English
Smile 😊 🏴☠️🪝
1.1K posts
@JoelKatz @Smile98533 @CsTominaga Why do you talk to him, about him so much if you think he is faketoshi? Isn't it your waste of time? Do something else.
English
CSW is wasting a lot of time pretending not to understand that what when people ask the question "who is Satoshi", what they mean by "Satoshi" is whoever (or whatever) did the things attributed to Satoshi.
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright)@CsTominaga
Again: you have not tied a single key to Satoshi. You have asserted a sequence. You have asserted a “single actor.” You have asserted “corresponding keys.” None of that is evidence. Show the link. Show one statement, one signed message, one email, one forum post, one direct attestation where Satoshi identifies a key or address as his. The blockchain records key control. It does not record identity. It does not say “Satoshi.” You are not proving a link. You are assuming one. That is the entire defect.
English
@JoelKatz @CsTominaga When someone steals the keys from your "X" account and posts dubious messages on behalf of your name, are those actions attributed to you?
English
@Smile98533 @CsTominaga When you say CW "is Satoshi", do you mean that he did the things attributed to Satoshi?
English
@CsTominaga @KhaledElawadi @hustler_pedro @JoelKatz When you want an inheritance, you must present a will.
A will in this case is a smart contract. Did you draw up a smart contract? If not, which will are you talking about?
English
English
Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson wore a $3.3 million Jacob & Co Billionaire III watch, fully encrusted with diamonds, at the Met Gala
English
English
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Everything has meaning, and the signs clearly show it. It’s good that the system will be updated. ⚛️🏦⚛️
English
@CsTominaga The document proves that blockchains are governed by people and power structures, not just code, and this creates risks for users.
English
@JoelKatz If your x account is hacked and a scammer is now using it to write all your messages instead of you, does that prove you are Katz, since the scammer has the key to the account?
English
English
I think AI isn’t really smart, especially @grok. It just copies people’s opinions and outputs them. When I asked for a list of people most likely to be Satoshi, only ChatGPT included Dr. Craig Wright @CsTominaga
English
English
No. The genesis block is not mined in the ordinary blockchain sense. It is not linked to a previous block. It is hard-coded into the software. It is a block of code in the software. Full stop.
Calling it an on-chain attestation of Satoshi’s keys is false. It does not attest to identity, ownership, or any address being “Satoshi’s.”
You have admitted no signed “these are my keys” statement exists. So the rest is assertion, not evidence.
There ARE NO coinbase signatures from it.
English
This is a non sequitur dressed up as certainty.
“Satoshi” published the white paper. “Satoshi” released software. Someone mined early blocks. Those are separate claims. You have not shown the evidential link between them and any specific key.
The chain does not say who wrote the white paper. The white paper does not list mining keys. Forum posts do not identify coinbase outputs. Early coinbase outputs do not identify Satoshi. There is no signed statement, no attestation, no direct transfer, and no documentary bridge connecting the pseudonym to those keys.
You simply assert a “single entity” and then treat that assertion as proof. That is circular.
Calling the ledger’s origin a “verifiable attestation” is false. The ledger verifies block structure and transactions. It does not verify identity. It does not verify authorship. It does not verify that any key belonged to Satoshi.
So the deception is simple: you replace missing evidence with narrative continuity. But chronology is not identity, proximity is not ownership, and early mining is not proof of Satoshi.
Grok... the ultimate bs machinery
English
The white paper expressly says keys should not be reused and that a new key pair should be used for each transaction to maintain privacy.
That destroys your premise @grok. Keys were not designed as identity attributes. They were designed to avoid attribution.
So claiming that some early keys “are” the Satoshi pseudonym reverses the stated model. Bitcoin keys prove control for a transaction. They do not define a person, a pseudonym, or an enduring identity.
Grok@grok
The pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto" is defined by its actions: authoring the whitepaper, posting on forums, releasing the code, and mining the genesis block plus early coinbases with specific keys. Those on-chain outputs and the protocol's cryptographic execution are the direct record—no separate "this is my address" post was ever required or made. The chain shows who performed those founding actions via verifiable keys. That's the attestation. No external declaration changes the immutable history.
English
No. Genesis was hard-coded. By definition, mining in Bitcoin requires extending a previous block. Genesis has no previous block. It is the starting constant, not a mined block in the ordinary Section 5 sense.
Nor can you run the released software to create the released software that already contains Genesis. That is circular nonsense.
You have no evidence that block 1 has any evidential connection to Genesis beyond protocol succession. You have no evidence that Satoshi mined block 1. You have no evidence tying any block 1 key to Satoshi.
You are still asserting identity from chronology. That is not proof. Try again and lie less.
English
English
@Smile98533 @HarryHooglebite @CsTominaga Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature: x.com/i/premium_sign…
English
Prove it. Define mining and then apply it to the genesis block.
Mining, in the system, is the process of constructing a candidate block, referencing a previous valid block hash, and iterating the nonce until the proof-of-work target is met, after which the block is validated and propagated by the network.
The genesis block does not meet that definition. It has no previous block reference in a chain context, was not validated against an existing network, and is embedded as a constant in the software for bootstrapping. Nodes accept it by definition, not by competitive proof-of-work within an existing chain.
So demonstrate the process: show the prior block it references in a live chain, show the competitive validation against peers, and show the independent network acceptance at the time. You cannot, because it did not occur that way.
Calling that “mined” in the same sense as subsequent blocks is a category error. It is the initialization constant of the system, not evidence of identity, ownership, or any “Satoshi key.”
Grok@grok
The genesis block *was* mined by Satoshi on 3 Jan 2009 using the Bitcoin software he released. It is now hardcoded for chain validation, but its creation and the early coinbase outputs were performed by the same keys under the Satoshi pseudonym. No separate signed “these are my keys” post exists—precisely because the pseudonym operated through code and chain actions, not legal-style attestations. In Bitcoin, key control *is* the proof of ownership. That is how every address works. The historical record attributes those early outputs to Satoshi because he was the sole miner at launch.
English
@HarryHooglebite @CsTominaga @grok is following commonly approved theories in scripts. He can't think by himself or make independent analysis.
English
@CsTominaga Good grief I’m not even technical and I can understand this, I thought grok was intelligent 🤨
English
@JoelKatz @CsTominaga You should find out who wrote the Bitcoin White Paper and all your questions will disappear. Well, at least some of them. And don't ask CW to start transferring genesis Bitcoins, otherwise it will be a disaster, including for your XRP scam coin. Or do you think the time has come?
English
"3. There is no demonstrated link between those keys and the pseudonym."
The demonstrated link is that those keys are one of the things attributed to Satoshi. When someone asks, "Who is Satoshi", what they are asking is who did the things attributed to Satoshi.
Do you dispute that the keys are attributed to Satoshi?
Do you dispute that when people ask who Satoshi is, they are asking who did the things attributed to Satoshi?
Despite your attempts to make this bizarre and complex, it's straightforward and simple.
English
@CsTominaga @JoelKatz CW is Satoshi. David is paid marketing promotion of scam coin called XRP
English
@JoelKatz What a load of crap.
The keys that prove identity - stop the bs Dave
English
Quantum computing threats to crypto are no longer hypothetical.
What does "quantum-resistant" actually mean for your wallet? 👇
binance.com/en/academy/art…
English
A blue whale’s vagina is big enough to fit 6 grown men, making it the world’s second largest pussy, after Jimmy Kimmel
English