What's so hard to follow ? He produced the documents HIMSELF and retracted them only when it was clearly established they wrere forgeries.
There is not a SINGLE piece of evidence of a hacking.
Keep entertaining us with your BS. You are one more proof that BSV shills suffer from heaby brain damage.
You are clearly the one with brain damage here as you are unable to comprehend that if the judge orders you to provide documents matching certain criteria, then you have to follow that order regardless whether the documents are forgeries or not.
What is worse, you assume there to be "hacking" which I never mentioned. You don't need to hack into a company if you are already employed by the company.
The documents were found from compromised computers. That alone is enough to discard them as evidence. Get your brain damage fixed and then let's talk.
Are you going to make with the proof that CSW is Satoshi or what? You know it as a fact. Share why with us.
Unlike the contributors of this thread with which you are arguing, you've produced no evidence of anything other than that you have a huge ego.
Thus far you have simply attempted to "win the argument" via personal attacks and logical fallacies.
Produce your evidence or shut up.
So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?
ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.
You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.
To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes,
I know for a fact, that
Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the
person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have
empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
