BTC conspiracy

[Anonymous No.49462215]

I read several comments saying something like “some company” took control of BTC core out of the hands of Satoshi, and handicapped it on purpose, removing many key features. Possibly this was done by credit card/electronic payment companies in order to maintain the status quo, and reduce the threat by BTC. Somehow this is connected to the alleged hack reported by Dr Wright (and his claimed list of the original BTC wallet). But, then, the discussion degenerates between BSV shills and fuds. \\
Now, I’m in business since 2014, but I’ve not been interacting with any community for a lot of time. At the time, I used to trade stocks and I didn’t invest in crypto until very recently. \\
What I ask is wether this story was true and at what level of probability. Or at least if there was something true in all this. I do not believe much in the statements of Dr Wright, since it does look strange that no BTC has been touched from Satoshi’s wallet until now. That contradicts all psychological studies upon theft. \\
BTW, this cannot actually prove false the first part of the story. I’d like to know much.
PS: I am not shilling the BSV coin in some shady way. Personally I wouldn’t buy it, but I cannot argue consistently against it.

[Anonymous No.49462274]

*claimed loss, sorry

[Anonymous No.49462560]

No one?

[Anonymous No.49462769]

>BSV
KEK
/thread

[Anonymous No.49462945]

You don’t have the ability of reading.
Answer my question - which is independent on any consideration about BSV - if you can. Otherwise lie in the left tail of the IQ distribution.

[Anonymous No.49463059]

>>49462945
in reality creggy knows something or someone, I doubt he had much to do with the project. He knows enough to keep with the "I am satoshi scam".
Either real satshi is a group of people and some are dead and he knows or hes trying to lure the real satoshi out.

as for the credit card company conspiracy. Look at market caps BTC is bigger then all the CC companies. so it didnt work if then even tried

[Anonymous No.49463093]

>>49462215

Satoshi never existed, it was always the government along with some companies

I think BSV never had anything to do with BTC, they just want to get some credit

[Anonymous No.49463135]

Essentially… thatsbtcnotbitcoin.com?

[Anonymous No.49463385]

@94g3fUh6
I believe more the second hypothesis concerning Wright.
About the cc conspiracy. I see a fallacy in your point. Maybe the cc ruined those parts of BTC making it a payment method. Also the gold has a mc way bigger than any cc, but this does not make it any good as cash. BTC looks like gold for me, with some additional benefit, like a certain ease of transport and conservation.

@ZLbBsyQb
The first statement is arbitrary. The second one is the most probable also to me.

@mqor5Ejw
This website contains a more articulated version of the theory I quoted, but it is of no help when it comes to prove things.

[Anonymous No.49463593]

>>49463093
Indeed. A "Satoshi" individual never existed. The real "Satoshi" was multiple people; Bitcoin was created by the NSA and possibly several other agencies. It was not a 1-man project. It was a government project.

NSA paper from 1996: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm

>even talks about the "double spend" problem

Interesting to note is that there's a "Tatsuaki Okamoto" there. Not only does Okamoto sound similar to Nakamoto, but if you rearrange the letters a bit you can get pretty close to Satoshi Nakamoto.

TATSUAKI OKAMOTO
SATO__I _AKAMOTO (discarded: T, U and K)

The extra needed letters are S, H and N.

The NSA created SHA 256, which Bitcoin uses.

S and H can be found in "SHA 256".
Remove S and H from "SHA 256" and left is "A 256".
The 14th letter of the alphabet is N.
A is the 1st letter.
So "A 256" equals "1 256".
1+2+5+6 equals 14.
So, "SHA 256" = SHN <--- the extra needed letters missing in "SATO__I _AKAMOTO".

And no, the glowie Craig Wright isn't Satoshi, because a Satoshi individual never existed, however clearly he was involved in at least some manner. It seems he was later tasked with playing the role of "Satoshi" to keep the "Satoshi the individual" myth alive and to be a controlled opposition of sorts. This explains a lot of things.

[Anonymous No.49464157]

is true

[Anonymous No.49464167]

Satoshi is dead or Satoshi/Bitcoin is a government project.

If Satoshi was an individual, he's NOT ALIVE. Anyone claiming Satoshi is a living individual is absolutely a paid shill of some sort. But there also exists paid shills who say "Satoshi is [INSERT NAME] who is dead". Such shills exists as well. Likewise, their purpose is ALSO to muddy the truth and to divert attention away from whoever/whatever Satoshi was. So just because an individual is dead and looks like he could've had the skills to create Bitcoin, that doesn't mean he was Satoshi. And again, Satoshi might never even have been an individual in the first place as already pointed out.

Why must Satoshi be dead or be the government?

Because the massive faggot Craig Wright wouldn't be able to strut around claiming to be Satoshi * without any worry that Satoshi would suddenly move his coins. Which would completely destroy Craig instantly. So Satoshi is dead, and Craig knows that. Or, alternatively, he knows Bitcoin was some sort of government creation.

Furthermore, and this is important: Craig GLOWS. He has NSA and DHS and other glowy connections.

And Craig's grandfather (very few anons know about this):
>>/biz/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=craig+nsa+grandfather
>>/biz/thread/S19822847#p19826813
>his grandfather is responsible for furthering communism and white genocide

And don't misunderstand; this isn't a convoluted anti-Bitcoin post. I'm not saying you should sell your coins. Just because it may have started out as a government creation doesn't make it bad. The Internet itself was a government/military creation, and look what happened to it. Nor is this post anti-BSV or anti-BCH. BTC was indeed technologically crippled. Yet fact remains Craig glows brightly as hell, and his "vision" of crypto, what he wants to achieve, glows as well.

----

* (if he was, he wouldn't have needed to fake blog posts, and other stuff, to make it look like he was working on Bitcoin).

[Anonymous No.49464222]

bitcoin was always meant to scale with big blocks

[Anonymous No.49464320]

bitcoin is a protocol. changing the protocol creates a new different protocol that no longer functions the same as the original. Calling a drastically altered protocol by the originals name is little more than bad faith marketing.
only bsv can claim to be bitcoin as only bsv maintains the original protocols functionality

[Anonymous No.49464716]

>>49462215
Yes, that's true. Sell your btc. We don't need you in a citadel.

[Anonymous No.49464870]

>A massive and far-reaching tech conspiracy has been undertaken by bankers who still struggle to open PDF's and government agencies
or
>A PoW protocol bootstrapped together ten years ago has run into issues scaling efficiently
Hmmmm

[Anonymous No.49465842]

I am ignoring everything concerning Wright, since it is just useless. Was he Satoshi, he would have already moved the coins and he would not have needed to create the BSV scam. The same holds true for anyone who could have stolen the BTC original wallet.
I focus on the tech conspiracy. Is it possible to prove that the code has been crippled?
Why people stick to BTC if either it has been manipulated by someone or it showed scalability limits? Is it possible to speak with people working for Blockstream and verify part of the information we have?

[Anonymous No.49466240]

>>49463593
Are there more papers from NSA from around this time regarding cryptology?

[Anonymous No.49466495]

>>49463593
>>49464167

You're probably right in that it was some governmental body creating it. But for what goal? Was it to undermine financial systems in place? Was it created by a rogue faction of people or some actual team under some direct supervision/goal of a higher authority?

And once again, why leak it to the public in such a simple way? A post on a forum to other normies? It's literally like Prometheus giving us fire. The only problem with the analogy is that prometheus was punished for his deed.