Craig Wright; planning to put BSV into his pocket from cour…

'although you still lose it too' -Satoshi on escrow and not court

@292 given how you helped him take a 180 using satoshis words, im sure you will cheerlead when he breaks the chain of signatures on bsv (and only bsv)

context zomgwtf

lol wut @292

nonsensical leap in order to help craig wright break bsv(and only bsv) to put money into his pocket at the expense of bsv

kurt did you do all this for fucking $200 bro?

Currently, devs act as fiduciaries. Miners are supposed to control the role. We know miners can change the ledger. The fact that people act shocked by that premise is absurd. Also, if courts issue an order, why would someone only move the BSV?

imagine if context turned supportive and back again depending on who wielded the argument?

Kurt, game out with me how it is that CSW can compel BTC or BCH through court?

I explained to you that CSW established the bitcoin association in order to have it fold for him in court after perhaps using words to disagree.

I like bitcoin because honest nodes enforce the protocol.

literally nowhere in any of satoshi's writings is there anything to support your assertion that 'satoshi seemed content with' letting creg sue bsv for coin

How do they resist? They all go behind TOR and stop paying taxes? Does the entirety of global mining go dark? Do their hashless nodes go against consensus of the companies that mine all the blocks?

I agree with what you just phrased.

if you review the whitepaper, wherein honesty is mentioned 16 times, honesty is clearly in the context of economic behavior, and court has nothing to do with it.

im super bummed out kurt, that you would help this guy hack bsv for something like $200 bucks

I'm not helping Craig do anything. I explain processes and functions in ways which make them understandable. If courts can compel miners to act on bitcoin, then it was ALWAYS a vector to consider.

I dunno brother it looks like you wrote an article to help distort the context of satoshi's words in order to help craig steal BSV in court.

IF he gets the court order(s), they will be issued to the honest nodes of bitcoin. If they are issued to those nodes, I don't suspect his target would be BSV. Whatever he gets from that shows exactly a limitation in bitcoin which always existed.

I love bitcoin, but let's not act like it's immutable. It isn't. There are many ways to rewrite the UTXO set. Some less savory than others.

Kurt, reread the whitepaper with me. All it takes to be an honest node is to chose the system of profitable incentive over wasting money to attack bitcoin.

An honest node does not necessarily have to comply with a court. Honest nodes also run segwit.

actually, you cannot change the contents of hashed data without changing the hash.

even if you support craig breaking the chain of sigantures on bsv, this immutability of hashed data remains true

I can tell you already what he gets: he gets bsv, breaks bsv, ruins its PR, and lengthy court battles wherein he tries to force developers and miners to do things they will not do.

the immutability of hashed data is how bitcoin can serve as a ledger of truth despite people being able to fill it with bullshit.

because I can look at the chain of signatures and tell each and every time when you've cregged it all up.

it's not that the target would be BSV. it's that only BSV devs, at the behest of BA, would comply in reassignment of coins.

Break implies a fault happened. If a court orders reassignment, then it isn’t broken, the ledger was amended per court order. I think that if a court issues an order and any chain refuses then that chain will end up dealing with consequences.

sure. they will also devise ways to mitigate the legal attack

Thus cementing their relationship with those who violate the law. Does not seem like a winning proposition.

if you review the digital signature scheme, break implies the abscence of a signature

if a court orders to break the chain of digital signatures, then you accept that

my suggestion is that the consequences are going to vary, with a unique outcome for bsv

A US Court can't compel specific performance when doing so encumbers other property holder rights who are violated in the same sentence. If Craig can't enforce the scheme in the US, will he be able to do it in china and does anybody really care? No.

The winning proposition is for the one claiming to be Satoshi to sign keys and move coins. Absent this, the court simply says the evidence is insufficient and doesn't direct impossible specific performance. Incredible claims require incredible proof.

If you can sign in private but can't sign in court and allege you have/can move coins and then switch stories, and then try to bring suit anyways, your going to have a bad time.

Meanwhile let's wait for the rolling iceberg btc attacks and segwit flaw.

stay tuned

if you were to ask craig wright in november 2018 about the chances of ABC doing anything but completely surrendering you probably would have gotten an answer that approximates the confidence held now.

problem being how completely off the mark it was.

have you ever made a judges determination meaningless?

to be honest with you it feels good and can even be looked at as a game.

Do you think Craig Wright has respect for a court even?

Words are tools and nothing more, which is why he doesn't mind lying

As laymen we have no understanding of what any of this means in technical terms. We just want to believe in the good.

God bless you brother.

Kurt and I probably agree that efforts to change the blockchain extrinsically are inevitable.

I always said that there is a reason they say it is 'Censorship resistant', and not 'Censorship proof'.

My peev is BSV first.

Because even if you can force someone to do something, you cannot change their will easily, and there are infinite ways someone being compelled to do something can sabotage the aim of the victor.

Jews were forced to make nazi weapons of war for example

best to believe it was the duty of the courageous to sabotage production

So when the protocol is "set in stone" does it mean that it is immutable and not able to be forked?
(Hence giving deep integrity to the chain and confidence for the user?)

the narrative that CSW built around being 'set in stone' is meant to lend confidence to business development on the protocol

for example in 2015-2017 there was a very large amount of VC investment building out tooling on BTC, and BTC devs changed protocol

the code is not 'immutable' per se, and isn't even 'set in stone' (it actually changes a lot and still changes).

but the idea is that if you make something, you can trust the protocol devs wont break it later.

It’s kind of like religion. If God exists and has rules, it doesn’t matter what religion you have. There’s the right one and all the wrong ones. It doesn’t matter if you disagree or want to fight. What is is what is.

Therefore, bitcoin is bitcoin.

The idea of bitcoin. The rules. They’re set in stone. How they are implemented, and to what extent they are flexible is why there’s debate.

Satoshi told everyone about bitcoin going from gold-to-lead-to-gold again as a theft deterrent. They hated it 😂

3-4 days later, the catastrophic inflation bug created 184 billion bitcoins using an unknown set of techniques that created an incredible panic. The chain had to be frozen, reorganized, orphaned... Satoshi organized the maneuver to fix the problem.

And the perpetrator of malicious inflation bug was never found - publicly.

What can we glean from this? Many things, I think.

Satoshi considered a potential escrow contract, which is not related to the protocol mate.

In the context of discussing his ideas around that potential escrow contract, keys represent ownership.

Keys represent possession, if there are no complaints, possession is a proxy for ownership in many cases. But if there is a dispute they are not ownership at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Glad bitcoin is back. Now just waiting on the true God. ❤🙏🙏🙏👀

So?