You've managed 45 useless posts in 2 days, why not just go ahead and spam whatever link you want us to see.


ETA:

I thought you wanted us to stop refuting TS and focus on the great technological advancements being made? So far we have tipping twitter posters, anything else?

Wright is Satoshi. You are all stupid pieces of ****. From the link I gave earlier
The flawed ******* you all hate and mock and call a fraud actually made bitcoin. No thinking person who reads that article (it's very long and detailed) thinks that Wright isn't Satoshi. Including Gavin Andresen.

Wright has his reasons for pretending not to be Satoshi, very good reasons as far as I can see. But he obviously is. Meanwhile, the dumb pieces of crap on this forum are not only not aware of the truth, but so sure of themselves they are abusive against those who actually know it. Such pathetic people. No wonder Satoshi dislikes people and is so reticent to be linked to the his real world identity of Craig Wright.

That nations settled with each other using bitcoin is also a remarkable event imo. If these things don't interest you I'm not sure you are at all interested in the subject. These are things that have been talked about and on the horizon for years and are finally observably here.

The idea that wright is satoshi is still up for debate is simply someone playing on the fact that many causal observers are interested in finding out what bitcoin is about but didn't follow the story as it actually was happening.

You are being played and any reputable participant in the bitcoin community would recognize the antics immediately. Every time you refute the already refuted claims you give the strategy strength and validation.

12 posts later...

The fact that you are having a meltdown over Craig Wright is hysterical. Please keep these posts up, enjoying how often you are around to keep the discussion going.

I don't think you know what a meltdown is, but I wouldn't expect much else from a borderline personality disorder suffferer who often has real tiltmonkey meltdowns himself.

I'm actually reading all the evidence on both sides because it's one of the great modern mysteries. Wright is clearly Satoshi which is why Andresen publicly said he was after he witnessed and verified the signing. Then Satoshi decided he wanted to disappear/didn't want the spotlight (partly from a bunch of previously illegal activity he'd done, partly because of the massive burden of exposure) and laid a bunch of obvious, easily found fraudulent trails (after the signing) when he decided he didn't want the exposure. And Andresen et al played along.
You post nothing but pure assertion - no evidence, no sources. You're not that NooseKnots loser who claimed inside knowledge of the industry and said bitcoin would be 100K by the end of last year, are you? He also asserted endlessly before I believe eventually catching a ban. Everything you post here is pointless.

I've followed btc for quite a while but I'm not sure that buying 4 figures worth of bug spray w/ btc is as ground breaking as you're portraying it:

Well you might think bitcoin having a price of 1 dollar isn't interesting either but it was a historical moment for sure.

That nations are now beginning to settle with it marks the rise of its ability to replace golds role for this.

Again if you don't think thats interesting I think you aren't really interested in the subject. What else is bitcoin but a high value settlement option and an censorship resistant emoney.

We're gonna soon see some nations bypassing sanctions which I think is very interesting.

Continue sir, posting all the fabricated and already debunked evidence you have. Continue ur "no I'm not you are".

I'm just calling attention to your strategy and explaining to otherwise unknowing casual observers and regs that the only way to curb your disruptive behavior is to stop trying to refute your trolling.

Its the exact technique that wright and ver use because disinformation is costless to produce indefinitely and costly to continue to refute.

You get the spotlight.

Continue sir, claiming all the fabricated debunkings and already debunked debunked evidence debunks the evidence. Continue ur "no I'm not you are". while posting no sources.

I'm calling attention to your strategy and explaining to otherwise unknowing casual observers and regs that the only way to curb your disruptive behavior is to focus on the fact that you do nothing but assert.

Its the exact technique that wright and ver use because assertions without sources or details are costless to produce indefinitely and costly to continue to refute.

You get the spotlight.

You are a habitual troll sir. I'm not trolling I'm bringing awareness to the disruption you are causing. Copycatting me is more of that behavior. What forumers need to understand is you don't defeat this behavior by refuting the ridiculous claims. That action gives the trolling power.

You are a habitual troll sir. I'm not trolling I'm bringing awareness to the disruption you are causing. Continually asserting without evidence and not actually discussing a single piece of evidence in 50 posts is more of that behavior.

P.S.

Now we have evolved the dialogue into something useful haven't we all? Shall we return to refuting TS ridiculous claims that have already been put to rest by well known and reputable experts in the field? I'm not a troll. I'm a lurker. And every so often I feel like I would rather see this community engage in actual discussion about the technology rather than play your little game.

You are genius just like Craig Wright just like Roger Ver.

Your entire 40+ posts in this thread consists of:

"It hurts my soul to consider that Craig Wright might be Satoshi. I consider it debunked and prohibit discussion and will troll anyone who discusses it"

Ironically, I might add, prolonging the conversation by doing so. How that's strategy working out for you? What's the definition of insanity?

As for me, I saw people claiming with vitriolic certainty that Craig Wright is not, could not be Satoshi. I found that vitriolic certainty interesting so decided to look at the evidence. He clearly is Satoshi. I have read zero even slightly compelling evidence that he isn't Satoshi. The evidence is 100% consistent with Satoshi outing himself, proving it beyond any doubt to prominent members of the bitcoin community who then publicly vouched for him, then freaking out and laying a false and extremely poorly done set of frauds, for which he had very understandable reasons.

The evidence fits no other pattern.

I'm sorry that you find discussion of this hurts your soul, but you don't get to dictate what we talk about here, and you now have zero credibility after 40 useless zero content posts in a row essentially saying the same thing. Try a different strategy maybe? Your current strategy sucks in reaching your stated aims. I'm actually helping you bro.

Does anyone want to offer evidence to contradict TS (repeated) claim that wright is satoshi or shall we just let the claim stand?

There seems to be no good evidence that he isn't. These "debunkings" you refer to of the strong evidence I posted seem not exist. You've simply been lying it seems (which is usually the case when people repeatedly assert without sourcing). The arguments against him being Satoshi are not debunkings of this strong evidence; they are arguments based on other things.

Multiple high level players in the bitcoin community claimed he is Satoshi. Andresen (highly trusted level headed lead bitcoin developer at the time) witnessed him in person use Satoshi's email keys. That article I linked has extremely detailed information - hundreds of pieces of evidence and happenstance and life events that fit no other pattern than him being Satoshi.

That's the evidence for. The only evidence I've ever seen against consists of one of two things:

- He says things that are deemed stupid/that people disagree with.
- Multiple very poorly done frauds purporting to be evidence of him as Satoshi were done by Wright

Neither of these have much weight as they perfectly fit a pattern of him being Satoshi then desperately wanting to backtrack. If people have other evidence I'd be happy to hear it, but what I've seen so far means little. The people putting extreme weight in the above two "against" points are not weighting evidence correctly. There are three possibilities here:

1. He is a pure fraud and one of the best conmen of all time, who managed to convince multiple smart and capable people, the heights of the bitcoin and gambling and investing community, that he is Satoshi after extensive conversations and days together. AND he managed to fool Andresen by somehow proving he had Satoshi's private email key in a demonstration on a just-bought laptop in front of Andresen.

2. He is Satoshi and laid a false evidence trail for very compelling reasons after his outing.

3. He is paid to cover for the real Satoshi, who gave him the private keys and is in cahoots with him. Or he collaborated with the real Satoshi who is either no longer around or is hiding.

The evidence strongly fits (2). The evidence does not in any remotely plausible way fit (1). It might fit (3) but with low probability.

Replace gold?

Everyone used to buy their bug spray with gold before this.

The last I'll say on this, you are delusional TS:

1) Gavin admitted he was probably duped - google it. The email account was already compromised years ago per the btctalk forums

2) The most obvious proof is signing something with the genesis block key - which craig cannot do. Everything else is handwaving bull****. Sure he was around in the early days but that doesn't make him satoshi anymore than finney was satoshi.

3) Several of the "papers" craig has submitted have been proven complete bull**** or plaigarized, and every single core dev also says he can't be satoshi. Who understands the code better? Especially the nuances and even yes, errors, in the original satoshi code.

Craig was involved in btc early, sure, yes even very early. He also was nearly broke and in tax trouble and needed money (lol) before spinning his yarn about being satoshi and trying to get a book deal (cause satoshi needs money of course). He's a fraud with proven altered blog posts and emails and doesn't have the technical chops to be satoshi. Regardless of all this, he could prove beyond any doubt by signing something with the genesis block key. That is the _ONLY_ legit proof anyone can ever give. But he can't/won't, therefore is not satoshi.

cant tell if TS is trolling lol

proton obv right

And Craig Wright had the key? How does that happen? You agree that Craig Wright has Satoshi's private key, or do you dispute that too? Here's Gavin:

Could you please quote the post where he claims that Craight Wright is absolutely not Satoshi and is a fraud? Thank you. I assume you can't and are full of **** on Adresen disavowing. I'm sure he regrets his involvement, mostly because he got covered in **** after the backpeddle by Satoshi. Andresen then got ripped by a bunch of bitcoin chimpanzees who can't accept that someone like Craig Wright is the Messiah, but Andresen's regret is not the same thing as thinking he's not Satoshi. Indeed...



I'll also add that it's not just Andresen who was had a proof session. Multiple people with top level technical knowledge did and came away saying they know he's Satoshi. That's one hell of a fraud. I don't know if anyone alive could pull that off.
So if Satoshi loses the private keys, has them in a trust, does not want to sign for security reasons - he's not Satoshi? That's some pretty weak logic bro. There are multiple ways to prove he's Satoshi and he's done several of them. To the satisfaction of the highest players in the bitcoin ecosystem.

You don't find it even slightly compelling that Wright signed for Andresen as Andresen watched with block 1 keys?

After saying he was. After getting burned in the blowback. During a bitter fight for the direction of bitcoin in which Satoshi (Wright) wants to take Bitcoin in another direction

I completely agree. Hence why Andresen believes and said he is Satoshi.

The latter seems a strange take. He certainly has the technical chops.
This last bit isn't so much evidence and proof as you hating Craig and hating cognitive dissonance. You're not willing to lend credence on claims - even claims with overwhelming evidence such as Wright = Satoshi - without definitive proof. That seems a very weak epistemology, even if it has practical utility, particularly when the claimer is an *******.

Try moving the dialogue along without refuting or giving attention to what he is saying...you'll be able to tell immediately. Or talk around him and not to him.

i like TS posts, esp Tesla bear thesis, but off base with this take.

I'm nearly done with the topic anyway. The evidence is overwhelming and on top of that Andresen clearly knows that Wright is Satoshi. The question is settled in my mind. That's good enough for me. On top of that my detractors appears to be straight up lying about what Andresen has said (I looked up the original source for myself).

Compare the claims by salty bitcoin bulls and reality:
Claim:
Reality:
His later posts support this - he clearly thinks Wright is Satoshi but wants to wash his hands of the whole affair, partly because of what disgusting people inhabit the bitcoin universe are doing, rabidly anti-Wright.

Do you protonewb, or anyone, have a post or quote from Andresen saying that he was "probably" duped? He says the exact opposite of that above. I would appreciate it if you can back up your claim that Craig Wright said he was "probably" duped.

No you aren't, you are trolling indefinitely. You won't ever be done.

The only person trolling here is you. Completely ZERO content 50+ posts. WTF is wrong with you? This would have been done 20+ posts ago without your extreme and weird angsty need to throw shade on Wright = Satoshi.

As for Wright's "technical ability", who do we believe, random cucks on the Internet who say he doesn't have the ability to have written bitcoin, or the level headed leader of bitcoin development itself???
It hurts the bitcoin bulls so badly that Wright is Satoshi - and I agree he's bordering on a detestable figure - that you have to flat out make **** up because you can't accept that he is. This is why RunItPony doesn't get into details - because the details trip him up and prove that Wright = Satoshi to any thinking person. Hence he gives zero content rhetoric and trolling for 50+ posts.

That's what got me interested in the first place in answering this question - the insane vitriolic denial. Rational people don't do that.