[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 855 KB, 1152x591, creg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19530765 No.19530765 [Reply] [Original]

I can't stop watching this

https://twitter.com/BitcoinMemeHub/status/1268366834287312897

>> No.19530794

BSVjeets awfully quiet lately.

>> No.19530817
File: 1.05 MB, 1501x1000, 1584084607652.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19530817

what will Calvin do to him

>> No.19530879

B-b-b-but craig really is satoshi guys I s-s-swear!! the ultimate blackpill it’s true it’s true!!!!!

>> No.19530895

>>19530765
4d chess retard

>> No.19530933

>>19530765
dilate

>> No.19531397

>>19530933
I bet creg's pupils were real dilated retching that god awful pile of bullshit out of his mouth.

>> No.19531486

>>19530765
He's right, you know.

A mere signature doesn't prove identity unless you can certify that the signature also belongs to you. Last part is the key.

He's just an ultra sperg trying to make a very literal point.

>> No.19531497

>>19531486
>A mere signature doesn't prove identity
He didn't say "there was no proof of identity", he said "no message was signed".

>> No.19531530

>>19531497
>no message was signed
You cannot sign a message

>> No.19531559
File: 207 KB, 1640x924, 64r6nx1k72821.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19531559

>>19531530
The genesis block contained a message signed by Satoshi.

Based turdbrain.

>> No.19531591

>>19531559
That is just a BitCoin (BSV) message
You cannot sign a message with an identity (i.e. Satoshi cannot sign a message)

>> No.19531611

>>19531591
Whoever has the keys can sign, proving he has the keys.

>> No.19531615

>>19530765

What is that really? He's either a lying sociopath or someone is threatening his life forcing him to keep the charade going no matter what.

>> No.19531616

>>19531486
I bet you think he actually had to leave to attend another meeting too

>> No.19531620
File: 17 KB, 840x431, 1581067407912.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19531620

>>19531530
>You cannot sign a message
my electrum wallet says otherwise

how strange

>> No.19531619

>>19531611
A key is not a proof of identity

>> No.19531622

>>19531591
Yes you can faggot

>> No.19531635

>>19531486
hes not wrong in theory but that still doesnt explain why all those adresses now dont belong to him and he got btfo anyways

>> No.19531641

>>19531619
A key is proof of ownership you absolute turd.

Craig literally said "no message was signed", even though it literally was.

>> No.19531663

>>19531635
>hes not wrong in theory
Except he is, because the message was literally signed despite him literally saying "no message was signed".

>> No.19531713
File: 66 KB, 500x666, 3gxs64.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19531713

>>19531619
If you wanna be an technical faggot, it can be signed anonymously.

>> No.19531729

>>19531619
>>19531591
Whoever signed that “creg is a fraud” message wasn’t trying to prove anything about his identity.
He was merely saying creg is a fraud and doesn’t actually own that address like he claimed.

>> No.19531733

>>19531663
idk he probably didnt take his schizo meds so he probably worded it wrong , hes still a liar and a fraud and hopefully go to jail soon

>> No.19531773

>>19531733
He didn't "word it wrong", he simply cannot bullshit his way out of it.

>> No.19531777

>>19531733
but anon!
if craig is in jail, how will we laugh at his goofy antics?
personally I hope he stays free, with the walls slowly closing in on him, but never enough to crush him

>> No.19531798
File: 62 KB, 800x472, 1324181066730.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19531798

>>19531777
checked

i agree its pretty funny

>> No.19531888

>>19531620
Look up the history of BitCoin and how BitCoin was hijacked by Blockstream, and replaced with the fraudulent Bitcoin Core fork, which fraudulently uses the BTC ticker. BitCoin should have the BTC ticker but unfortunately Blockstream has brainwashed everyone to think that BTC stands for Bitcoin Core, when originally it stood for BitCoin. Coingeek and CraigWright.net are excellent places to start to understand how BitCoin really works, it is just facts, no Blockstream propaganda and fake news. Gregory Maxwell is a psychopath which has threatened to kill Dr Craig S Wright (Satoshi) several times and is known to have funded several terrorist groups and is heavily involved in Blockstream which is essentially run by the Federal Reserve. BitCoin was bought by the banks and subverted into the Bitcoin Core look-a-like which forces 1MB block restrictions in order to force people to use second layer scaling, which allows banks to control Bitcoin Core. The second layer is no different to the oppressive banking system that we know today. If you can understand this, you can understand why the Electrum wallet would use the subversion term "Sign" as Electrum is controlled by Blockstream. Sorry, but you cannot sign a message. You cannot say that you can, because that is untrue. Dr Craig S Wright is not a liar or a fraud, because you cannot sign a message to prove Dr Craig S Wright is a fraud, because you cannot sign a message. I know that this is just you, Gregory Maxwell, because of the sudden surge in responses to my intelligent posts. I know your little tricks, you little shit. You fucking psychopathic monster. I wouldn't wish what you have done to BitCoin upon my worst enemies, but you are worse than my worst enemy. I know that one day, justice will be served. Dr Craig S Wright will put you in jail you fraudulent and criminal, you fucking freak. You post all day on Reddit and 4Chan about how "BSV is bad", "Craig is bad" but you cannot escape the truth. Craig will win.

>> No.19531903

>>19531888
checked

>> No.19531909
File: 248 KB, 442x430, 1583010861979.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19531909

>>19531888
checked but I ain't read all that shit

>> No.19531954

>>19531530
That is literally the point of having private and public key pairs.

>> No.19531987

>>19531486
this. He's "technically right" like a classic sperg.

Of course he's just deflecting the question, but hte interviewer is not smart enough to understand or ask him the right question, sure those keys are not attached to any identity so we dont know who signed, but how do you explain someone else other than you possessing those keys? Is it people from the trust? Did somebody hack/steal the keys? Were these not satoshi mined blocks?

>> No.19532009

>>19531888
None of this has anything to do with Craig saying literal nonsense.

>> No.19532025

>>19531987
>this. He's "technically right" like a classic sperg.
He's not technically right at all.
Craig says "no message was signed" which is complete and utter bullshit.

>> No.19532094

>>19532025
Everyone is already past analyzing what he said at face value, people with >90 IQ understand the what he said is complete bullshit, of course those messages are signed.
But further analysis would suggest that what he perhaps tried to say through his inebriated state, was that whoever did sign the message was not necessarily not him, since an anonymous signer is not associated with any identity.

But that's just a theory.
A craig theory.

>> No.19532130

>>19532094
People just need to stop saying he's "technically right".

>> No.19532140

>>19532025
yea, its kind of a semantics debate which has no sense, depends on how you define the process of digitally signing. In the way most people use the term, that message is signed, now the fact that the signature is not associated with an identity and we don't know who signed is the important part. Creig is just stirring the waters with semantics and being really annoying. But it will be interesting to see how this plays out for him in court... No doubt he's satoshi but he definitely forged a bunch of court documents

>> No.19532150

>>19532140
>depends on how you define the process of digitally signing
It really doesn't.

>> No.19532167

>>19532150
Craig is larping as a lawyer
that's about it

>> No.19532180

>>19532140
I guess you could say the key functions as a pseudonymous identity, thus making it a pseudonymous signature

>> No.19532188

>>19532167
You're giving him way too much credit, which is why he keeps getting away with it.

That message was signed, and he literally said it was not.
There's no second layer here, he's saying 1+1 is not 2.

>> No.19532208

>>19532180
Why are you looking into this so deeply?
Craig literally said "no message was signed". He's literally and objectively wrong.

>> No.19532225

>>19532208
Agreed. I'm just pointing the stupid technical bullshit. Not that it matters because Craig is still an idiot.

>> No.19532255

>>19532188
>You're giving him way too much credit
Well
Listen
He's a liar and a fraud but I really doubt his genuine understanding of cryptography is lower than mine
I'm a fucking retard, while this shit is basically his job, surely he doesn't actually think that the message wasn't signed, that would be complete lunacy, inconceivably stupid, unimaginably retarded. As much as I like to believe he's a complete moron I really don't think it's the case. I firmly believe that he does indeed know what a public and a private key is.

>which is why he keeps getting away with it.
What is he getting away with? Convincing laggard poo in loos that he's sanjay nakamoto?

>> No.19532274

>>19532188
you're just not smart enough to get his autistic response. It's autistic, and just arguing semantics, but that's what craig does all the time if you know him, it's super annoying and autistic, like if you watch the whole interview, he argues a bunch of semantics like that since he likes telling people they are wrong all the time (because of semantics) and bringing the discussion to definitions, partly cause of his autism and law background.

For example, craig claims that bitcoin cannot be mined into existance, it all was issued when bitcoin was released and is distributed to miners as time goes on. Thats another stupid semantics argument which is irrelevant, except on the legal level.

>> No.19532279

>>19531486
>He's just an ultra sperg

Stop trying to meme this gay narcissist as one of us.

>> No.19532303

Don't let the BSVjeets muddy the waters again. He lied, he got BTFO by the real owners of the old btc addresses he claims to own, and we add another entry to the long, long list of fraud, forgeries and lies by faketoshi.
Don't engage BSVjeets as of you're talking to adults, mock them for being the retarded children they are, then sage their scam threads.

>> No.19532315

>>19532255
>What is he getting away with?
Not being 100% outed as a fraud.

He literally tried to say that a message that was signed, was not signed.

>> No.19532332

>>19532274
>>19532255
Creg:
>"no, 1+1 is not 2 because rain is wet"

You:
>"well rain is indeed wet, so technically he's right"

>> No.19532334

>>19530765

What a stupid boy

>> No.19532358

>>19531888
just when i though BSV holders couldnt get anymore schizo, you poop out this walltext

>> No.19532368

>>19532332
Listen anon, I used to be as upset as you about Craig, but it's a futile fight. Either laugh at him, or ignore him. Getting upset over Craig is just what he wants, that's how he lives rent free in your head.

>> No.19532383

>>19532368
Stop giving him so much credit though.

>> No.19532411

>>19531888
What a bunch of bullshit

>> No.19532429
File: 356 KB, 599x510, 1571201014798.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19532429

>>19532383
you're not in a position to dictate the terms of your mental health, buddy
I'm looking out for you
calm down

>> No.19532548

>>19532332
What's the name of this type of reasoning/fallacy? I get tricked by this a lot because i'm an idiot, I want to read up on it more

>> No.19532595

>>19532548
It's pretty much just a non sequitur.

>> No.19532684

>>19532255
>>19532368
>>19532429
You're a fag and you want Craig to be your gay daddy.

>> No.19532754

>>19532332
Creg:
>"no, 1+1 is not 2 because first you need to define the space you are working in, in modulo 2 arithmetics 1+1 is zero"

Me:
>okay that's technically correct but an autistic answer just trying to deviate from the question

>> No.19532771

>>19530765

ahahahahah. so he's saying "we don't know the identity of who signed the message" yes but it's clearly not YOU unless you signed a message saying YOU YOURSELF are a fraud. is that was you did, craig?

>> No.19532789

>>19532754
So this >>19532332

>> No.19532816

>>19531641
>A key is proof of ownership

No lol, this is a thiefs argument. Ownership is a strictly legal construct. Not a cryptographic one.

It's like saying if you steal someone's car keys, you now OWN the car. This is obviously false. You now have possession of the keys (and the car) but you certainly do not own it and you will be charged with larceny.

Ownership of digital assets works the same way.

>> No.19532836

>>19531987
>>19532140
>>19532274
>>19532754
You, as well, are a fag who wishes Craig was your gay daddy.

>> No.19532856
File: 21 KB, 600x315, 1571853820731.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19532856

>>19532816
Are you saying the guy who signed that message stole the key for the wallet from creg?

>> No.19532873

>>19530765
ITT there are still people fudding BSV instead of quietly accumulating what will be the best performing asset of the 2020s baka.

>> No.19532891

>>19532816
are you seriously trying to argue someone stole Craigs keys? So much for being some brilliant coder; gets pwned by script kitties

>> No.19532900

>>19532332
stop being so fucking retarded or i will buy bsv just to spite you

>> No.19532917

>>19532816
Not your keys, not your coins.

>> No.19532918

>>19531729
You still don't know who signed that message. It could be Craig himself. Or those coins could be stolen.

You see, just because a message is signed saying "Mickey Mouse owns this address" doesn't actually mean that it's Mickey Mouse who owns it.

>> No.19532975

>>19532918
>You still don't know who signed that message. It could be Craig himself.
That's not what Craig is saying.
Craig is saying "no message was signed". That includes him.

>> No.19533005
File: 96 KB, 1820x908, yawn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19533005

>>19532856
>>19532891
remind me, what do corecucks say when they are told that craig signed the genesis block for gavin?
also remember the addresses aren't even patoshi wallets
for all anyone really knows, craig is pulling some game for the court case or even wrote the message himself
now go ahead and post your cope memes

>> No.19533031

>>19533005
What does any of this have to do with Craig saying "no message was signed" when it literally was?

>> No.19533094
File: 38 KB, 745x481, welcome_to_law.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19533094

>>19532917
> Thief's argument.

>>19532856
>>19532891
The point is: you don't know who wrote the message, therefore it's NOT actually a signature. A signature, by legal definition, involves proof of identity, but there is no identity attached.

>The purpose of a signature is to authenticate a writing, or provide notice of its source, and to bind the individual signing the writing by the provisions contained in the document.

No provenance of identity = not a signature.

Craig is correct, and you are all brainlets.

>> No.19533124

>>19533094
>The point is: you don't know who wrote the message
That wasn't Craig's point.
Craig's point was "no message was signed".
And also "someone can't go 'hey I've got a key I'm signing'".

>> No.19533148

>>19532684
Anon I literally lost hairs over getting angry about Craig last year
Laugh or ignore
anything else and Craig wins

>> No.19533199

>>19533124
>"no message was signed".

Read >>19533094 again. The message wasn't signed because there is no proof of identity. You can't sign something without provenance, by definition.

So he is correct that no message was signed. A message was broadcast, but not signed.

>> No.19533254

>>19533199
>The message wasn't signed because there is no proof of identity.
You don't need proof of identity to sign.
All you need is the key.

Which is what the person who said "Craig is a fraud" has.

>> No.19533434

>>19533254
>You don't need proof of identity to sign
Yes you do, by the very definition of the word signature.

>> No.19533445

>>19531530
Absolute state of bsvjeets

>> No.19533462

>>19533434
>Yes you do
You literally do not.

All you need is the key.

>> No.19533635

>>19531530
They should start making little pdfs for you pajeets so you can at least understand at least on a basic level how transactions work in BTC.

>> No.19533686
File: 57 KB, 256x256, shrug.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19533686

>>19531616
>I bet you think he actually had to leave to attend another meeting too

well, satoshi is a busy man after all.

>> No.19533708
File: 47 KB, 300x300, 1588218283553.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19533708

this.
Just the other day I lost ownership of my tesla as an individual stole the keys out of my satchel while I was ordering my onions frappucino. Unfortunately I was unable to verify the thief's pgp key so I could not put out an anonymous hit on him. I returned home to tell my wife but to my dismay I only found a woman at home that looked exactly like my wife but was unable to publicly sign the private key I had given her to verify our marriage, claiming it had been left in my tesla. Obviously i moved out immediately as I could not trustlessly verify the identity of this woman claiming to be my wife.

Some time passed and one day I was lucky enough to come across my tesla. Chasing down the young man who had parked it I demanded his pgp key so that i could initiate a ransomware smart contract to blackmail him into returning the private keys of my car to me. To my great relief it turned out this young man was my wife as before I could send the gas to the smart contract he publicly signed a message with my wife's private key. In the end we all laughed, I just have no idea how we ever trusted anyone before bitcoin.

>> No.19533850

>>19533708
>satchel
yikes

>> No.19533939

>>19530817
pinochet him obviously
got the helicopter at hand already

>> No.19534399

>>19533708
dude, you wife is cheating on you...

>> No.19534493
File: 3.17 MB, 466x480, Wrong.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19534493

>>19533462

>> No.19534569

>>19534493
All you need to transact bitcoin is the keys.

>> No.19534825

>>19534569
To transact, yes, but to prove ownership, no.

>> No.19534838

>>19534569
That is a very different argument, but I take your blatant moving of the goalpost as concession.

>> No.19535084

>>19534825
you prove ownership when you transact.

>> No.19535168

>>19534569
>26 posts by this ID

lmao dude where did Craig hurt you?

>> No.19535230

>>19530765
when should I short BSV anons?

>> No.19535241

He's not wrong. Multiple people could possess the private keys. Signing these messages does not mean Craig is not the true owner; it simply means someone signed the messages. Their identity is not known because they are cowards.

>> No.19535418
File: 11 KB, 229x221, browser plugin token.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19535418

>>19530765
holy fucking lol

>uhhh I'm getting a phone call, gotta go!

LOOOOL now imagine having tens of thousands of dollars invested in this man... yikes!

>> No.19535504

>>19535241
>ownership vs control debate
doesnt matter. creg is going to kill himself.
the scam is over now.

>> No.19535535
File: 491 KB, 813x662, mike_knows.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19535535

>>19535504
Cope.

Gregory is going to kill himself.

>> No.19535794

corecucks seething so hard itt
craig is playing y'all like a fiddle its pretty obvious whos really behind the signed message

>> No.19535917

>>19535794
>y'all
mutt q-tard detected
i bet your trailer is hot this time of year? your poverty is genetic. look at your fat mom. you know its true.

>> No.19536350

>>19534838
>>19534825
If you can sign a message, that means you have the keys. And not creg.

>> No.19536621

>>19535241
while it's technically true, because of the nature of these keys and the value of the coins it's unthinkable that anyone would let anyone else know the keys and not swipe to make sure.

it's like leaving a big ass sum of money on a subway bench to fetch it later when you feel like.

>> No.19536672

>>19536621
>technically true
There we go again.

See >>19532332

>> No.19536697

I swear pajeets are getting paid to shill this "technically true" narrative.

>> No.19536842

>>19536672
it's all bollocks of course, technically an asteroid can hit earth in 5 minutes out of nowhere coming with fractional c.

>> No.19537125

Is this fucking autists argument really "this doesn't count because technical ands not a signature as it's anonymous" ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter because it's clearly not fucking him?

>But technically he's correct because a signature proves identity
Well this sure disproves identify doesn't it. Fucking bsvjeets

>> No.19537228

>>19530765
>y-you have to register... uh .... keyservers ... gotta go bye noob

>> No.19537986

technically CSW is SN and BSV is bitcoin

>> No.19538012
File: 32 KB, 1079x378, play_to_win.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19538012

>>19537986
Based and technically true.

>> No.19538122

>>19536697
Their narratives keep getting more and more retarded.

>> No.19538378

>>19536842
looks like earth is still here what happened? damn probabilities!

>> No.19538420

>>19538012
>keeps losing

>> No.19538522
File: 391 KB, 771x1003, Craig_wins.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19538522

>>19538420
You can't stop whining and crying about him, and BSV keeps scaling so obviously he's doing something right.

>> No.19538751

>>19530765
>MUH SEMANTICS
>GTG BYE
Based

>> No.19538928
File: 7 KB, 195x195, 1591359097187.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19538928

>>19530765
Top kek at his answer.

>> No.19539324

>>19532918
>It could be Craig himself.
yeah it makes total sense that he would sign a message that says he's a fraud and then go on record to say that no message was signed
let me guess, are you a /pol/ regular?

>> No.19539402

>>19532816
>her analysis would suggest that what he perhaps tried to say through his inebriated state, was that whoever did sign the message was not necessarily not him, since an anonymous signer is not associated with any

stfu dude...lol stop