/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>26296701
Based and satoshipilled.

>>26296764
Looks like 2021 will be an interesting year

>>26296701
Wright doesn't own the copyright to the white paper you nonces.

>>26296701
Literally who?

>>26296852
Except he does, or so it seems:
https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=TXu002136996&Search%5FCode=REGS&CNT=25&PID=j-nLVSqj7grU68f0_MkZXGt-x7jcD-4&SEQ=20210121032742&SID=1

Somebody hasn't been paying attention for the last couple years...

holy fuck anons
when you go to the white paper its blank
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>26296943
>bitcoincoredotorg

>>26296937
No, he really really doesn't.

>The licensing status of this file is unclear. It can be found in enough places by now, and as this site is about Bitcoin Core (a specific implementation), not about Bitcoin in general, the whitepaper doesn't necessarily need to be hosted here.

>Unless anyone can point to an explicit place where Satoshi licensed it under a free license, legally it is safer to remove it from the bitcoin-core.org site.
Wow it's fucking nothing.

What a worthless copyright troll

>>26297045
We'll have a definitive answer relatively soon, this dispute will go to court if bitcoin.org, bitcoin.com and bitcoincore.org don't all remove the bitcoin whitepaper within 14 days from now.

https://twitter.com/cryptorebel_sv/status/1352143991735787520?s=21

There's a reason sv is going up and btc is going down

>>26297110
There is no way creg will ever get the copyright, you realize this right?

www.biotcoincore.com

OH NOOOOOO

>>26297166
not really, they're both going down atm.
Tough there is a bullish medium term case for both, with potentially more upside for bsv

>>26297110
They should be required to remove it just for the simple fact that the Whitepaper is all about Bitcoin, not BTC or BCH.

The Satoshi thing is secondary.

>>26297183
How so? he might very well have hard evidence. If that wasn't the case, why is the "real" Satoshi not doing anything to stop all this? Why have the people closest to Satoshi either confirmed Craig Wright is Satoshi or sued him for Satoshi's money?

Sure Craig Wright is a pathological liar, a fraudster an asshole, forger, but that doesn't mean he isn't Satoshi.. these things are not mutually exclusive, and as time goes by more and more evidence is piling up backing his claim for those who've been paying attention. When investing you gotta put emotions aside and try to look at evidence in the most rational way possible

>>26297452
>How so? he might very well have hard evidence.
If he did he would've produced it long ago.

Stop doing this to yourself.

>>26297548
you need to think of incentives. He has zero incentive to do so, quite the opposite. He was forced out of the shadows in 2015 when people
close to him found out and he was hacked and sued.
Have you even been following the Ira case? Witnesses from Iran's said said Dave and Craig where talking about bitcoin and blockchain in 2009, transcripts from the ATO show Craig was mining bitcoin in 2009, he registered bitcoin related businesses in early 2009. Yet nobody in the crypto space heard of him till 2015, don't you think that's very strange?
I was in bitcoin in 2010, I was on irc and bitcointalk, it was a very tight-knit group, to me beyond reasonable doubt the only profile Craig could overlap with is that of Satoshi nakamoto.
Then again he is an insufferable autistic asshole, but that doesn't mean he wasn't behind the Satoshi pseudonym.

>>26297770
You sound like your mom dropped you a few too many times.

The play is made, faggots.

>>26297770
Look at all that rationalization you just wrote.

>>26297770
Bro you're fucking delusional, it's much more likely Craig is seriously mentally ill imo, he's yet to post anything even close to resembling hard proof

>>26297770
I used to think Craig was Satoshi too.
But after the BarelySociable video, I'm convinced it's likely Adam Back.
Craig is either outright lying or he's conflating whatever small leadership role he might've had early in the project with being "Satoshi".
The latter is the most charitable interpretation but it's still pretty disingenuous.
Either way he's not the Satoshi who wrote the whitepaper.

>>26297770
This anon will make it

>>26297875
He's definitely mentally ill though I don't know what the proper classification would be. He seems autistic in that he is extremely bad at human relationships and also super focused on technical stuff, also has a definitive tendency to exaggerate things through lies and bold claims. But to dismiss Craig as a conman is absolutely retard tier iq. If he is running a con job this has no precedent in history as of the amount of evidence he would have piled up. I can confidently say it is impossible that he was not heavily involved in bitcoin in 2009, there is a small possibility that he was not the main guy behind the Satoshi pseudonym, maybe Dave was, but all the evidence we currently have points to him.

>>26297804
insults from /biz/ brainlets don't really faze me, I'm already a multimillionaire at this point, I still own some btc/bch/bsv, but most of my wealth is now in stocks. I'm just curious as to how the Craig Wright tale evolves and how biz reacts to it, it's interesting to me since I was involved in bitcoin from the early days, I'm now taking part in a documentary about it, and am curious has to how this situation will develop since we'll have to include it

I have my suicide bag of 210 BSV, lets see how this develops

>>26297770
>we had PSO's on the blockchain, but they died because of fees

>>26296937
What an absolute dickhead grifter. The whitepaper should be public domain.

>>26298325

Yes, yes they did. Very sad story, many such cases.

>>26297008
should have flipped him off but what the hell is that site even and who owns it?

>>26297847
is it autism?

>>26298325
they died because you didn't feed them heartless cunt

>>26298167
You are not too far off in there is a concrete possibility he was only a part of the Satoshi team, but if you think Adam Back has even a remote non-zero probability of being Satoshi you really need to do more studying about the history of bitcoin and all evidence for/against it you can find.

>>26298236
thanks anon, desu I already "made it" I guess. It's a really numbing feeling once you don't have to work for money and it starts meaning nothing to you, I'm not sure I wish it on people.. for now im finding purpose in this bitcoin documentary just cause I feel I owe it to mankind to preserve the knowledge I have by being involved in the early days, but after that I don't know what I'll do to find some sense of purpose.. maybe go into politics idk

Satoshi Nakamoto is Satoshi Nakamoto. Literal genius does something genius to keep himself safe and take credit. You guys are all retards, congratulations.

>>26298524
Deflate your ego

>>26296701
Cobra just responded, refusing to take it off from bitcoin.org

https://decrypt.co/54839/bitcoin-org-refuses-to-remove-whitepaper-despite-legal-demands?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sm

https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/regarding-csw

Looks like this will be the start of another lawsuit

>>26298781
maybe that's the answer anon, seriously considered donating most of my wealth and becoming a Buddhist monk or something, unironically

>>26298845
thank god someone has a functioning brain.
whoever took it off from the other site should get his testicles in a wrench and fired.

>>26298937
The core developers did, the change is on github here https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/740

Change initiated by laanwj (Wladimir J. van der Laan) and merged by harding (David A. Harding)

>>26298937
The top developers at Core and Blockstream know that craig is CSW, they're just trying to keep their scam going for as long as possible

>>26299119
naah they know it's not craig. based on the comments they took it off because it's not licensed like the source code which explicitly permits modifying and re licensing.

>>26299119
>Craig is CSW
kek, I'm guessing this was a typo.

>>26298524
I'm not invested in Bitcoin or any of its forks.
I'm guessing you're probably sympathetic towards BSV and it may be clouding your judgment against CSW.
I'm just looking at the evidence and again, I find the BS vid the most persuasive.
As for incentives, claiming to be Satoshi can work as a strategy for Craig because it'll result in either:
(a) people believing him and thus give legitimacy to BSV. This also works if the real Satoshi stays silent.
(b) forcing Adam to reveal his identity. This is not good for BTC because Adam believes that having a faceless leader is better for BTC. He prefers the narrative that BTC is like a commodity that was "discovered" rather than a piece of software with a founder that people can keep asking to change things.

>>26299216
It was combined with the rest of the files of the project under the MIT license. CSW has nothing.

>>26299316
Absolutely wrong.
The whitepaper got released 6 months before you fucking stupid newfags

>>26299282
>people believing him and thus give legitimacy to BSV.
Seems like a weak explanation to me since most of the claims/evidence that came out predate the BSV fork (which was also not an intentional fork, coingeek and Craig stated this, they wanted bsv to stay bch), though for claims made after the fork it is a plausible incentive for csw to pump bsv price
>forcing Adam to reveal his identity
This directly contradicts the above, if Adam proves he's Satoshi bsv would die and btc probably be bullish about it

But I think you have to think more in terms of the lawsuits, if csw was not Satoshi he could have easily stated that to get himself out of a multi-billion lawsuit, any reasonable person would do that rather than lie in court saying they are Satoshi (if they aren't this would mean they are both risking perjury and multi-billion loss), and why would he go ahead and Sue several people for defamation who have been accused him of lying about being Satoshi?
Again if he's not Satoshi he exposes himself to even higher potential losses there, and for what? If your theory is correct the real Satoshi or someone who knows him could come out at any time and make csw immediately lose several court cases resulting in fines or even jail time.

Ethereum buy signal frens, time to flip this shitcoin without proper management

>>26296701
corecucks starting to show their weak hands

Bitcoin is open source. So I imagine the whitepaper would be open source as well.

"Bitcoin """""Core""""""" doesn't exist

Ah yes, the "hard evidence" coming any time Mr mysterious courier comes. Along with vote fraud proof

>>26297183
do you tards pay no attention at all?
craig got the copyWRIGHT for he whitepaper and bitcoin name since 2019

>>26300501
open source licensing applies to code.
Copyright is a different matter, and its an iinalienable right of the author from the time he produces something.

>>26299976
I admit I didn't know Craig originally wanted BSV to stay as BCH.
He wants Bitcoin to scale on-chain, so BSVers supporting him makes sense.

You don't find it odd that after Adam called Craig a fraud, Craig sued him, then dropped the case and refunded all legal fees? What's the explanation for this other than his high-functioning autism acting up?

>>26300718
correction: I think he said he had Asperger's in an interview.

>>26300702
If it was in a separate folder, then he cant claim ownership over the code, only over the whitepaper.
So no fud here.

>>26300856
Correct, this claim is only about the whitepaper.
The original code was releasd with an open source license (MIT). The MIT license is not irrevocable, the copyright owner could later change it to a different license, but this is kind of a legal grey area, I don't think the bitcoin client code is at any risk in that sense.

>>26300718
His high functioning autism acting up can explain that quite well. I'm not familiar with the Adam case specifically, but i know there was a period when craig was just suing everyone who insulted him out of rage. He 'won' the mccormack one (dropped and paid legal fees), the hodlonaut one is still ongoing, im guessing the one against Adam was the weaker one and his lawyers told him drop it

>>26297847

You realize this has 0 value without it being made in ADVANCE, right faggot?

>>26297770
hi craig, have you learnt to code yet?

>>26296701
>For the few of you who are following things that actuary matter.
This doesn't matter and Craig Wright is fucking fraud

>>26300625
so have plenty of other people you absolute retard

sergey
is
satoshi

>>26301929
>>26301891
>>26301843
why do corecuck drones always get so emotional about this stuff?

No offence but you come off as losers

>>26297452
I am Satoshi Nakamoto.

Explain what Wright doing this means, what does it mean for btc, bsv and crypto overall...

>>26297452
because Satoshi is the embodiment of crypto. Anonymity goes hand in hand with decentralization.

>>26302609
If you can't tell, i don't know if you can be helped really, but if you're all in on btc i would buy at least some bsv to hedge

>>26300718
They couldn't serve Adam Back. That is why that case was dropped

>>26296937
Seems to be a last ditch effort by some
Of these original OG’s to save Bitcoin from becoming a centralized reserve currency. It’s too late. They know it. This thing is consolidating hard and going to moon to 6 figures and never come back

Fake Bitcoin website complains about fake Bitcoin creator...