/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12105023
When this dick is gone we'll enjoy the golden bull
STIFF

>Actually believing bitcoin was invented by a person named “Craig”

CRAIG hahahhahaha

Metanet is gonna legitimize BSV as the rral bitcoin. It's unironically depressing howany people don't see what's coming while it's in plain sight

https://pastebin.com/raw/6rCLZbai

>>12105068

Based and blackpilled

>>12105091

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybvQ1YwcF-0

Gonna be dumping some good stuff in this thread

>>12105177

>>12105182

>>12105189

>>12105225

>>12105228

>>12105262

>>12105265

he is so senpai

>>12105274

>>12105288

>>12105296

>>12105319

>>12105348

>>12105384

>>12105387

>>12105391

that guy is a fucking fraud...when are we going to ignore him?

>>12105393

God damnit he is such a fraud !!!
Aaaaaahhhhhh !!!!

>>12105453

>>12105225

Damn

>>12105471

>>12105474

>>12105477

>>12105483

>>12105481

I'm posting the most important thread on this board right now. It's not my fault you all haven't caught up yet.

>>12105091
LOL, I can post something similar right now and make it out like I am Satoshi. This is the dumbest thing I have seen that is being used to prove Craig as Satoshi.

Is Craig the most intelligent person alive today?

>>12105502

"If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry."

>>12105502
This tweet is directed at you.

>>12105506
>>12105522

Based

>>12105170
LOL threatens nick about not knowing much about btc... I can post actual evidence. In a video where Craig says btc is Turing complete after nick says it is not. What a joke. Craig is full on brainlet.

>>12105490
Yep I agree, continue

holy shit

>>12105535
Cosy Satoshi thread is cosy

>>12105536

Dude, you can literally see the wheels turning in Nick's head as he realizes he is wrong in that video. Joseph VaughnPerling backs up Craig and says he is correct shortly after.

I already posted the "evidence". Second link in OP.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/884y7k/bitcoin_is_indeed_turing_complete/

You're wrong.

>>12105182
Dude can't even write the abbreviated version of megabits per second.

>>12105577

>>12105288
This is a tweet you would expect from an edgy 15 year old.

>>12105589

>>12105520
Half your posts just show that Craig has some IT security experience and an insane need to claim he is Satoshi and the other half literally show he is a bit of a brainlet. It's funny how you post all of this not knowing the difference.

>>12105481
I laughed.

Imaginr worshipping a fraud and thinking you're important because of it

>>12105731
Respecting senior devs is not something new.
All shills matter, its all about spreading the knowledge.
If you don't believe it or don't get it, I don't have the time to try to convince you, sorry.

>>12105716

I don't need to make any distinctions. John Matonis, Ian Grigg, Joseph VaughnPerling and Gavin Andressen (among others) have. I'll listen to them instead.

>>12105752
Lmao imagine not having any evifence and then claiming you don't have time to have any evidence anyways

Cope for believing in a fraud

>>12105771

I've given plenty of evidence. I don't have time to convince YOU, because I don't care about you. For every skeptic that comes in here, I gain a bigger audience.

>>12105771
plausible deniability is something normies have a hard time to comprehend.
cope getting burned with your shitcoins.

>>12105797
>I've given plenty of evidence
Nope.

>>12105815

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind you didn't read a single link I posted.

But by all means, keep bumping the thread man.

>>12105824
Why would I? I already know he's a fraud and you're a gullible idiot

>what is sage
Hello newfag

>>12105831

>he doesn't know how to use bitcoin OR 4chan

>>12105843
You don't know what sage is? Thanks for showing how new you are.

>>12105182

Who actually believes these fucking flat out lies? This dumbcunt hasn't even been able to add replay protection to their scam chain and he boasted about this 340gb block over a year ago, where is the capacity he promised you dumb faggots? BCHSV/Faketoshi'sVisionchain almost died after it tried to mine a 64mb block and you really expect this liar to deliver anything but more attention whoring?

>>12105853

Read the thread.

>>12105853
Let them buy their bags from a conman hyping himself up constantly, we get to laugh at the aftermath. They can't think logically so they attach themselves to the loudest personality. Pure darwin at its finest.

>>12105871

https://nchain.com/en/blog/use-cases-re-enabled-op-codes/
https://bitdb.network/

Yep, sure looks like a scam to me.

>>12105880
You're going to lose a lot of your money. I would feel bad for you if you weren't so arrogant.

>>12105560
Brainlet confirmed. Btc is not and has never been Turing complete.

>>12105870

Oh I've read plenty of the fraudster known as Craig Wright. The fact is he can prove he created Bitcoin very fucking easily, but he won't, because he can't, because he isn't.

He's a megalomaniac attention seeking fraud and needs to see a psychiatrist.

>>12105955

>>12105942

>>12105955

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.10116.pdf

Missing Grigg's second post

http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001617.html

>>12106094

Based, thank you

>Remember, I've been around the block. I built Ricardo, I assisted Gary on SOX, I invented Ricardian Contracts, I co-invented or re-discovered triple entry, I worked on a lot of other things which probably don't reach the reader because they're too ex-discipline (like OpenPGP, AES, identity, dispute resolution, PKI, security, social finance, R3's Corda...). I know when someone is talking crap, when someone's drowning in their own sandbox, and when someone is brilliant.

>Craig has more knowledge than just about anyone else I've come across in the field. Certainly of Bitcoin, and a lot besides. Here's the clanger: Craig S Wright has the capability to integrate many diverse fields. He's a polymath, which is the roadblock that stops most others no matter how good they are at their select discipline. That's what I mean by transcendent financial cryptographer on this blog, and what I wrote my old fc7 paper about; it's not about what you know, it's about how you integrate the disparate, discordant fields together.

Let's break it down.

Firstly, we all on this list know that cryptographic keys prove that a
private key did a maths transform that a public key can confirm. Full Stop.

What cryptographic proofs do not confirm is that a human said something
meaningful to another human. Indeed, the more that the Bitcoin community
and the tabloid press demand a proof-of-spend and examine the results
they're given, the more it demonstrates how humans seem to be isolated
by cryptography not joined.

In theory, keys are mathware, humans are wetware and the two do not
easily mix.

How does this play out in real life? We know that the human experiment
known as cryptographic signing has failed. We know that there is at
least one tiny little country - Estonia - clinging to the European dream
of using smart cards to identify humans, but statistically the world has
failed to make human signing with public key cryptography work. People
write books about this, I simply point it out as a significant data
point of where many thousands of people really really tried to use keys
to prove meaningful human things. And failed.

>>12106106

Let's get more topical. There are strident, demanding calls for people
who make statements concerning the identity of one said Satoshi Nakamoto
to back those statements up with cryptographic proof. Yet these demands
are .. unfounded, and that is the kindest thing that could be said about
them. Why?

Anyone offering information to the world has no necessary call to offer
more information. When I say that Craig Wright was the leader of the
team known as Satoshi Nakamoto, I do not contract to say more. Nor did
Gavin or Jon or others in any sense contract to say more than they did.
They don't owe anyone anything. Even if they made errors, it is not on
them to correct them. "Extraordinary claims calls for extraordinary
proof" is only a standard for academia, it has little place in human
affairs, especially in that democratic tradition known as open
discourse, nor in the human standards of proof that have been honed over
a thousand years of legal history.

In fact, I contracted to say less - as well all do, when we join the
encryption business, we covenant to keep peoples' privacy. When I
started what became Project Prometheus a few years ago, I promoted their
privacy as a goal - because the team known as Satoshi Nakamoto asked for
their privacy by posting here in 2008 and disappearing entirely 2 years
later. Now, when I come out and say that Craig Wright was the leader of
Satoshi Nakamoto, it is only because he himself finally announced it. I
remain committed to privacy even if the community Satoshi wrought is
revealing themselves to be a pack of rabid statist wolves looking to rip
the wool off of the backs of the sheep that they call their customers
and future users.

>>12105506
The greatest thinker since Hume

>>12106110

Sorry, guys, it gets worse, and I hope the Bitcoin community dissolves
itself in collective shame as to their inability to even contemplate
protecting their own.
As we know in cryptographic affairs, key management is hard. Keys can be
lost. Misplaced. Traded. Breached and stolen. Keys can be spoofed - we
have an entire cryptographic security system called SSL/HTTPS which is
blighted by phishing, based on misuse of cryptographic proof of
identity. Let's not go into the details, but I shall revise here FTR the
claim of secure browsing: the identities are cryptographically proven.
Which apparent claim does not reveal itself to the humans in sufficient
reliability in order to defeat basic common or garden social
engineering. If the IETF's biggest, bravest and most educated can fail
to protect the browsing public from the obvious, known and counted
threat, what hope the rest?

Even if the above were not sufficient, let me get precise and particular
as to why the Proof-of-Satoshi is dead-on-arrival. There are several
facts which apply in this case.

Firstly, Satoshi Nakamoto is not one human being. It is or was a team.
Craig Wright named one person in his recent communications, being the
late Dave Kleinman. Craig did not name others, nor should I. While he
was the quintessential genius who had the original idea for Bitcoin and
wrote the lion's share of the code, Craig could not have done it alone.
Satoshi Nakamoto was a team effort.

Indeed, a sort of proof is right there in front of you - when you look
at Craig Wright, you do not see Satoshi. When you look at Satoshi
Nakamoto, you're seeing some measure of the influence of Dave Kleinman,
and it isn't possible for Dave to prove anything anymore to anyone.
Team Satoshi is ephemeral, and no cryptographic multisig can now capture
those that aren't around any more.

>>12106114

This team effort was one of a most severe cost to all members of that
team, and only privacy is holding us back from recognising it.

Further, the keys that controlled critical parts were moved several
times between various persons. Which is to say that control of the keys
does not indicate more than the holder being trustworthy to the goals of
the team at a point in time. Even if Craig manages to sign over a coin,
it does not and cannot prove he is "the one," only that he was at one
point in time a trusted member of the team. Albeit, the team that he
founded, but a wise leader controls for all risks, including those risks
posed by the leader himself.

More: control at any time does not necessarily indicate ownership,
either in the minds of the team nor in the eyes of the law. Recalling
the reports of late 2015, can you rule out that the keys haven't been
stolen?

Finally, as has been reported, the headline bulk of the value is
controlled by a trust. Any movement of those coins needs to operate
according to trust rules; if not, then we are in a state of sin. What
that means is not something that can be described in mathematical terms,
but it can certainly be described in hysterical terms - the logic de
jure of the Bitcoin community. As an aside, I really strongly suggest
that the Bitcoin community not press for the breaking of the trust. If
unsure on this point, ask your miners to explain that old curse "be
careful what you wish for." Breaking the trust is way off the scale of
what anyone will desire.

>>12106124

I suggest that it is therefore impossible for any reasonable person to
conclude that a "spend" of a Bitcoin coin proves anything beyond that
the erstwhile signer was at some point in some way related to a key. A
host of factors make the 'proof' too impractical to describe at a press
or media level. And, if we have to call in opposing experts to argue the
case, what's the point of the "proof"?

It is with incredible sadness that I watch an entire community
misunderstand the lesson that Satoshi originally taught - trust in
mathematics to prove accountancy. Yes, cryptography can prove that a
coin is available and disposable pending an attempt to further dispose
it. But the Bitcoin design was deliberately weak when it came to proof
of persons. Especially, when it comes to known and now revealed
weaknesses in the persona once known as Satoshi Nakamoto, there is no
proof in mathematics that can satisfy that community's yearning for yet
another meal.

By all means, take that lamb for yet another feast of slaughter, but do
not soil the good name of mathematics for your Pavlovian hunger.
iang, CARS.

>>12106106
>>12106110
>I say that CSW is Satoshi Nakamoto but I don't have any proof guys -- you shouldn't trust cryptography -- just believe me instead!
lmao who falls for this shit.

>>12105942
I read all your "it's Turing complete if" shitty posts. At the end of the day it is not Turing complete. You can make excuses or change the goal post but nick was right and faketoshi was wrong.

And yet he's never been able to prove he is Satoshi. What's the point of this thread? bsv is dead, the pump failed, time to move on

>>12106147

Alright man, keep telling yourself that. I'm just providing info to reasonable/discerning minds, you're just fertilizer.

>>12106147

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ashleyf/2011/02/06/loopty-do-i-loop/

Learn more, poser.

>>12106248

"Criag Wright is absolutely correct about the distance there is today between developers and assembly and low-level coding and what is called system programming in general. It seems to me that Szabo is conflating the script language with the underlying op codes."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7dwv1d/craig_wright_vs_nick_szabo_on_bitcoin_being/

>>12106273

>>12106248
Since you have probably never coded anything in your life, it can not be Turing complete cause it does not loop. In theory it can use each transaction to loop but there will be a manual process in this. All the ifs don't change the fact it is not Turing complete. Plus he was going on about a 2 stack system which is not available is script.
Anyway this is all moot due to the fact he has had ample opportunity to proof he is Satoshi and has never done it once. And since the proof is so easy and so all encompassing there is no reason not to have done it except for the fact he is a fraud.

>>12106339

What would he have to gain exactly?

Because, it's as simple as this. Brainlets who just learned about basic "crypto" last year and still think "don't trust, verify" is the conceptual peak of modern cryptography will always find reasons to call him a fraud EVEN IF he signed anything. Smart people do research, watch his videos and read through the fucking lines. Ergo, he only needs to signal his intelligence to like-minded people instead of introducing a massive liability into his life. It would no doubt crash the market as well, and bitcoin would go through a long and painful existential crisis. He's doing you a favor.

>>12106339
>>12106384

Like seriously, I'm doing you a favor. Read the thread, read every single thing I posted and stop bitching.

>>12106406

>>12106478

>>12106511

>>12106339
>proof

>>12106339
There was literally a paper today on arxiv that proved Bitcoin script Turing completeness

>>12105161

post sacue

>>12105177
>>12105182
>>12105189
>>12105225
>>12105225
>>12105228
>>12105225
>>12105228
>>12105262
>>12105265
>>12105274
>>12105274
>>12105274
>>12105288
>>12105296
>>12105348
>>12105384
>>12105387
>>12105391
>>12105393
look how easily scammed you fucking idiots are.
that isn't even the real craig wright account, this is -
>>12105453
>>12105458

>>12106594

>>12106086

>>12106677

>>12106952
I’ve watched a majority of his videos and read some of his stuff. His IQ is fucking crazy. I’ll try to ask him questions on twitter and he replies within the minute. You know why most people don’t like him ? Because he’s sure of himself. How many people do you know are SURE of themselves. Vitalik has no fucking clue how to scale Ethereum or when it’s coming. Craig is always affirmative. Not many people have this trait. But not many people have created bitcoin either. People are just mad that Craig isn’t ahearing to their anarchist “crypto” movement.

>>12107173

Based, you will do very well for yourself anon.

>mfw too smart for /biz/

>>12107586

>>12107173

Ya I actually engage a lot with him on twitter through my websites account. Really nice guy. Staying pretty stiff through this crash rn too. Need to accumulate more SV though. Only have 11.5 at the moment.

>>12106553

>65 posts by this ID

Anon you should just cut your losses while this faketoshi scamcoin still has some value. Spamming this garbage is not going to affect the price.

Everyone knows Faketoshi is a fraud because he refuses to speak logically and coherently and also obviously because he can't provide a simple proof (ie. signing a transaction from an early bitcoin block)

>>12107785
Yep, people call him a meanie and an asshole and he is actually nice as fuck with a sense of humor as long as you aren't antagonistic or a complete and utter moron. He answers almost every question if you ask nicely, and he engages even with random eggs on twitter if you have something valuable to say.

He's a very based professor.