Calvin owns it. I doubt Craig even owns the red socks he's actually famous for. He probably arrived at Calvin's office with an old carrier bag wearing a sheet he found in the river. Everything after that is on loan.

You likely need to be in a jurisdiction with terrible laws like the UK where it's even slightly possible that he could win through by assembling a critical mass of fraud. You probably also have to be a high enough profile person so that he can spin the prolonged lawsuit against you as some kind of proof that he's not the scammer he so obviously appears to be.

His UK attorneys appear to be total morons.

They eventually sent me some threatening note about my failure to respond to their demand to identify where I got some link ... to craig wright's public blog.  Two seconds googling showed that it was posted a day prior on reddit.  ... and this demand I supposedly failed to respond to?  They claimed to send it to a public mailing list, which I haven't been on for years ... and who's public list and moderation archives seems to show that the message was never received there.

They subsequently send some long list of demands that I admit to being various people (whom I am not), too funny. (And no, if you didn't get a message about me about it, you weren't one of them: Try harder. )

As far as I can tell they're either drooling idiots of the highest degree or they are knowingly and willfully complicit in the Wright/Ayre criminal enterprise.

Don't be so sure here, given how extremely awful UK libel law is, it is completely plausible that wright could win.  His lawsuits against other people were either tossed for jurisdiction issues or dropped because he was going to focus on McCormack. ... I'm guessing he chose to focus on McCormack because he gauged him to be the most financially vulnerable target.  My understanding is that UK will put the burden of the case substantially on McCormack, then wright will probably saturate him with endless thickets of forgeries, making the defence extremely expensive.

Plus, by failing to pay his court ordered judgement in other cases Wright is demonstrating that the endlessless attorneys fees he's racking up for the defence may still be unrecoverable even if wright loses and the other side is awarded fees.

I'd recommend if anyone did want to protect the public by calling out Wright's fraud more at the risk of a lawsuit, they should make sure they're in a pretty good jurisdiction for it.  California doesn't look bad-- residents in California are protected by state and federal law against UK libel suits specifically, and the criteria for libel under California case law (and the over-poweredness of anti-slapp) are pretty lax on the accused.

If you are in a place where he'll actually sue (like the UK) you're probably signing up for hundreds of thousands of dollars in expense.  There are probably much better ways to spend $100k to take out this conman.  For example,  hiring a lobby firm to put pressure on prosecutors (and the ATO) to take action against him might be an option.

AFAIK the primary difference is that when Wright acted against Adam, Adam didn't make it public and give wright free publicity (I'm not faulting McCormack here-- he needed public support), and Adam appeared to be in a position to outspend Wright.  It's also the case that what Adam said made for a simpler and easily defended case, e.g. more squarely centred on the unambiguous fact that all of wright's "evidence" was fraudulent.  Otherwise, I think it was just a question of having multiple ongoing cases being an extremely poor legal strategy.  It may also be that wright realized that having to provide discovery to adam might end up exposing other actions by wright that he didn't want exposed.

"For the lolz ..."


...

Terry Jacks - Seasons In The Sun
- https://youtu.be/YG9otasNmxI

I honestly don't understand why the BSV thread(s) are allowed to persist!

Is it not perfectly clear to the current owners and moderators of this forum that a "nullity based on a sham" has been perpetrated ?!?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Whilst this forum apparently tries to maintain freedom of speech, I feel it is also important to allow individuals to make informed choices ...

i.e. Caveat emptor "Let the buyer beware" or know your Bitcoin etc.,

Am I to be blamed for posting rebuttals to what have often been personal verbal 'attacks' against me?

Herewith, an example of a deleted message (by PM notification) ...


...

Behind the scenes I'm a very technical and somewhat private individual, whom, due to an unfortunate past (and perhaps unlucky history relative to Bitcoin), I now have a love and hate relationship with it.

Good people I've known in this space have sadly passed away over the years.

I've known honest folks who have had (legally) hard earned funds confiscated or effectively 'stolen' by governments and/or 'the powers that be'.

At times, I've perhaps been imagined as a high-worth individual, but without seeing a dime !?

I've often accurately predicted the future and being powerless to participate in it ...

It's complicated.

TBH trying to continue doing things above board isn't easy whilst maintaining work on privacy systems and trying to forge a cypher-punk path!

...

I try to be an ethical "white hat" Bitcoiner and 'computer person'. Truth is I could've made a lot more Bitcoin by being an unethical "black hat" and probably lived to tell the tale without fear of looking over my shoulder. Many did and continue to do so.

To think the mods on this forum once banned me as a 'spammer' (WT actual F) and that twitter has suspended my various accounts, without rhyme or reason or response - for truth reporting of BSV BS !?

Ulterior motives and setting narratives perhaps !? Self-preservation keeps the crowd alive !? Who knows !?

Hypothetically, I could cause BSV complete and absolute chaos, permitted the right resources of course ...

Quite literally by spinning up around 40-ish nodes (through Tor, proxies and VPN's), eclipsing select BSV pools, nodes and 'resources' whilst simultaneously flooding the mempool and 'big blocks' with vast amounts of pointless data ... all in an afternoons work !? [citation needed]

Eclipse Attacks on Bitcoin’s Peer-to-Peer Network (USENIX 2015)
- https://youtu.be/J-lF0zxGpu0

However, that would most certainly not be ethical or legal. So, no can do.

BSV has already likely destroyed itself through the due legal process. We shall all wait and see.

The law is an ass. Thus, I do not expect justice from an unjust and biased system. It has already been to long for justice to really prevail, in any regard.

Money talks! I'm 99.99999999% (and perhaps a few more 9's) sure that I know who the real Satoshi Nakamoto is ...

He quite literally moved onto other things. Arguably, he got 'rich' off of the back of others and in many regards the misfortunes of others. He of course also put the work in and in fact continues to put the work in, for the just rewards!

The media are always seemingly more interested in a mythopoeia style narrative and reporting ill-gotten gains than they are in any sort of 'truth'.

I'm not surprised Satoshi left us. I seem to remember I originally left before Satoshi!

Perhaps you will understand me better now @nutildah ?

Onward! The "struggle".

Well, it's been a few months now and a few Craig-related things have happened.

This came across my eye today and thought it was worth posting here. It's Square's pushback to a letter sent by Craig's lawyers demanding they remove a hosted copy of the white paper. Their response is that the basis of the claim is not factually represented and have a well-thought list of questions that Satoshi could answer, if Craig were indeed Satoshi:




I doubt they'll respond, of course, but they're pretty legit questions nontheless.

---

Something particularly weird I noticed is that BSV transactions have dwindled tremendously and are much less volatile than before. What's extra weird is that around the same time BSV transactions were ramping down, BCH transactions were ramping up:



BSV had these huge swings in the number of ongoing transactions whereas BCH is relatively stable. But sometime around the end of the year transactions dropped off significantly and are now almost neck-and-neck with BCH.

The orange line is what organic transaction volumes look like:



The other two lines, c'mon, what are you telling me? There was a huge customer exodus from BSV into BCH? Highly unlikely. My theory is that whatever service BSV was employing to boost their transaction load is now working on BCH, for whatever reason. The shift happened during January and now all 3 coins have around the same daily tx volumes, oddly enough.

Finally, I took a look at the hash rates and both BSV and BCH declined starting late Oct., right when BTC was picking up in price.



So BCH's hash rate is going down but its "usage" is up -- way up -- like 10x up this year. Doesn't make sense.

I am currently making a research paper. Through linguistic analysis, I am trying to see who is likely to be the autor of all the Satoshi posts on this forum. And funnily enough, CSW just happens to be the farthest from Satoshi out of all of my control samples :D

Absolutely zero surprise here, do you have a link to the paper?

Careful that the shillboy scammers don't try to poison your dataset.