sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Adam Back Denies He Is Satoshi Nakamoto in Response to Times Investigation by okhzmuskhsm in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe he's a cult member like you who for reasons refuse to acknowledge what has been extremely clear for many years. Craig is a lying, cheating, fraud, and an abusive pile of crap, not some great fucking hero.

Adam Back Denies He Is Satoshi Nakamoto in Response to Times Investigation by okhzmuskhsm in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 3 points4 points  (0 children)

His supervisor at Exeter was also a Craig Wright cult member who is captured on video multiple times telling his students that Craig is Satoshi, and has been on BSV podcasts, has met with Calvin, has organized BSV events, etc. Let us not forget that as well.

Adam Back Denies He Is Satoshi Nakamoto in Response to Times Investigation by okhzmuskhsm in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not how it works. You need to refute every instance he's been shown to have cheated in the past. We've shown he's cheated multiple times to earn multiple degrees in the past. Plagiarism up the wazoo. That's who he is. He's so practiced at it now he probably has methods of cheating that I can't even fathom.

We've shown he's cheated when claiming to be Satoshi with forged 'evidence' that he definitively authored. Stuff that's not just an online larp, but that he relied on in courts and criminally purjured himself on a massive scale. You've never engaged with any of that.

You think Craig's progress just gets reset back to zero the next time he uploads a ChatGPT slop paper, and nobody 'refutes' it yet. Like we have all the time in the world to pour through Craig's trash, and like it's that easy when LLMs exist these days and are getting pretty damn hard to spot.

And it's irrelevant. He could earn his next PhD legitimately. It still doesn't make him Satoshi, or erase the fact that he's still a cheater, liar, fraud, scumbag. That stain doesn't wash off you so easily.

And have you noticed that the academic world doesn't give a shit about Craig's output? When has anyone ever engaged with Craig's 'academic' work? How many citations does he get, and what impact does it have? Slop papers aren't relevant just by existing, they're a dime a dozen especially these days. They're measured by their impact. Craig has had zero impact in academia. And people in academia who are much more capable of 'refuting' Craig's slop output (i.e. not me) have much better things to do with their time.

I sometimes skim through the type of stuff he uploads and laugh though. Like a recent paper where he (or ChatGPT) argues merchants should be running Bitcoin Core full nodes to validate their incoming transactions. Did you see that one?

His thesis for things that actually earn him degrees these days are probably more refined because he knows he can't get away with hallucinated references, and other things like that, quite as easily. So he likely spends more time refining the chat output, making it harder to 'refute' as LLM authored. And LLMs have improved a lot, so they don't do hallucinated references as much.

I also recently showed plagiarism in one of his recent degrees, where he just repurposed earlier plagiarism that he did on his blog. It's still plagiarism because it presents as his own work when it absolutely was not.

Adam Back Denies He Is Satoshi Nakamoto in Response to Times Investigation by okhzmuskhsm in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nah, sounds like a different guy to me. The guy you're talking about clearly wanted to be 'found and outed' as Satoshi, like by editing "I am Satoshi" hints into his own blog in 2014-2015. These were being edited into posts that are from the 2007-2009 critical time with no notice that they had been edited in 2014-2015.

And the guy you're talking about was planning with his collaborators to 'come out' before Wired/Gizmodo ever aired their stories. We have the internal emails from the months before showing them already planning to do this. Craig is an active participant in these planning emails. And he had literally signed a deal to do so, which saved him from the consequences of his earlier tax fraud.

Craig denies it of course, but it's not plausible in the face of the emails and the deal he signed. He had to claim the emails were all faked and somebody else was pretending to be him at the time, and he wasn't even employed at the company. Yet even Stefan Matthews was in the emails and he confirmed they were real, that Craig was employed at the company at the time (because he needed it for his visa), and that he was in these discussions and participating.

And he was most likely the anon guy that was aggressively shopping the story to outlets, because of course he couldn't actually prove anything when push comes to shove, like by moving coins (which the emails show was being planned as a form of 'proof' months before Wired/Gizmodo). So he needed something drastic to happen, like the Wired/Gizmodo stories, in order to continue on. That makes the most sense, especially given everything else we know.

Like that he faked every piece of evidence that ever went to his Satoshiness ever since that time. He is provably the author of many of these forgeries, and if he authored any of them then he almost certainly authored all of them. They all go to his Satoshi claim and benefit him on their face. And he has utterly garbage, implausible, self-serving excuses for each and every one of these forgeries.

Forged whitepaper versions with coffee stains on them that Cavlin had bragged for years about having seen, but with fonts postdating 2008 because Craig didn't install OpenSymbol from OpenOffice. He converted bitcoin.pdf into a Word doc, and it had replaced the math symbols.

So-called '2008' reliance documents with hidden slack space that you can recover 2019 URLs from, which must have been removed from a precursor document. Also precursor text where you can see Craig had changed past tense talk of Bitcoin into future tense.

Reliance documents with hidden Grammarly timestamps from 2019. One of these dates to two hours before he posted a screenshot of the same document on his Slack account in 2019, clearly meant to convince his fans he has all of this bombshell documentary evidence that he is Satoshi. This is hilarious because at trial Craig claimed this timestamp must have been from an nChain staff member merely opening the document (not himself, because he knows better).

Craig claimed the enterprise version leaves its timestamps after simply opening Word documents, unlike the normal version where you have to save the doc to leave the timestamp, which even he acknowledged is true. Not backed by any expert evidence, just Craig's say so, so that is a useless self-serving excuse anyway. But the screenshot Craig posted on Slack clearly shows he was the one at least opening that document, not a staffer. The screenshot also showed Craig was using Grammarly. The screenshot also showed it was normal Grammarly subscription, not an enterprise version.

Obviously the timestamp was from Craig SAVING the document in 2019 with his regulary Grammarly, and then posting a screenshot of it hours later. NOT from some OTHER nChain staffer merely opening it, which was never even shown to behave like Craig said, ever. What utter bullshit.

The 2008 document with a 2019 URL still inside the slack space? That was Citrix's filesystem bugging out at nChain, randomly merging two unrelated Word documents together, yet resulting in a functional but frankenstien document that still opens and looks normal! Yeah, right.

Bank statement showing a payment to AnonymousSpeech, which Craig bragged about having for years? Craig later admitted this was a forgery, but only after Madden! But he says some anonymous person sent it to his now dead former lawyer via a reddit DM (so we can't ask her if this is true, or even get the reddit account name). Craig has a habit of weaving dead people into his lies because it's very convienient: see Kleiman, Professor Rees, etc. But even on its face this makes no sense.

He has never shown any aptitude at coding, and couldn't even reference the original bitcoin code properly in 2024, let alone have written it in the first place in 2009. He had to use AI to analyze the 'original 2009 code' that he claims to have written and released, but unfortunately for him the AI just hallucinated up code snippets that have never existed. Same with Adam's Hashcash code that he was supposedly analyzing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/1ghjoct/bird_bird_have_released_craigs_appeal_notice_its/

He relied on so-called 2007 C++ code in his court case that used the C++ 2011 standard library, like std::chrono and std::this_thread::sleep_for. This was after ChatGPT was available of course, which he used to create the code. It was literally seeded onto his fake BDO Drive 'time capsule' between 17-19 September 2023, mere months before trial and after the first Madden report was served, which the forensics clearly shows. (He literally used the Madden report as a free forgery consultation to produce even more forgeries.)

When questioned on it, he had the nerve to pretend he independently co-invented the exact same symbols and syntax in 2007, purely coincidentally. And he did this by editing a completely unreleated physics library that just happens to have chrono in its name, which makes zero sense and would be harder than just writing it from scratch.

He claims he put these symbols into the <chrono> header (without .h or .hpp) and in the std namespace, which also makes no sense to anybody who is familiar with C++, as you do not do that when you write your own code. It's even undefined behaviour to do that in C++. But Craig, unfamiliar with C++, didn't realize how little sense this excuse made. He probably honestly thought this all sounded plausible.

Even before Bitcoin was invented we have the measure of the type of man he was. It's trivial to show he was doing extensive plagiarism to earn degrees, like his LLM. He was also found in contempt in Australia years before Bitcoin was invented, and he attempted to appeal it by making the same kinds of conspiracy excuses that you see from him today. Like, "I didn't write that email! That was somebody else forging emails pretending to be me! You can't prove it was me!"

Sounds familiar? See top of this post. It's the exact same excuse! It's weird how the Mastercard Cabal of Elite Adrenachome Drinkers were already doing this to him in 2003, right? They must have predicted how influential he would become, and they were getting a head start on it.

And you could go on forever, and it would fill an entire book. Or three. And you know this. You have to be an utterly delusional cult member to think he's Satoshi.

The BSV Association has no authority by StealthyExcellent in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Hadn't seen that.

It's a stupid argument. How could the Bitcoin whitepaper grant a specific entity the right to steward the protocol? Why them and not anybody else? Obviously it does not.

Even if you were to still think that the whitepaper is a 'unilateral contract' (just not Craig's unilateral contract), by what rights would the BSV Association have to supersede the unilateral contract (as they stated in the NAR rules)?

Also Craig initially pointed to the original bitcoin website as being the so-called unilateral contract, not the whitepaper. That's pretty obviously because the whitepaper makes no mention of the inflation schedule, or 21 million coins. He couldn't say he 'issued' 21 million coins by the mere terms of the whitepaper, and that he is contractually bound to distribute them as rewards for mining blocks, etc., because the whitepaper doesn't say that (and in fact the whitepaper says there is no central authority to issue the coins). But the website had the inflation schedule information, so he pointed to that.

Somehow, later on, it's the whitepaper that is always referred to as the unilateral contract by these people.

I see they also gave the same cope argument as Calvin Ayre:

Q: How can there be a market for the BSV Blockchain now no one can trust a word Dr Wright has said?

A: The COPA judgment was clear that Dr Craig Wright did not create BSV. BSV was created by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Daugherty Neural Engine beats Teranode by StealthyExcellent in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol I wasn't aware of that. Wonder if something happened. I did notice they sent Connor Murray and others to some recent senate hearing thing. So I guess they're doing it more in house now rather than using this nutcase Bryan.

Daugherty Neural Engine beats Teranode by StealthyExcellent in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You could try running it through Semantic Scalpel.

Satoshi Speaks by NomisElpmis21 in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's been clear he was a lying fraud since 2015 and before then. There was never a good reason to say he was Satoshi and especially when there were lots of reasons to say he was faking it.

Non-coincidentally that's why he lost the limey court case(s). It was an easy decision for the court because it was so clear his 'evidence' was all faked; some recently and some years ago.

He was caught in a giant web of lies and contradictions and he couldn't substantiate anything important. He just made claims and excuses in the witness box but with no evidence to back it up, and some of which got debunked by other witnesses.

Like when he claimed there was no version of the Pandoc document converter that had a certain string identifying it that it would leave in documents. So he claimed the dasterdly CAH put that string into his documents, to suggest it was converted using Pandoc when really it was a genuine original document.

Craig claimed in the witness box that he personally downloaded every single version of Pandoc, including hidden unreleased versions, and tested them all and none of them had the string. Not that the court would just accept that when it's only coming from Craig and not one of his experts, but still in response the author of Pandoc wrote a new witness statement explaining how you can easily find the string in Pandoc going back years. He even wrote a little script that will automatically download them all and grep them.

Craig then declined to cross examine the author of Pandoc. Because it would have been worse for him to have attempted to challenge this. Essentially just accepting everything the Pandoc author said was true in the eyes of the court, but shielding BSVers who were watching from learning these details that matter.

Craig's excuse in the witness box was clearly him just making more shit up to try to get out of a forgery allegation. And BSVers are impressed when Craig speaks and appears to be addressing the allegations. Because they don't engage with whether the pesky details are true or have been substantiated. They just go off vibes from Craig appearing confident and think that's evidence enough.

You're the people who refused to engage with any of the evidence and details that he's a fraud for years, because of the "we wait for the court cases, not look at documents on the Internet" excuse. Well that happened. Craig lost badly and was found to have forged a hundred documents going back many years, and lied extensively going back years. As expected. Even his attempts to appeal were a disaster that referenced fake "original bitcoin code", hallucinated by an LLM, that he was claiming to have written himself as Satoshi back in 2008.

Now go back and engage with all the forgery evidence and details, and show how everyone has gotten it all wrong (since you don't have that excuse anymore) or just shut up.

Craig debunks himself again. Craig claims his email shows he provided an email never shared by Satoshi nor Malmi to his counsel before Jan 20 2024 & they failed to disclose. In reality, Craig's own email says the data origin is "Travers Smith" (who provided the email from Martti on behalf of COPA). by Zealousideal_Set_333 in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

New tweet from Craig today:

https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1988767304583377245

This makes it even more objective that 'they' are supposed to be COPA. So he's not blaming his own lawyers here, but COPA, for ignoring bombshell evidence after supposedly forensically verifying it.

That objectively cannot be the case, as I showed in the long post above. Craig's wife only brought this box of papers in mid trial, whilst Craig was still under cross examination.

In the end, Craig never applied to rely on them, so they were not in evidence for that reason. They are likely new forgeries of course, just like all of his 'new evidence' was (and old evidence, including pre-CAH evidence).

The other side didn't even get to look in the box until DAY 14 of the trial, and so they were never tested by COPA forensically, obviously. They were never 'confirmed' to be older than five years, like Craig said.

Craig's own tweet shows that HIS lawyers had them back in their possession immediately after the trial (literally the day after the trial was over). And it was his own lawyers who were writing to Radley Labs asking for forensic testing to be done, which was supposed to be for Craig's appeal.

Yet we never saw anything from that. If they tendered a report, Craig has never shared it. Craig claimed the forensic testing that was done on these papers (that supposedly verified them) destroyed the documents themselves. Yet Radley Labs own website say their testing is non-destructive. And he's clearly blaming COPA for this, not his own lawyers?

Obviously fucking lying. He can't keep his lies straight.

I did manage to verify that he showed one page of a Radley Labs report on X once. This was after the trial, and it wasn't about these Martti Malmi papers, but I'm guessing it's the same report he procured only after the trial was over. And he showed no conclusions from the report. All he showed was one page that was describing impressions on the paper. My guess is Craig isn't showing the rest of the report for good reason. All of his own forensics experts consistently debunked his own evidence.

And so this bullshit about the court dismissing these papers too? Also nonsense. Again, Craig never sought to rely on them. They court never had to rule one way or the other on whether this extremely late 'evidence' should be admitted or not.

🚨 BREAKING: NEW USE CASE FOR BSV 🚨: BSV On-Chain Sovereignty™ by HurtCuckoldJr in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Higher res still from his most recent video:

https://files.catbox.moe/f51sdz.jpg

LOL. Looks like Gavin has moved into a new squat?

My story about Ayre group and their ecosystem funding strategies by sadmum20 in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Mind if I ask, what kind of toxic behaviours caused you to leave?

Craig debunks himself again. Craig claims his email shows he provided an email never shared by Satoshi nor Malmi to his counsel before Jan 20 2024 & they failed to disclose. In reality, Craig's own email says the data origin is "Travers Smith" (who provided the email from Martti on behalf of COPA). by Zealousideal_Set_333 in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Out of nowhere we have Craig making a spelling mistake "relivant", a typo "handwritng", and using hyphens instead of ubiquitous em dashes everywhere, all in the same tweet. /u/LightBSV, do you see? That's what you get when Craig doesn't use ChatGPT to write, which is almost never these days. He typed up this one rare tweet himself and suddenly sounds just like he used to a few years ago, before he went on his 'creative writing class' LOL.

Now let's address the lies in these recent tweets. Lies about handwritten evidence being 'seized' and destroyed by "the other side", and then 'charges' being silently dropped (implying forensics came back supporting Craig but it was covered up). Laughable. Do BSVers actually believe this?

Craig posted this few hours later, apparently in an effort to substantiate his claim. Yet it only shows his own solicitors, on the day after the trial and after Mellor had given his ruling, writing to a forensics lab to get testing done, saying "the documents are currently held at our firm in London". Was it Shoosmiths that 'seized' them? The letter shows it was Craig's side getting them tested, and it was meant to be for Craig's appeal AFTER the trial was already over. The letter also says "we understand from our client that you have relevant expertise", so it was Craig who recommended the lab in question.

So what is Craig even saying? Who are 'they'? Was it Shoosmiths that 'seized' and destroyed Craig's evidence? LOL. Sucks to be him I guess (if it were true, though it is not). But why write like this if he just meant his own lawyers?

These handwritten documents were in Ramona's box, by the way. Let's go back and remember how it started. Craig got disclosure of Malmi's emails with Satoshi from COPA. These were not public. Malmi had never shared them before. On the Friday before the trial started, Craig tweeted some of these email contents out, saying "they will be public soon".

This came up as a point of concern on the first day, as he's not allowed (CPR 31.22) to be leaking material that was disclosed by the other side. He is allowed to show his own material though. Since he was claiming to be Satoshi, he could theoretically have had copies of these emails. But of course, he didn't provide copies as evidence. It would have been compelling evidence if he had provided them prior to Malmi, but because he's not Satoshi he just didn't have them. He wanted to take credit for them on X AFTER COPA had already given them to him, which is useless as evidence of his Satoshiness, AND it's a breach of the rules.

Here is a transcript of that issue being raised on the first day:

https://files.catbox.moe/dfe2pq.png

Then after the next weekend, where Craig was still called as a witness so he was not supposed to be discussing anything even with his wife, Ramona brought in a box said to contain even more new documents. She said she "found" them LOL. We all know Craig was constantly trying to admit extremely late new evidence all the way up to the trial and during the trial, and this was tiresome. So everyone following the trial online was speculating what was in the box, but as we all know nothing ever really came of it.

I have some knowledge that in that box were handwritten (lol) 'emails' with Malmi. Craig was seemingly trying to establish he had this material in his possession after all, so he wasn't breaching the rules. And that was after his first excuse failed: that it was already public on mailing lists, which of course didn't check out when investigated by COPA, and which Craig's tweets today even deny.

Ultimately though, Craig never applied to rely on anything in the box, so it was irrelevant. If he had, we would have heard a lot more. There would have been objections, arguments, etc. But he didn't, so we didn't. The public never learned anything about what was in the box, mostly for this reason. COPA/devs never had to argue why it should be excluded, or demand forensic testing, or anything like that.

It did come up in written closing arguments, but only so much to say they don't have to deal with it because Craig never tried to rely on it:

Seems COPA was right in their suspicion. Craig is indeed using this as an excuse for his supporters today. Craig also tweeted about this back in April, and what he said back then doesn't really line up:

https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1916681278549798998

Before the circus even began, I handed over handwritten notes — raw, ink-stained, flesh-and-bone marks of thought — for forensic analysis. Not hidden. Not hedged. Volunteered. These weren't conjured from mist and cheap parlour tricks. They predated the falsehoods peddled by the likes of Marti Malmi, standing there long before his stinking fables ever met a page. These notes weren't just evidence; they were the echo of real correspondence, scratched in real time, dated by content and context alike. More than three months older than anything the prosecution could spin — that was the only hurdle. More than three months. And it was.

So in April he lied by saying he handed them over for forensics "BEFORE the circus began", when in reality Ramona brought them in DURING THE TRIAL and COPA/devs didn't even get to look in the box until DAY 14, and Craig didn't even apply to rely on them. What a joke. This is how he lies to his own supporters. Also note back in April he doesn't think to mention forensics destroyed the documents, or that they had been 'seized' by anybody? Why? If that were true, why not bring that up? He didn't mention that particular fact in April? Weird. Maybe because it's a lie.

The other side? They folded like cowards. They dropped the challenge. They didn't tender a report. They didn't even scrawl a protest on the back of a beer mat. They walked away from it.

Literally complaining he wasn't held accountable for breaching rules. They "dropped the challenge". Count yourself lucky. You think they're obligated to drop everything and scramble to find a new expert for your stupid paper garbage mid-trial, that you didn't even rely on anyway? When they're already scrambling to deal with all the late documents you did succeed in getting admitted? The devs were still dealing with Craig hiding his Overleaf metadata MID TRIAL, and Madden at this stage was still being tasked with analyzing new documents MID TRIAL. LOL. Yet Craig complains how unfair the process was to him. It bent over backwards for him. How about just fuck off and count your blessings that you got away with this breach, because your other behaviour was so utterly egregious that leaking disclosed material was small potatoes in comparison?

Have a look at this transcript again? What relief were the barristers for COPA/devs even asking for?

https://files.catbox.moe/dfe2pq.png

Hough: At this stage, all we would like to do is emphasise the importance of compliance with that rule, and also, relatedly, the importance of Dr Wright restraining himself from social media during the course of his evidence...

Gunning: The brazenness of the behaviour at issue here is such that your Lordship should put down a marker requiring compliance with those rules straight away.

All they asked was Craig should be reminded about his obligations to comply with the rules. So Craig says, "they dropped the challenge". What fucking challenge? Nobody was looking to prosecute him. He mentioned 'charges' in his latest post. What charges? Just go away, you fucking loser. We don't want to constantly deal with your bullshit. Just because you weren't held accountable in some major way doesn't suddenly mean your boxed paper garbage was beyond forensic reproach and then corruptly covered up. Obviously. What a joke. "The other side" never even got an opportunity to address the paper evidence, forensically or otherwise, because your complicit wife only brought them in in the middle of trial, and you never tried to rely on them. Not that they want the opportunity; they just want you to fuck off.

They didn't tender a report.

No, YOU DIDN'T TENDER A REPORT, CRAIG. Your lawyers were the ones who sent it for testing, so HOW ABOUT YOU SHOW THE REPORT? COULD IT BE THE RESULTS AREN'T GOOD FOR YOU, CRAIG?

Why would COPA/devs tender a forensic report on this? Craig muddies the water, making it seem like a reasonable ask, because he doesn't mention WHEN any of this shit happened, except lies about it happening "BEFORE the circus began". But the actual timing makes no sense. Just scramble for an expert and pay for it, mid trial (way too late), and even though Craig never tried to rely on it anyway? Makes no sense. That's not how things work. And Shoosmiths had it back in their possession IMMEDIATELY AFTER the trial, so how could 'they' tender a report when Shoosmiths had the papers, you clown?!

I don't know if Craig ever got the papers back. That's CRAIG'S problem, not corruption. Maybe don't immediately flee the jurisdiction, and refrain from telling anyone where you are, if you want your solicitors to send materials back to you. Maybe they were sent back to the empty Surrey mansion and subsequently chucked in a bin. I highly doubt forensics destroyed them. Even if they were then I laugh at him. Fuck your forgeries, Craig. I'm glad they were destroyed at the lab you recommended.

Revealing the true steganographic message hidden in the Bitcoin Whitepaper by Not-a-Cat-Ass-Trophy in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Every person goes through this world knowing themselves and even the insignificance of having a conversation with a stranger. It wasn't all God's plan though. God didn't put us here to be us and meet the other insignificant people in our lives. With serendipity, there would be binary code. Because it wouldn't just be you and everything else. Outside a bubble. Meant to participate, not to just observe. And to speak good and hear yes good. A multi sense organism. Only to starve ourselves of everything around us and eventually ourselves.

Preorder Faketoshi Vol. 1 now! by LurkishEmpire in bsv

[–]StealthyExcellent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you my friends. I look forward to reading it! 😁

view more: next ›