory blockchain environment evolving in many areas across the world, the uncertainty in the United States remains stronger than ever. There is no telling what will happen in this regard and what will happen with Bitcoin and this amazing revolution in 2020 and beyond. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from the Aelf Blockchain team and a Happy 2020 to all our community members!! Thank You
Regulation on Fake Credentials and the Growing Role of the Blockchain
[The original article appeared on https://block.co/blog/] Fake credential production can be traced back to the Middle Ages in France and Italy, while nowadays it is punishable by misrepresentation and anti-fraudulent laws pretty much everywhere globally, with prison sentences of up to ten years. Although the type of crime and punishment differs from country to country, our research found that often there isn’t a specific regulation related to the submission of fake credentials and in that instance, authorities rely on existing rules linked to fraud, forgery, and misrepresentation. In the case of institutions faking academic qualifications, a concept is known as “diploma mill” or “degree mill”, a fraudulent organization that appears as an educational institution and grants worthless degrees for a fee. One of the most shocking examples of a reputable academic institution being involved in such illicit activity is the University of Wales, a 120-year old institution and the second largest in the country. Due to a series of fraudulent credential episodes linked to overseas partner colleges, that irreversibly ruined the reputation of the university, it had to cease to exist in 2011. Surely, credential fraud is becoming more common and sophisticated, especially after the rise of the internet. But so are laws and regulations that are trying to crack down on such offenses. One striking example in the bitcoin and blockchain sphere is the case of Craig Stephen Wright, who has repeatedly presented forged documents and credentials in order to appear as Satoshi Nakamoto to the world. His case is still ongoing and it’s still unclear if, and to what extent, he will be convicted but it gives us an idea of the impact credential frauds can have on any given field. https://preview.redd.it/hhqab1jokg451.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=702249c316c53167a541396b9b85453f6be11df3 In the USA a series of separate investigations conducted by the FBI and other United States agencies in the ’80s led to the infamous Operation Dipscam (Operation Diploma Scam) which resulted in more than 20 convictions and the closing of 39 diploma mills. Fraudulent activity in the US dropped massively in the aftermath of the investigation. However, lack of further action by the government, dissimilar state laws, and the rise of the internet have unfortunately invalidated some of the outcomes obtained during the operations. As laws on submission of fake credentials differ from state to state in the US, let’s look at some examples. InNorth Dakota, since 2003 it is illegal to issue or produce fraudulent academic credentials and punishable with up to five years in prison and/or a fine up to $25,000. Also, submitting fake credentials to obtain a job or admission to the education system could result in a one-year term of imprisonment and/or a $2,000 fine. In Virginia since 2008 anyone who issues, manufactures, or knowingly uses fraudulent academic credentials can be found guilty of a crime and punishable by a maximum one-year jail sentence and fines up to $2,500. In New Jersey, the use of a fraudulent degree is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each offense. In other countries, the state of affairs is quite diversified too, from lack of specific regulation to tough laws or jurisdictions that focus on prevention activities. Most recently, in South Africa, President Cyril Ramaphosa has passed a law to toughen up the submission of fake credentials. Anyone presenting fraudulent academic qualifications or misleading curriculum might face up to 5 years in jail and/or unspecified fines according to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Amendment Act 2019. Similarly, the regulation applies to educational institutions that award fraudulent qualifications. In the rest of the African continent, laws and regulations on the matter are more uncertain and at times nonexistent. Higher education and corruption are strictly linked to a lack of access to universities. According to UNESCO, although enrollment in higher education has grown faster in Sub-Saharan Africa than in any other region of the world, still only around 7% of the population was enrolled in 2010. Subsequently, in order to gain admission to a degree program of choice, the bribing practice has increased in most universities in the region. In Saudi Arabia, presenting fake credentials may result in a fine of up to €170,000 and imprisonment from one to seven years, and in the case of non-nationals deportation and a life ban from entering the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may apply. In the UAE the convicted shall be sentenced to up to ten years of imprisonment. Also in Qatar authorities have started to take the issue very seriously. Dr. Khalid Al Jaber, former Editor-in-Chief of the national newspaper Peninsula, suggested that “fraudulent engineers, doctors, and accountants be publicly named and shamed.” One of the first tough sentences in the country, saw an Indian ex-pat facing up to three years in jail for faking a degree to get a promotion at work. Alongside new regulations, everywhere there is an increasing debate on how to prevent forgery in education and other fields. In China, for instance, the CDGDC (China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center) has provided a free China degree verification service since July 2018. The service, other than free, is also extremely simple to use with a report that can be downloaded, printed, and cross-checked online and the electronic degree verification report issued in Chinese. Soon there will be no need for a third-party verification; wide adoption of the blockchain will result in accurate, unforgeable, immutable, and time-stamped documents that will save time and money to governments and institutions alike. https://preview.redd.it/dn5iqveykg451.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3db785f7b312071ac0b719ea05b8ebadcc273a8c The University of Nicosia and Block.co can help provide the necessary technical expertise to follow the whole process from creation to publication on the blockchain where the document will be safely stored for life and where it can be independently verified by any third party. They were the first ones to do it globally as early as 2014. For more info, contact [Block.co](mailto:Block.co) directly or email at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]). Tel +357 70007828 Get the latest from Block.co, like and follow us on social media: ✔️Facebook ✔️LinkedIn ✔️Twitter ✔️YouTube ✔️Medium ✔️Instagram ✔️Telegram ✔️Reddit ✔️GitHub
The Australian government may have inadvertently backed CSW's company, Cloudcroft Supercomputers Australia, to the tune of up to $54 million. Business incubator AusIndustry provides research and development support through its R&D Tax Incentive Scheme. Under the scheme, a company which turns over less than $20 million is eligible to apply for a cash rebate of 45 cents for every dollar spent on research and development activity.
Opponents claim that the supercomputer never existed, with the only evidence being a ZDNet article where SGI stated to them that "SGI has no record of the CO1N supercomputer ever being purchased or serviced from SGI, therefore SGI suspects it may have been purchased on the grey market," Conceicao said. "SGI does not operate, maintain, or provide any services for this supercomputer.
It has since come to light that SGI may have actually sold the hardware direct, contrary to local distribution agreements under an NDA. This is quite common (although dodgy) practice in direct to manufacturer deals. Basically the distributor is losing their commission, hence the need for an NDA. There is no hard evidence that this is the case, but it is totally plausible. Anybody in manufacturing and distribution knows that these kind of grey market deals happen every day.
There is some evidence of the C01N supercomputer existing.
There are transcripts of interviews with the ATO dated 18th Feb 2014 (long before the whole media circus, and unrelated to the Supercomputer fiasco) with discussions about mining Bitcoin in 2009. If you read the discussion, it is about Business Activity Statements and specifically arguing whether Bitcoin is a currency or a commodity. Is the community really persecuting somebody for going up against the tax man as a proponent of Bitcoin?
So it's quite possible that there was a stretch of the truth here, if he indeed did state that he'd completed that second PhD when he was still researching (first is in Theology believe it or not). I would hardly call this damning evidence, with which to publicly hang him. It's not like he just made up some fake degree and ran around telling everybody he's a Doctor. If there are other places besides LinkedIn where he said he actually had the completed degree, I'd be interested to see that. Either way - he now has it.
The whole CSW is Satoshi thing.
Wow, I don't know where to start with this one, as I don't even know where I stand on it without hard evidence either way. What I will say is that if CSW claiming to be Satoshi is a complete scam, it's an incredibly detailed and elaborate one, involving a lot of people, that was meticulously planned - until the exit plan. If this is true, how did he screw up the end so badly? What was his plan to finish the scam on a win? I'm not going to weigh too much of my opinion on this because I am still open to new facts and arguments, except to say that at this point I believe CSW was probably involved in Bitcoin from the very early stages, and that it is at least plausible that he and Dave Kleiman had an involvement in the beginnings of Bitcoin. It also seems plausible that whoever Satoshi is, he (or they) does not want to be known. There could be many legal and Tax implications for the real Satoshi. Whatever the real story, it is not black and white. I'm just going to leave some of my research trail here and you can make up your own minds: To get a solid overall picture, this article by Andrew O'Hagan is a good start and worth the long read. An article relating to the Trust with Dave Kleiman in Seychelles holding 1,100,111 BTC. If this is actually for real, it would explain why CSW does not have access to Satoshi keys or coins. Again, the ATO interview from 2014 discussing bitcoin related issues from 2009 Gizmodo Article about CSW and Dave K The Wired article claiming CSW to be a hoax, based on the supercomputer, the LinkedIn profile and the missing keys. And no other evidence. Forbes spreading the accusations further, causing them to be more widely accepted as fact. More opinions More reports that the ATO were after "the creator of Bitcoin" News that CSW's Australian Business is wound up. Again, no mention of any charges or fraud. Something interesting that maybe somebody else can get more out of than me. TLDR I see a lot of people slinging mud, but not a lot of actual facts being tossed around. Before you just join the chorus of regurgitation, do what I did and try to discover some real facts for yourself. If all of the accusations are fabricated, then you must ask yourself who is fabricating it and why? What are their motives? Is there a deeper story? And if you do find anything supporting either side of the arguments, I'm open ears and open mind. Just expect me to question your sources and to ignore statements of fact that can't be backed up.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
Craig S Wright's email to Dave Kleiman is provably false
In the infamous "leak" published by gizmodo and supposedly outing Craig Wright as Satoshi, there is an email that - if true - would be a real bomb. it is dated march 12th 2008 and it reads:
I need your help editing a paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin... You are always there for me Dave. I want you to be part of it all. I cannot release it as me. GMX, Vistomail and Tor. I need your help and I need a version of me to make this work that is better than me. Craig
( https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/knlyk7dpjqucpmiojhs8.png ) This mail wants to show that the early idea of bitcoin came from Wright to Kleiman, and not the other way around. Needless to say, it is extremely suspect. One thing I have found is that not only it is suspect, but it is provably false. The domain information-defense.com from which this email supposedly originates (the sender is [email protected] ) was only registered by Wright on jan 23rd 2009, when he registered the Australian company "Information Defense PTY". BTW, this was just a couple weeks after the blockchain started, and this company is somehow the predecessor of the similarly named American company "W & K Info Defence Ltd" controlled by Kleiman and later passed back to Wright. The fact is, I believe "Information Defense PTY" is indeed related to bitcoin mining, but I think it's pretty likely that Wright forged that email in order to establish a priority over Kleiman. That domain wasn't his in march 2008. Gizmodo explains the problem saying:
pointing to the likelihood that its registration lapsed and was later renewed, which would explain the discrepancy
Someone is saying "Wright MAYBE ad access to that address even if the domain wasn't in his name" Please note that subject of that email: "Defamation and the diffculties of law on the Internet." This subject comes from a thread that was taking place in those days on the "Security basics" mailing list, where Wright and Kleiman were interacting A message from Wright: http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Ma144 Kleiman's reply to him: http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Ma147 (it's an interesting read, it tells a lot about the relationship between the two) As you'll notice, in that very thread Wright was using his usual address @bdo.com.au How likely is it he'd use a different address for an email with the same subject in the very same day?
Fact: Craig lived in Australia during the Satoshi period. The time zone means that, to be Satoshi, Craig would have almost never posted between 3pm and midnight, local time. His peak posting times would have been between 2am and 9:30am. This is practically the opposite of what one would expect.
Fact: Craig’s own mother admits that he has a habit of fabricating stories.
 - This link may be relevant.  - Why would Satoshi do this?  - Sounds like Satoshi, huh?  - I urge you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s whitepaper Now, before the deluge of comments about how ”it doesn’t matter WHO he is, only that WHAT he says aligns with Satoshi’s vision”, I’d like to say: Is it of absolutely no relevance at all if someone is a huge fraud and liar? If it’s not, then I hope you’ve never accused anyone of lying or being a member of ‘The Dragon’s Den’ or a troll or of spreading FUD. I hope you’ve never pre-judged someone’s comments because of their name or reputation. I hope you’ve only ever considered technical arguments. That said, I am not even directly arguing against anything he’s currently saying (other than random clear lies). I’ve never said anything about Blockstream, positive or negative. I’ve never expressed an opinion about what the ideal block size should be right now. My account is over 6 years old and I post in many different subs. Compare that with these (very popular!) users who frequently call me a troll or member of the ‘dragon’s den’ (with zero facts or evidence):
Bitcoin (BTC) vs. Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision (BSV) - Battle
There's arguments to be made for the potential profitability of any cryptocurrency as most/if not all derive their value from speculation to an extent. I'm not trying to argue that piece in this attempt to have people state their case for either BTC or BSV. I am pro BTC and anti BSV only for the reason that BSV was created by Craig Wright. Craig Wright is considered a fraud to most as he can't produce solid evidence that he is Satoshi. Does that really matter? To a lot it does but lets try to frame this debate from a more technical aspect. After talking to a pretty well versed Crypto Trader and BSV Evangelist this is what he thinks BSV will fix:
Transaction Fees are too high
The Lightning Network will cause a decrease in transactions on-chain - a disincentive for BTC miners
Block size limits don't mesh with a free market as arbitrary limits decrease flexibility
Rewards (he used "subsidies") will decrease with the halvings and the incentive will only decrease for miners
Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPS) and Pull Requests (PRs) have to get approved by 5 GitHub Key Holders
My response to his arguments (mostly in line with what a BTC minimalist would argue):
Transaction fees are too high but that will be fixed/decreased by more widespread use of the Lightning Network
LN on chain confirmations will still produce enough volume to create an incentive for miners (also not everyone will use LN)
The block size limitations argument from a free market perspective is not really an argument - didn't engage
Halvings will naturally drive BTC's value higher as BTCs become more scarce which will offset the 50% reduction
For the BIPS/PRs and the GitHub Key Holders - I had no response. It's not something I was really tracking
If anyone would like to share their knowledge on this subject, primarily the centralization aspect of BTC, that would be much appreciated to helping me and others understand. Please keep the conversation civil and no shills of other coins, I'm not here to argue vs others.
Moreover, Wright has been telling the public he invented Bitcoin for well over four years. David Kleiman (left) and Craig Wright. Additionally, the Wired and Gizmodo articles, as well as documents ... In April 2019, Craig Wright began arguing with a Twitter user called "Hodlnaut," a bitcoin user who became known for the "Lightning Torch" experiment, which was a promotional demonstration of the Lightning Network's capabilities. After achieving a large Twitter following, Hodlnaut made public posts criticizing Wright, who later sent Hodlnaut a letter accusing the Twitter user of being a "fraud ... Craig Wright is a fraudster who claims to be the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. There has been no concrete evidence presented in favour of Wright's claim. There is overwhelming evidence against his claim, yet Wright was able to get lots of media coverage by sympathetic journalists with a limited understanding of technology after Wright tricked or bribed a couple of Bitcoin figureheads ... By Craig Wright 16 Apr 2019 Bitcoin & Blockchain Tech. At the time, Wikipedia wanted to remove the page. There wasn’t anything good that had been published which detailed and described Bitcoin other than the white paper. Wikipedia requires referencing, and the only thing I could find to try and link it to is what’s in the references there. Then, people would take away the wrong concept ... Craig Wright published the cryptographic signature in his block that according to researcher Dan Kaminsky and Jeff Garzik was a scam. 5 May 2016, Wright sent around an e-mail with a link to the new story: "Craig Wright faces criminal charges and serious jail time in the UK." Wright stated that "I am the source of terrorist funds as bitcoin creator or I am a fraud to the world. At least a fraud ...
Is Institutional Money REALLY Coming into Bitcoin and Crypto?? THE TRUTH [Audio Footage]
Satoshi-claimant Dr. Craig Wright reveals his chances to receive the keys to the $8 billion Bitcoin fortune and bluntly expresses his opinions on the crypto community. Get your Cointelegraph merch ... Craig Steven Wright (born October 1970) is an Australian computer scientist and businessman. He has publicly identified himself as the main part of the team that created bitcoin, and has ... Bitcoin & WikiLeaks Julian Assange - Craig Wright, CZ & Hodlonaut BEEF News Finanzielle Freiheit dank Kryptowährungen. Loading... Unsubscribe from Finanzielle Freiheit dank Kryptowährungen ... Hallo zusammen, in der heutigen Folge erkläre ich euch wie Bitcoin technisch funktioniert und welche Unterschiede es bei den Nodes und Wallets gibt. Viel Spaß! Bitwala - JETZT 35€ sichern! Nur ... Hallo und Herzlich Willkommen zu einer neuen Ausgabe von Finanzielle Freiheit Dank Kryptowährungen! HIER GEHT ES ZU DEN FFDK STEEL-PLATES: https://ffdk.acade...