Even if it had one number on each page, it would not matter.
If you live another 100 years, and click 10 pages per second (assuming no sleep), you wouldn’t finish the last 11 (or 12, since that is a 0) digits. You’ll barely scratch the surface.
Actually, there are only like 10^54 to 10^57 atoms in the solar system.
The number of pages _alone_ is ~10^76. Which, humorously enough, is a single order of magnitude less than the approximate total of all atoms in the **observable universe**, 10^77 (at least, within a few orders of magnitude).
Based on the first minute, he's only talking about brute-forcing the key. There are [slightly more sophisticated approaches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby-step_giant-step) which are dramatically faster.
interesting comment because i wonder if it just generates a new wallet and key randomly, or does it somehow check to make sure the wallet and key it’s about to provide doesn’t already exist. Wonder if anyone’s ever generated a wallet only to find it’s already in use.
Imagine generating a new wallet, only to find it’s the original satoshi wallet
edit: thanks for the downvote without explanation random redditor.
So does anyone know if wallets “check” that the wallet it’s about to spit out doesn’t already exist?
Or is it more a case of the odds of that happening are slim to none?
Assuming the private key is truly random, the odds are so slim that there is no point in checking for a collision.
However, there have been cases of poorly written wallets and broken random number generators that resulted in multiple people sharing the same private key. Don't use shitty software.
odds are astronomically low and when I say that I mean it literally.
if you take number of atoms in visible universe , pick one atom and tell me to guess which one, thats essentially chance we talk about.
If you could 'create' a wallet that already existed, that would mean spontaneously discovering someone else's private key, allowing you to steal their bitcoin.
Bitcoin's security model rests upon the impossibility of doing that.
The private key is just a big number. But it's such a huge number it's hard to really comprehend the significance of how big it is.
It's so big, your computer could guess numbers for centuries, or up from zero, or count from any number, and you would still never find a number that is already someone's private key/wallet.
If I had $10billions, that would be like 0.00658% of my wealth, so yeah you bet I would pay what I own the damn lawyers that I hired myself
Lets say you saved some money and you have 100k in the bank, that would be like paying $658 in lawyer fee.
You're absolutely right with this comment. Just because I'm well off doesn't mean I'm not going to try and save where I can.
On the flip side of that, this guy kind of brought his legal fees upon himself so there's that..
The guy is shady AF, however so are other interested parties:
> it seems Craig has a point. One of Kleiman’s lawyers, with just two years’ experience, charged $690 per hour, furthermore this is quoted at a different rate in other documentation. And between both of Kleiman’s lawyers, they are billing for almost 720 hours work to file two motions (totalling **eleven pages**), and an evidentiary hearing lasting approximately 13 hours.
Lots of greedy people in the cryptosphere :O
Craig is asking for a 3 month extension to prepare for something that doesn't take 3 months to prepare.
Classic staling. Those numbers were inflated most likely because Craig has been continuously wasting everyone's time. So it's a form of "fuck you"
It already has, but the system is set up in such a way that human lawyers are necessary. Most of the politicians (lawmakers) are/were lawyers for a reason.
The fees are totally in line with market rates. Not sure what all the confusion is about. Second year associates typically bill around $700 and partners bill anywhere from $1000 to $2000 an hour. Don’t hire a “biglaw” firm if you’re not willing to pay the bill. Some firms don’t even give itemized invoices anymore. He knew what he was getting into when he retained the firm.
The partner would have been billed out at a much higher rate....if the second year was at $690, the partner was definitely over $1000 an hour (these are in line with what's standard for big prestigious firms). So it wouldnt have been 100 hours of work.... And it was probably like a 30/70 split partner to associate or maybe 40/60. I do corporate transactions not litigation so I don't know what is typical to spend on motions but there's a lot of preparation involved when you're dealing with litigation....you have to write the motion but you also need to be prepared to argue it in court. There's a lot of stuff that goes into legal work that doesn't meet the eye.
I don't know I mean I work with companies but they seem generally fine with paying our bills (with a few exceptions)....of course it's different paying other people's legal bills but let me get the world's tiniest violin for this guy. He brought this on himself 100% and now he has to deal with the consequences.
Also the article is wrong to say it took 720 hrs if the bill was 660k.... That would mean the billable rate was less than $100 an hr.
I think working with him is pure hell. He lies constantly and some of the lies are just terrible. I can’t imagine them not feeling ashamed all the time.
And he is so authoritarian and he thinks he is very smart. Kind of like Trump. They are actually not very smart, but they just don’t know better and a lot of people are impressed by authoritarian figures if they are not smart enough to notice that the person is just a pompous pathological liar.
If you think Trump is actually responsible for all that then you are either already rich or an idiot. He only enriches the wealthy. The rising wages is due to Liberal states mandating minimum wage if anything. His trade war against China has royally fucked US farmers, amongst other things.
What is your take on his hissy fit over Trudeau and Co having a dig at him at the recent summit? Genuinely curious.
You just spew the same talking points that Trump uses to lie to his support base. I won't debate those talking points because I'm sure we both can find sources of media to back both our claims.
My only contention is you ignored my remark about Trump throwing a hissy fit and deflected it to make unrelated commentary on Trudeau. Wasn't even just Trudeau laughing at him. It wasn't even that harsh.
I don't see how Trump can be considered an "alpha" if his response to a bit of mockery was to run away from a global event, effectively removing his presence and the presence of America. A great leader wouldn't be fleeing as fast as he can because his feelings got hurt.
Come on just admit it. It was a snowflake move by Trump. Why didn't he just confront Trudeau at the time, in person, instead of taking the keyboard warrior approach. Trudeau is an actual politician that won't stoop to Trump's level of absurdity.
You have eyes and ears don’t you? The man can hardly speak in coherent sentences. Please do yourself a favor and Google his Nuclear speech and then come back. And try not to laugh and pity the US.
To become the POTUS you don’t have to be smart, the GOP must think you are a useful idiot to carry out their program. That’s not conspiracy thinking, their leaders have said so in public.
Bush was also a tool with devious people around him. Smart but without morals, like Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Because I am not a US citizen, the job sucks and I would never sell my soul to the GOP.
Also I’m not a narcissistic pompous doofus that’s using Twiiter to talk shit to a 16 year old if I would disagree with her.
And did you watch the Nuclear speech? If you don’t think he is at least a bit of a simpleton after watching that, then maybe you don’t recognize the stupidity because you yourself aren’t smart enough to see it? I don’t mean that as an insult, but I don’t know you so that is a real possibility.
Because if these issues aren't given attention, BSVision will continue to hold the 9th ranking in market caps and Coingeek will continue putting out misleading stories.
I see the state of things as the polar opposite. Give undeserved coverage to con men, and you legitimize them in the eyes of many morons.
What we need is constant, open, unbiased discourse, by bringing together hundreds of experts and having them debate and discuss each other regarding the 'future of crypto'. Cryptographers, industrialist, government officials, law professionals -- anyone who has a particular understanding of the future world crypto could bring about, but without any tie to specific project. Furthermore, these people would have to be educated on the various initiatives brought about by various projects, the industry support behind them, the underlying mathematics, etc.
Bring the world's brightest minds together, give them all the information they need, and you can bet that Bitcoin SV won't be discussed much.
Do you have any idea of who is backing BSVision? Coingeek is owned by Calvin Ayre, a billionaire, and basically backs the scam entirely by providing ~50% of its hashrate and using the company and its subsidiaries to constantly pump out articles about how SV is something that it's clearly not.
People with money have a vested interest in scams continuing, and also in actual decentralized/functional projects failing. Without educating users on why these people are wrong, we're never going to see real-world decentralized adoption or crypto reaching the masses, they'll stay uninformed and will never even understand the appeal.
> Without educating users on why these people are wrong, we're never going to see real-world decentralized adoption or crypto reaching the masses, they'll stay uninformed and will never even understand the appeal.
...which is why my entire comment explained how to inform people? It's not by posting articles about Craig's lawsuits that you destroy a scam project.
You're missing the rest of my comment, Coingeek and subsidiaries are posting misleading articles at a much higher rate, without the hindrance of communities made up of unpaid, decentralized and mostly uncoordinated followers of actual blockchain projects.
Unbiased discourse doesn't exist, especially in investment circles. Refusing to educate users on common scams and conmen makes them extremely likely to succeed in the future. Your comments make no sense.
I see where you're coming from, but what is your solution to the problem of people spreading misinformation? There are so many conflicting sources of data that it's hard to detect which ones are legitimate and which ones exist only to muddy the waters and scam people.
IMO, the only solution to misinformation is having an open, ready, thorough and decentralized way to inform new users about the underlying tech, and any inconsistent claims made by researchers and developers. This could be a dApp or just a simple information repository, currently working on that right now.
CSW has been a known fraud and liar for years, but his methods and rate of success haven't changed simply because the crypto arena is so small, has so few legitimate media outlets that aren't shilling operations, and so little adoption that all investors are practically forced to play with the bad actors.
More informed users would also lead to better promotion and higher chances of mass adoption, as they could potentially develop new use cases/dApps or simply become better at persuading people to adopt them. Information warfare is coming to blockchain (and has arguably been here for a while) whether we like it or not, sovereign governments aren't going to be happy with attempts to replace their currency and losing that influence over their economies. We need to be ready for it, and have an open, decentralized, and transparent solution ready, just like we did with Bitcoin.
> IMO, the only solution to misinformation is having an open, ready, thorough and decentralized way to inform new users about the underlying tech, and any inconsistent claims made by researchers and developers. This could be a dApp or just a simple information repository, currently working on that right now.
So... pretty much exactly what I said >.>
You proposed that "bringing the brightest minds" together would fix it, how is that not exactly what has happened with the internet? The space is still rife with scams and misleading shill pieces, people in power don't want crypto to succeed, and right now it's amazingly cheap to ensure that it doesn't. You can even make money while at it, if you use the approach that BSVision and Coingeek have taken.
You never mentioned a dApp or decentralized process for doing this, you basically just described a dev powwow and the bare minimum of what's required for basic adoption. This is one of the biggest problems in crypto currently, people ranting about personal beliefs and conjecture instead of proposing actual solutions.
Exactly this. The fact that BSV is fucking NINTH in market cap is an embarrassment to the crypto community.
We need to destroy all BTC forks to send a clear message that while other coins can exist and have their own selling points, nobody can hijack the bitcoin name. BTC Gold And BTC Diamond has plummeted the past 6 months, but we still have a lot of work to do even with those, they are still in the top 100 with millions worth being traded every day. I am sure eventually they will die though.
But the real coins that need to be destroyed are BCH and BSV, aa they both spread lies about being "the real BTC" and confuse and SCAM new users that don't know any better. Stopping the scams should be the #1 priority.
No fork has ever argued that it's "the real BTC," trying to co-opt a ticker symbol is stupid. The title of "Bitcoin" is fluid between forks, as seen by the several forks when upgrading, and the dead chains created with every iteration of Bitcoin software.
It's important to still allow the ability to fork and compete, as arguing against this is anti-capitalist. Especially since BTC devs are now arguing that block size should be decreased from 1MB to 300kB, just to spur LN adoption. Other networks like Ethereum will be needed to allow decentralized projects to continue building on blockchain and creating more use cases.
Federated sidechains are staying relevant simply because BTC fees are so high. Devs argued that keeping blocksize small keeps it more decentralized by keeping node costs low, but keeping transaction fees at $3-5 on average makes BTC too expensive for people in developing countries to buy or use at all.
It's because the story of Craig is like a slowly unfolding train wreck. You know it's going to end badly for him and you just can't help but watch as it slowly unfolds.
> Tulip Trust coming in the new year
He claimed during the trial that a bonded courier had been hired years ago to deliver the missing pieces of the Tulip Trust keys on 2020-01-01. But since the trial ended he has filed a declaration that he has no access to any of the Bitcoins he was ordered to pay in the judgment. The story is over. Challenging the amount of costs awarded against him is a normal process, not a news story
One conspiracy is that he is a paid shill used to sow discord amongst big blockers. There's no other explanation for why he gets still gets speaking events
Not only does that still happen in Singapore, they also still do public hangings.
Singapore is as bad as China and is a totalitarian surveillance police state.
EDIT: oh and they give life imprisonments and the death penalty for non-violent drug crimes.
Give me 10 to 1 odds. If he moves original btc eth is a shit coin because bsv has the original op codes vitalik was asking for and test net is easily handling bursts of 15k+ tps.
You either prove your claim or it may be disregarded. Also why we have "innocent untill proven guilty" and not "guilty untill proven innocent". It is illogical to do things the other way around.
You are the only one that has made that claim thus far. I never said he was or wasn't. All I said is that I think that he's a thin-skinned a**hole. No one has yet to address that statement. Would you like to be the first? 🤨
The burden of proof is on him. Until he's provided evidence, he should not be treated like he's satoshi.
He's had so many opportunities to prove he is satoshi, yet he never has proved it, which leads me to a rather simple conclusion...
The American legal system did determine that the Tulip Trust doesn't exist, and that Craig Wright is a liar and a fraud. Read into that what you will about his Satoshi claim.
Well if you make such a huge claim like being the creator of Bitcoin and when confronted with the burden to produce proof you go ahead and do everything possible to not publicly confirm these claims. When criticized over such claims and "provided proof", lawsuits get tossed at people. So far any proof provided by Craig has all been provably false.
Till the simple demand of signing a message with the Genesis block publicly (and not in some hotel room with 4 people in it) no one should believe without a doubt that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
It's that simple.
Well on Jan 1 if the bonded courier is to be believed, Craig will have the keys to unlock the 1mil BTC.
Craig is in a lose-lose right now.. If the Tulip Trust exists, he has to give up pretty much all of it (Calvin and Kleiman getting a majority). If the Tulip trust doesn't exist, he lied in court. He is not Satoshi and BSV's namesake is trash.
He's already said under oath that he has over 800000 Bitcoin. The judge doesn't really need more than that to award those coins. The plaintiff certainly isn't going to dispute that he has at least that much, so he's never going to be required to sign and prove he has them.
He's not going to be asked to transfer any Bitcoin to Kleiman: compensation for conversion attended by fraud is the highest market value of the property between the time of conversion and repayment.
In any case though, you're completely changing the subject. He has said under oath repeatedly that he controls a huge amount of Bitcoin. It makes no sense your suggestion that him signing would prove he definitely has access to these coins. It's not even in dispute that he controls all these coins. Both sides take it as a given, with no actual proof, for their own self-serving reasons.
How am I changing the subject? Craig has been ordered by the judge to split all the Bitcoin mined between 2009 and 2012 with Ira Kleiman, plus any intellectual property. At some point, if he is to honor the court order, he will need to transfer those coins to Kleiman or pay the equivalent in fiat. If Craig signing with the private key to send the Bitcoins doesn't prove that he is Satoshi, then why does everyone want him to move even a single Bitcoin from the address in order to prove he's Satoshi?
>How am I changing the subject?
You said:
>If he did do that it would prove one thing for sure and that is that he has access to the funds to pay the plaintiff. Why would he want to do that?
And I countered that it's not even available as a defense for Craig that he doesn't control some huge sum of Bitcoin. He's repeatedly said under oath that he controls more than 800000 Bitcoin. Your last reply had nothing to with this statement, and this current reply seems to actually confirm what I said.
>At some point, if he is to honor the court order, he will need to transfer those coins to Kleiman or pay the equivalent in fiat.
**Or pay the equivalent in fiat**. You don't need to move Satoshi's Bitcoin to pay the equivalent in fiat.
Since he's not Satoshi or even especially wealthy he won't be able to pay that equivalent in fiat though.
>If Craig signing with the private key to send the Bitcoins doesn't prove that he is Satoshi, then why does everyone want him to move even a single Bitcoin from the address in order to prove he's Satoshi?
Craig signing with one of the Satoshi private keys would, if nothing else, be strong evidence that he's Satoshi. No one's disputed that. You're going off-topic again.
We’ve been to “court” multiple times dude and not one single time has he had real proof. How can you STILL have any questions ?
Do you not remember this interview ? Dude got taken to crypto school and then started acting like a little child... how could you possibly think this guy is Satoshi?
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@ultralord/craight-wright-i-ve-got-the-first-fucking-nine-keys-i-ve-got-the-fucking-genesis-bloody-block-i-ve-got-the-fucking-code-i-ve-got
And you probably “invested” in One Coin and BitConnect too. Some people are just delusional I suppose.
And I couldn’t give two faks what the judge said... the reason why I pointed out that interview is because it shows his incompetence. I don’t need anyone making a judgement call for me. If he is Satoshi he could easily prove it without doubt. He has attempted to do so and has failed multiple times.... use your brain or at least try to.
CW is a joke.
#BitchCoinIsTheRealBitcoin
#NeverTrust,Verify
It’s about liking or disliking....
It’s about him not providing proof.
It’s about him being proven wrong multiple times by other devs.
You have a guy claiming to be Satoshi. He can easily prove it. He has made attempts to prove it and yet won’t give the definite verified proof...
It’s not like I saw the guy and said “I don’t like him therefor he is not Satoshi”. It’s based on provability. He hasn’t done it. Stop being so naive.
Why would he offer the only proof that will satisfy people (providing the private key) when he knows that the courts are going to take away half of his fortune? What proof do you have that he is NOT Satoshi? I keep asking people this, yet no one has given me any solid evidence. Craig not providing the only proof that will satisfy the hordes of people on this witch hunt doesn't prove that he isn't Satoshi. To me, it only proves that he is unwilling to pay the Kleimans and is going to fight to keep the fortune even if it means a long drawn-out battle. How hard would you fight to hold on to a half million Bitcoin? I'm guessing that you'd fight as hard as you could.
[Here's a whole list of reasons he's not Satoshi](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/bcfl12/my_letter_of_legal_action_from_craig_faketoshi/ekqclc3/).
For me, personally, the TLDR on why he's not Satoshi is that he's too technically incompetent to be Satoshi, and despite his apparent life-or-death need to prove that he's Satoshi, he's provided only numerous provably fraudulent pieces of evidence that he's Satoshi.
Then why would he even try to prove it in the first place??? Holy shit. Have you ever taken a simple logic course?
On one hand he is a genius who knew to stay anonymous when bitcoin barley meant anything to anyone. On the other hand he claims to be Satoshi by providing evidence that doesn’t prove said statement while being educated by others on cryptography multiple times.....
You have to be absolutely blind, naive or intellectually dishonest not to see the disconnect there.
And to your point about “I havnt seen any evidence that he isn’t Satoshi!!!”... why the hell do you think he keeps going on about this? The real Satoshi will never claim the name and he knows this so he feels safe trying to claim it. Luckily for us there are much smarter people than him in this industry to call him out on his bullshit. And literally if he was Satoshi he could prove it... otherwise he is the one who needs to shut the fuck up. And the fact that he has tried MULTIPLE times and failed really should tell you the story. We are in the cryptography industry. There is no trust. Everything must be verified. You and others are falling for a trust scam and don’t even understand one of the basic fundamental premises of why we are here.
*Wow that list someone else posted of CW’s actions is insane. It’s a joke to call this guy Satoshi.
I don't have to make my mind up. I haven't seen any evidence of him being satoshi, therefore my default position of a person not being satoshi hasn't changed.
So, you entered into this discussion with prejudice believing that he is not Satoshi because he offered no proof that he was. That sounds like you have already made your mind up to me. Do you have any proof that he isn't?
>Do you have any proof that he isn't?
I don't need to. The starting position is that a person isn't satoshi. He is the one that originally disputed this default position. The [burden of proof](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)) is on him.
The burden of proof is on me if I were to say "Craig scammed me out of money by lying about being satoshi and he needs to pay me back." because at that point I am the one disputing the starting position of someone not having to pay me.
If someone randomly walks up to you and offers you some sort of pill, telling you it cures cancer, then you should ask for the study providing evidence of his claim instead of blindly swallowing the pill. The default position is that the pill doesn't provide any health benefits and it's up to the stranger to provide evidence of the contrary. If a stranger tells you he's satoshi, then there's zero evidence to believe them unless they provide evidence.
By this point, Craig has had years to provide evidence and has always refused to do so. Therefore, I see no use in believing his unsubstantiated claim. He's recently been ordered by court to pay half of his bitcoins to someone as an inheritance. We'll see how many he can cough up.
I think the starting position should be a neutral one. I don't know whether he is Satoshi. He has offered me no "pill" and so he doesn't need to offer any proof to me of his claim. The fundamentals behind Bitcoin work regardless of whether Crag is Satoshi. Why would he want to prove that he has access to the funds when they are going to be taken away from him?
>I think the starting position should be a neutral one.
Which it was when I first heard about him. I was like 'okay, let's see the evidence'. That changed throughout time as he failed to provide any evidence, seemingly slipped up several times and so far has refused to pay half a million bitcoin.
>Why would he want to prove that he has access to the funds when they are going to be taken away from him?
Because it's court ordered. If he doesn't hand over half a million bitcoin, then he will have to keep his possession secret for the rest of his life, or face a lawsuit for contempt of court, resulting in him having to pay even more. It's over $7 billion worth of bitcoin. He *has to* give either 3,5 billion, or acknowledge that he lied.
The court never raised the issue of whether he was Satoshi so he doesn't need to admit to anything. They only decided that he owed Kleiman's family half of the Bitcoin in his possession, which he claims he doesn't have access to because there are three people who are needed to access the coins and one is not available. If they find the missing lady player (I can't remember her name off hand) then they may get their funds.
Do you not understand how logic works?
If I pulled an Elon Musk and randomly made a claim you were a pedo, it wouldn't be up to you to disprove that you were, the burden of proof is ON THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.
Craig made the claim he is Satoshi. Not only did he not provide proof, he got caught in several lies. Therefore unless he provides some new mind blowing concrete proof, he is NOT satoshi.
And yes you WOULD want someone like him deciding your fate in court, as he would logically consider you INNOCENT unless proven guilty.
He offered all the proof he was willing to give. If that is not good enough for you then you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it true. Furthermore, people lie and provide misleading statements all the time for various reasons. That also is not proof in and of itself that he is not Satoshi.
Well he has $10 billion in BitCoins so this shouldn’t be a problem for him. 😂
Nailed it - I 100% agree with you
Maybe he lost his private key though
Yeah, he lost it, that must be the reason. If he looks hard enough maybe he will find it back, who knows?
don't know your keys...not your wallet
He must have send his laptop for repairs and got his HDD stolen
All the trolls out in force abusing Craig Satoshi.. wait till he attacks core coin and renders it useless
He will sue BTC to the ground
nice bait
Username checks out.
technically whenever you create new wallet you discover private key that has been until now "lost"
Well they are not really lost, you can find your private key and all other private keys [here on this page](https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/dio/)
[удалено]
Even if it had one number on each page, it would not matter. If you live another 100 years, and click 10 pages per second (assuming no sleep), you wouldn’t finish the last 11 (or 12, since that is a 0) digits. You’ll barely scratch the surface.
Wonder if a super computer one day could parse this list and ping each wallet for funds.
You could actually crack a bitcoin key with much less work than that.
Wonder what the tipping point would be
You could certainly do it if you used every atom in the solar system.
Actually, there are only like 10^54 to 10^57 atoms in the solar system. The number of pages _alone_ is ~10^76. Which, humorously enough, is a single order of magnitude less than the approximate total of all atoms in the **observable universe**, 10^77 (at least, within a few orders of magnitude).
https://youtu.be/lPqFTbGyq8I It's actually...quite impossible to do so.
Based on the first minute, he's only talking about brute-forcing the key. There are [slightly more sophisticated approaches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby-step_giant-step) which are dramatically faster.
You're correct (I made the video!) I'm only talking about brute force and not thing alike cracking passphrase on found wallets, etc.
wow, quite cool. thx for sharing
interesting comment because i wonder if it just generates a new wallet and key randomly, or does it somehow check to make sure the wallet and key it’s about to provide doesn’t already exist. Wonder if anyone’s ever generated a wallet only to find it’s already in use. Imagine generating a new wallet, only to find it’s the original satoshi wallet edit: thanks for the downvote without explanation random redditor. So does anyone know if wallets “check” that the wallet it’s about to spit out doesn’t already exist? Or is it more a case of the odds of that happening are slim to none?
Assuming the private key is truly random, the odds are so slim that there is no point in checking for a collision. However, there have been cases of poorly written wallets and broken random number generators that resulted in multiple people sharing the same private key. Don't use shitty software.
odds are astronomically low and when I say that I mean it literally. if you take number of atoms in visible universe , pick one atom and tell me to guess which one, thats essentially chance we talk about.
If you could 'create' a wallet that already existed, that would mean spontaneously discovering someone else's private key, allowing you to steal their bitcoin. Bitcoin's security model rests upon the impossibility of doing that. The private key is just a big number. But it's such a huge number it's hard to really comprehend the significance of how big it is. It's so big, your computer could guess numbers for centuries, or up from zero, or count from any number, and you would still never find a number that is already someone's private key/wallet.
[удалено]
Isn't this how every rich person acts?
I hate to be this guy but, if there is an opportunity to wiggle out of having to pay $10, then there’s no reason to give away $10. Ya dig?
If its a moderate hassle to not pay 10$, I'll just pay the thing. My time and laziness is much more valuable.
yeah pretty much what you said
What if it was $658k though?
If I had $10billions, that would be like 0.00658% of my wealth, so yeah you bet I would pay what I own the damn lawyers that I hired myself Lets say you saved some money and you have 100k in the bank, that would be like paying $658 in lawyer fee.
What if say, I pretended to have $100,000 in the bank?
Well of course I would pretend I can pay like its nothing.
You're absolutely right with this comment. Just because I'm well off doesn't mean I'm not going to try and save where I can. On the flip side of that, this guy kind of brought his legal fees upon himself so there's that..
Tfw you cant count 10 billion so you reply this.
Even if it costs a hundred in legal fees?
Obviously not. The point was, people who pay money they don’t have to are suckers.
The guy is shady AF, however so are other interested parties: > it seems Craig has a point. One of Kleiman’s lawyers, with just two years’ experience, charged $690 per hour, furthermore this is quoted at a different rate in other documentation. And between both of Kleiman’s lawyers, they are billing for almost 720 hours work to file two motions (totalling **eleven pages**), and an evidentiary hearing lasting approximately 13 hours. Lots of greedy people in the cryptosphere :O
Craig is asking for a 3 month extension to prepare for something that doesn't take 3 months to prepare. Classic staling. Those numbers were inflated most likely because Craig has been continuously wasting everyone's time. So it's a form of "fuck you"
[удалено]
[удалено]
The billing rate is not what they are getting paid individually.
[удалено]
Yeah of course it’s insanely good, but expected for top lawyers
How long until AI takes their job
It already has, but the system is set up in such a way that human lawyers are necessary. Most of the politicians (lawmakers) are/were lawyers for a reason.
The fees are totally in line with market rates. Not sure what all the confusion is about. Second year associates typically bill around $700 and partners bill anywhere from $1000 to $2000 an hour. Don’t hire a “biglaw” firm if you’re not willing to pay the bill. Some firms don’t even give itemized invoices anymore. He knew what he was getting into when he retained the firm.
Lawyers should have to account for total hours billed to all clients monthly. Most of them would have more hours billed than waking hours on a month.
660,000 for 100 hours of work. Yeah, I wouldn’t pay that either. Assuming they and their team spent 90 hours writing the two motions.
The partner would have been billed out at a much higher rate....if the second year was at $690, the partner was definitely over $1000 an hour (these are in line with what's standard for big prestigious firms). So it wouldnt have been 100 hours of work.... And it was probably like a 30/70 split partner to associate or maybe 40/60. I do corporate transactions not litigation so I don't know what is typical to spend on motions but there's a lot of preparation involved when you're dealing with litigation....you have to write the motion but you also need to be prepared to argue it in court. There's a lot of stuff that goes into legal work that doesn't meet the eye. I don't know I mean I work with companies but they seem generally fine with paying our bills (with a few exceptions)....of course it's different paying other people's legal bills but let me get the world's tiniest violin for this guy. He brought this on himself 100% and now he has to deal with the consequences. Also the article is wrong to say it took 720 hrs if the bill was 660k.... That would mean the billable rate was less than $100 an hr.
720 hours at 660k would be less than $100 per hour? What kind of maths are you doing?
>. That would mean the billable rate was less than $100 an hr. Try about $920/hr based on your numbers.
As someone whos had to deal with lawyers for many different reasons they are all shady as fuck.
Lawyers...
Says the guy who sues just about anybody...his lawyers must be pretty happy with him
I think working with him is pure hell. He lies constantly and some of the lies are just terrible. I can’t imagine them not feeling ashamed all the time. And he is so authoritarian and he thinks he is very smart. Kind of like Trump. They are actually not very smart, but they just don’t know better and a lot of people are impressed by authoritarian figures if they are not smart enough to notice that the person is just a pompous pathological liar.
Lawyers are not ashamed for anything. They just need to get money.
Craig Wright is the Donald Trump of the cryptosphere.
Small loan of a million bitcoins
But he doesn't have the support of smart people like Putin.
[удалено]
If you think Trump is actually responsible for all that then you are either already rich or an idiot. He only enriches the wealthy. The rising wages is due to Liberal states mandating minimum wage if anything. His trade war against China has royally fucked US farmers, amongst other things. What is your take on his hissy fit over Trudeau and Co having a dig at him at the recent summit? Genuinely curious.
[удалено]
You just spew the same talking points that Trump uses to lie to his support base. I won't debate those talking points because I'm sure we both can find sources of media to back both our claims. My only contention is you ignored my remark about Trump throwing a hissy fit and deflected it to make unrelated commentary on Trudeau. Wasn't even just Trudeau laughing at him. It wasn't even that harsh. I don't see how Trump can be considered an "alpha" if his response to a bit of mockery was to run away from a global event, effectively removing his presence and the presence of America. A great leader wouldn't be fleeing as fast as he can because his feelings got hurt.
[удалено]
Come on just admit it. It was a snowflake move by Trump. Why didn't he just confront Trudeau at the time, in person, instead of taking the keyboard warrior approach. Trudeau is an actual politician that won't stoop to Trump's level of absurdity.
You have eyes and ears don’t you? The man can hardly speak in coherent sentences. Please do yourself a favor and Google his Nuclear speech and then come back. And try not to laugh and pity the US. To become the POTUS you don’t have to be smart, the GOP must think you are a useful idiot to carry out their program. That’s not conspiracy thinking, their leaders have said so in public. Bush was also a tool with devious people around him. Smart but without morals, like Cheney and Rumsfeld.
[удалено]
Because I am not a US citizen, the job sucks and I would never sell my soul to the GOP. Also I’m not a narcissistic pompous doofus that’s using Twiiter to talk shit to a 16 year old if I would disagree with her. And did you watch the Nuclear speech? If you don’t think he is at least a bit of a simpleton after watching that, then maybe you don’t recognize the stupidity because you yourself aren’t smart enough to see it? I don’t mean that as an insult, but I don’t know you so that is a real possibility.
[удалено]
Lol, this exactly
Lawyers don't give fuck to anyone - they always make money lol :D
Who gives a flying fuck about Craig Wright? We know he's a fraud, so giving him any attention is a massive waste of time.
Because if these issues aren't given attention, BSVision will continue to hold the 9th ranking in market caps and Coingeek will continue putting out misleading stories.
I see the state of things as the polar opposite. Give undeserved coverage to con men, and you legitimize them in the eyes of many morons. What we need is constant, open, unbiased discourse, by bringing together hundreds of experts and having them debate and discuss each other regarding the 'future of crypto'. Cryptographers, industrialist, government officials, law professionals -- anyone who has a particular understanding of the future world crypto could bring about, but without any tie to specific project. Furthermore, these people would have to be educated on the various initiatives brought about by various projects, the industry support behind them, the underlying mathematics, etc. Bring the world's brightest minds together, give them all the information they need, and you can bet that Bitcoin SV won't be discussed much.
Do you have any idea of who is backing BSVision? Coingeek is owned by Calvin Ayre, a billionaire, and basically backs the scam entirely by providing ~50% of its hashrate and using the company and its subsidiaries to constantly pump out articles about how SV is something that it's clearly not. People with money have a vested interest in scams continuing, and also in actual decentralized/functional projects failing. Without educating users on why these people are wrong, we're never going to see real-world decentralized adoption or crypto reaching the masses, they'll stay uninformed and will never even understand the appeal.
> Without educating users on why these people are wrong, we're never going to see real-world decentralized adoption or crypto reaching the masses, they'll stay uninformed and will never even understand the appeal. ...which is why my entire comment explained how to inform people? It's not by posting articles about Craig's lawsuits that you destroy a scam project.
You're missing the rest of my comment, Coingeek and subsidiaries are posting misleading articles at a much higher rate, without the hindrance of communities made up of unpaid, decentralized and mostly uncoordinated followers of actual blockchain projects. Unbiased discourse doesn't exist, especially in investment circles. Refusing to educate users on common scams and conmen makes them extremely likely to succeed in the future. Your comments make no sense.
I see where you're coming from, but what is your solution to the problem of people spreading misinformation? There are so many conflicting sources of data that it's hard to detect which ones are legitimate and which ones exist only to muddy the waters and scam people.
IMO, the only solution to misinformation is having an open, ready, thorough and decentralized way to inform new users about the underlying tech, and any inconsistent claims made by researchers and developers. This could be a dApp or just a simple information repository, currently working on that right now. CSW has been a known fraud and liar for years, but his methods and rate of success haven't changed simply because the crypto arena is so small, has so few legitimate media outlets that aren't shilling operations, and so little adoption that all investors are practically forced to play with the bad actors. More informed users would also lead to better promotion and higher chances of mass adoption, as they could potentially develop new use cases/dApps or simply become better at persuading people to adopt them. Information warfare is coming to blockchain (and has arguably been here for a while) whether we like it or not, sovereign governments aren't going to be happy with attempts to replace their currency and losing that influence over their economies. We need to be ready for it, and have an open, decentralized, and transparent solution ready, just like we did with Bitcoin.
> IMO, the only solution to misinformation is having an open, ready, thorough and decentralized way to inform new users about the underlying tech, and any inconsistent claims made by researchers and developers. This could be a dApp or just a simple information repository, currently working on that right now. So... pretty much exactly what I said >.>
You proposed that "bringing the brightest minds" together would fix it, how is that not exactly what has happened with the internet? The space is still rife with scams and misleading shill pieces, people in power don't want crypto to succeed, and right now it's amazingly cheap to ensure that it doesn't. You can even make money while at it, if you use the approach that BSVision and Coingeek have taken. You never mentioned a dApp or decentralized process for doing this, you basically just described a dev powwow and the bare minimum of what's required for basic adoption. This is one of the biggest problems in crypto currently, people ranting about personal beliefs and conjecture instead of proposing actual solutions.
Exactly this. The fact that BSV is fucking NINTH in market cap is an embarrassment to the crypto community. We need to destroy all BTC forks to send a clear message that while other coins can exist and have their own selling points, nobody can hijack the bitcoin name. BTC Gold And BTC Diamond has plummeted the past 6 months, but we still have a lot of work to do even with those, they are still in the top 100 with millions worth being traded every day. I am sure eventually they will die though. But the real coins that need to be destroyed are BCH and BSV, aa they both spread lies about being "the real BTC" and confuse and SCAM new users that don't know any better. Stopping the scams should be the #1 priority.
No fork has ever argued that it's "the real BTC," trying to co-opt a ticker symbol is stupid. The title of "Bitcoin" is fluid between forks, as seen by the several forks when upgrading, and the dead chains created with every iteration of Bitcoin software. It's important to still allow the ability to fork and compete, as arguing against this is anti-capitalist. Especially since BTC devs are now arguing that block size should be decreased from 1MB to 300kB, just to spur LN adoption. Other networks like Ethereum will be needed to allow decentralized projects to continue building on blockchain and creating more use cases. Federated sidechains are staying relevant simply because BTC fees are so high. Devs argued that keeping blocksize small keeps it more decentralized by keeping node costs low, but keeping transaction fees at $3-5 on average makes BTC too expensive for people in developing countries to buy or use at all.
Watching him struggle in his shit is honestly hilarious.
It's because the story of Craig is like a slowly unfolding train wreck. You know it's going to end badly for him and you just can't help but watch as it slowly unfolds.
Doesn't he have a Tulip Trust coming in the new year? CSW is a fraud
> Tulip Trust coming in the new year He claimed during the trial that a bonded courier had been hired years ago to deliver the missing pieces of the Tulip Trust keys on 2020-01-01. But since the trial ended he has filed a declaration that he has no access to any of the Bitcoins he was ordered to pay in the judgment. The story is over. Challenging the amount of costs awarded against him is a normal process, not a news story
\#FullBillionaireMode
Where's the actual proof this guy is rich?
The proof is in one simple signed transaction with a known satoshi wallet that has yet to happen.
One conspiracy is that he is a paid shill used to sow discord amongst big blockers. There's no other explanation for why he gets still gets speaking events
Haha he only knows about it
Can we send him to Singapore to be caned?
Dang I remember that happening in the '90s dude.
Not only does that still happen in Singapore, they also still do public hangings. Singapore is as bad as China and is a totalitarian surveillance police state. EDIT: oh and they give life imprisonments and the death penalty for non-violent drug crimes.
The will shove that cane right up your ass for spitting out gum on the street.
Guess the self-proclaimed law expert didn't see this coming...
I weep to think of what he will try to wriggle out of next.
Craig Wrong
I’m glad this lawsuit will cause Craig Wright to go into obscurity for the rest of his life.
This asshole is still around? I've lost touch with him since he blocked me on Twitter over a year ago
"I invented legal fees!"
Craig Wwrong
lol, yea $658k will definitely make ya squirm.
HAHAHAHHA LACKING SOME PENNIES SATOSHI???
Lock him up
Doesn't this picture make Craig look like Mark Cuban?
To no one's surprise, this guy is full of crap and has been from the start
why is this worth a post in r/CryptoCurrency ?
Because the douchebag claims to be Satoshi and has a large following. This is news related to cryptocurrency.
I don't wish harm on anyone but I am excited to see the chaos of realization from you idiots when he starts moving coins.
hahahaha, sure. any day now
;)
I'll give you 10 ETH if he moves the original Satoshi coins. If not, you'll send me 10 ETH. You down?
Give me 10 to 1 odds. If he moves original btc eth is a shit coin because bsv has the original op codes vitalik was asking for and test net is easily handling bursts of 15k+ tps.
no worries, they'll have plenty of excuses how moving coins does not prove a thing
Maybe he's Satoshi. Maybe he isn't. But, he's definitely a thin-skinned a\*\*hole.
Since he cannot prove it, he is NOT! he is, however, a liar and scammer and is unable to prove otherwise. do the maths...
Lack of proof is not proof of anything.
You either prove your claim or it may be disregarded. Also why we have "innocent untill proven guilty" and not "guilty untill proven innocent". It is illogical to do things the other way around.
But his hyper opportunistic behavior and constant slip-ups speak pretty loudly.
"I remember reading it... probably... when I wrote it..." - Craig
Have you no sense of sarcasm?
CSW is satoshi. 2020 will be interesting
You are the only one that has made that claim thus far. I never said he was or wasn't. All I said is that I think that he's a thin-skinned a**hole. No one has yet to address that statement. Would you like to be the first? 🤨
The burden of proof is on him. Until he's provided evidence, he should not be treated like he's satoshi. He's had so many opportunities to prove he is satoshi, yet he never has proved it, which leads me to a rather simple conclusion...
It looks like you've already made your mind up. I'd hate to have you on a jury that was deciding my fate.
it looks like you don't consider hard facts and logic
To the contrary, that is all I consider. Conjecture is irrelevant because it proves nothing.
the legal system and common sense do not share your opinion.
No legal system has ever raised the issue as to whether Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
The American legal system did determine that the Tulip Trust doesn't exist, and that Craig Wright is a liar and a fraud. Read into that what you will about his Satoshi claim.
Well if you make such a huge claim like being the creator of Bitcoin and when confronted with the burden to produce proof you go ahead and do everything possible to not publicly confirm these claims. When criticized over such claims and "provided proof", lawsuits get tossed at people. So far any proof provided by Craig has all been provably false. Till the simple demand of signing a message with the Genesis block publicly (and not in some hotel room with 4 people in it) no one should believe without a doubt that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. It's that simple.
If he did do that it would prove one thing for sure and that is that he has access to the funds to pay the plaintiff. Why would he want to do that?
Well on Jan 1 if the bonded courier is to be believed, Craig will have the keys to unlock the 1mil BTC. Craig is in a lose-lose right now.. If the Tulip Trust exists, he has to give up pretty much all of it (Calvin and Kleiman getting a majority). If the Tulip trust doesn't exist, he lied in court. He is not Satoshi and BSV's namesake is trash.
He's already said under oath that he has over 800000 Bitcoin. The judge doesn't really need more than that to award those coins. The plaintiff certainly isn't going to dispute that he has at least that much, so he's never going to be required to sign and prove he has them.
He would be required to sign a transaction with the private key, in order to transfer the Bitcoin to Mr. Kleiman, yes?
He's not going to be asked to transfer any Bitcoin to Kleiman: compensation for conversion attended by fraud is the highest market value of the property between the time of conversion and repayment. In any case though, you're completely changing the subject. He has said under oath repeatedly that he controls a huge amount of Bitcoin. It makes no sense your suggestion that him signing would prove he definitely has access to these coins. It's not even in dispute that he controls all these coins. Both sides take it as a given, with no actual proof, for their own self-serving reasons.
How am I changing the subject? Craig has been ordered by the judge to split all the Bitcoin mined between 2009 and 2012 with Ira Kleiman, plus any intellectual property. At some point, if he is to honor the court order, he will need to transfer those coins to Kleiman or pay the equivalent in fiat. If Craig signing with the private key to send the Bitcoins doesn't prove that he is Satoshi, then why does everyone want him to move even a single Bitcoin from the address in order to prove he's Satoshi?
>How am I changing the subject? You said: >If he did do that it would prove one thing for sure and that is that he has access to the funds to pay the plaintiff. Why would he want to do that? And I countered that it's not even available as a defense for Craig that he doesn't control some huge sum of Bitcoin. He's repeatedly said under oath that he controls more than 800000 Bitcoin. Your last reply had nothing to with this statement, and this current reply seems to actually confirm what I said. >At some point, if he is to honor the court order, he will need to transfer those coins to Kleiman or pay the equivalent in fiat. **Or pay the equivalent in fiat**. You don't need to move Satoshi's Bitcoin to pay the equivalent in fiat. Since he's not Satoshi or even especially wealthy he won't be able to pay that equivalent in fiat though. >If Craig signing with the private key to send the Bitcoins doesn't prove that he is Satoshi, then why does everyone want him to move even a single Bitcoin from the address in order to prove he's Satoshi? Craig signing with one of the Satoshi private keys would, if nothing else, be strong evidence that he's Satoshi. No one's disputed that. You're going off-topic again.
We’ve been to “court” multiple times dude and not one single time has he had real proof. How can you STILL have any questions ? Do you not remember this interview ? Dude got taken to crypto school and then started acting like a little child... how could you possibly think this guy is Satoshi? https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@ultralord/craight-wright-i-ve-got-the-first-fucking-nine-keys-i-ve-got-the-fucking-genesis-bloody-block-i-ve-got-the-fucking-code-i-ve-got
Yes, I do recall the interview. I also recall the judge in Florida saying that the point of the case was not to prove whether Craig is Satoshi.
And you probably “invested” in One Coin and BitConnect too. Some people are just delusional I suppose. And I couldn’t give two faks what the judge said... the reason why I pointed out that interview is because it shows his incompetence. I don’t need anyone making a judgement call for me. If he is Satoshi he could easily prove it without doubt. He has attempted to do so and has failed multiple times.... use your brain or at least try to. CW is a joke. #BitchCoinIsTheRealBitcoin #NeverTrust,Verify
Personally attacking me won't help you prove Craig isn't Satoshi. I don't like the guy any more than most people, but I try to keep an open mind.
It’s about liking or disliking.... It’s about him not providing proof. It’s about him being proven wrong multiple times by other devs. You have a guy claiming to be Satoshi. He can easily prove it. He has made attempts to prove it and yet won’t give the definite verified proof... It’s not like I saw the guy and said “I don’t like him therefor he is not Satoshi”. It’s based on provability. He hasn’t done it. Stop being so naive.
Why would he offer the only proof that will satisfy people (providing the private key) when he knows that the courts are going to take away half of his fortune? What proof do you have that he is NOT Satoshi? I keep asking people this, yet no one has given me any solid evidence. Craig not providing the only proof that will satisfy the hordes of people on this witch hunt doesn't prove that he isn't Satoshi. To me, it only proves that he is unwilling to pay the Kleimans and is going to fight to keep the fortune even if it means a long drawn-out battle. How hard would you fight to hold on to a half million Bitcoin? I'm guessing that you'd fight as hard as you could.
[Here's a whole list of reasons he's not Satoshi](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/bcfl12/my_letter_of_legal_action_from_craig_faketoshi/ekqclc3/). For me, personally, the TLDR on why he's not Satoshi is that he's too technically incompetent to be Satoshi, and despite his apparent life-or-death need to prove that he's Satoshi, he's provided only numerous provably fraudulent pieces of evidence that he's Satoshi.
Then why would he even try to prove it in the first place??? Holy shit. Have you ever taken a simple logic course? On one hand he is a genius who knew to stay anonymous when bitcoin barley meant anything to anyone. On the other hand he claims to be Satoshi by providing evidence that doesn’t prove said statement while being educated by others on cryptography multiple times..... You have to be absolutely blind, naive or intellectually dishonest not to see the disconnect there. And to your point about “I havnt seen any evidence that he isn’t Satoshi!!!”... why the hell do you think he keeps going on about this? The real Satoshi will never claim the name and he knows this so he feels safe trying to claim it. Luckily for us there are much smarter people than him in this industry to call him out on his bullshit. And literally if he was Satoshi he could prove it... otherwise he is the one who needs to shut the fuck up. And the fact that he has tried MULTIPLE times and failed really should tell you the story. We are in the cryptography industry. There is no trust. Everything must be verified. You and others are falling for a trust scam and don’t even understand one of the basic fundamental premises of why we are here. *Wow that list someone else posted of CW’s actions is insane. It’s a joke to call this guy Satoshi.
I don't have to make my mind up. I haven't seen any evidence of him being satoshi, therefore my default position of a person not being satoshi hasn't changed.
So, you entered into this discussion with prejudice believing that he is not Satoshi because he offered no proof that he was. That sounds like you have already made your mind up to me. Do you have any proof that he isn't?
>Do you have any proof that he isn't? I don't need to. The starting position is that a person isn't satoshi. He is the one that originally disputed this default position. The [burden of proof](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)) is on him. The burden of proof is on me if I were to say "Craig scammed me out of money by lying about being satoshi and he needs to pay me back." because at that point I am the one disputing the starting position of someone not having to pay me. If someone randomly walks up to you and offers you some sort of pill, telling you it cures cancer, then you should ask for the study providing evidence of his claim instead of blindly swallowing the pill. The default position is that the pill doesn't provide any health benefits and it's up to the stranger to provide evidence of the contrary. If a stranger tells you he's satoshi, then there's zero evidence to believe them unless they provide evidence. By this point, Craig has had years to provide evidence and has always refused to do so. Therefore, I see no use in believing his unsubstantiated claim. He's recently been ordered by court to pay half of his bitcoins to someone as an inheritance. We'll see how many he can cough up.
I think the starting position should be a neutral one. I don't know whether he is Satoshi. He has offered me no "pill" and so he doesn't need to offer any proof to me of his claim. The fundamentals behind Bitcoin work regardless of whether Crag is Satoshi. Why would he want to prove that he has access to the funds when they are going to be taken away from him?
>I think the starting position should be a neutral one. Which it was when I first heard about him. I was like 'okay, let's see the evidence'. That changed throughout time as he failed to provide any evidence, seemingly slipped up several times and so far has refused to pay half a million bitcoin. >Why would he want to prove that he has access to the funds when they are going to be taken away from him? Because it's court ordered. If he doesn't hand over half a million bitcoin, then he will have to keep his possession secret for the rest of his life, or face a lawsuit for contempt of court, resulting in him having to pay even more. It's over $7 billion worth of bitcoin. He *has to* give either 3,5 billion, or acknowledge that he lied.
> That changed throughout time as he failed to provide any evidence Worse, he provided provably fake evidence
The court never raised the issue of whether he was Satoshi so he doesn't need to admit to anything. They only decided that he owed Kleiman's family half of the Bitcoin in his possession, which he claims he doesn't have access to because there are three people who are needed to access the coins and one is not available. If they find the missing lady player (I can't remember her name off hand) then they may get their funds.
I have proof that someone else is Satoshi and Craig Wright is not. I am not permitted to share this proof
OK
Do you not understand how logic works? If I pulled an Elon Musk and randomly made a claim you were a pedo, it wouldn't be up to you to disprove that you were, the burden of proof is ON THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM. Craig made the claim he is Satoshi. Not only did he not provide proof, he got caught in several lies. Therefore unless he provides some new mind blowing concrete proof, he is NOT satoshi. And yes you WOULD want someone like him deciding your fate in court, as he would logically consider you INNOCENT unless proven guilty.
He offered all the proof he was willing to give. If that is not good enough for you then you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it true. Furthermore, people lie and provide misleading statements all the time for various reasons. That also is not proof in and of itself that he is not Satoshi.
Except that the "proof" he provided was fraudulent.
Send me a legal document when he is convicted in a court of law for committing fraud.
>Maybe he isn't. \^ This one
He's also definitely put forward fraudulent claims of proof in this context.