Steve

@kurtwuckertjr @CaffeSatoshi > for improper conversion of Satoshi’s IP Don’t lie. I already proved this assertion false.

1: Satoshi could lose his keys just like anyone else could. Also, possession isn’t ownership, nor is it identity. 2: Cryptographic proof isn’t universally accepted as ID anyways. 3: Courts are for the slave class, especially bench trials. Basically a humiliation ritual to even have to be in a room with a be-wigged creep in a robe. Also, US court found that Craig owes the Kleiman estate for improper conversion of Satoshi’s IP because they found that it was developed jointly by Craig and Dave and was improperly handled.

@___siggi___ @tuftythecat @BitcoinEduX Sure. If you follow those, you’ll sync to Bitcoin. If you want to sync to BSV, you need custom rules, so no longer a pure SPV implementation.

@tuftythecat @BitcoinEduX I’m assuming you are aware of the block headers in Bitcoin. You didn’t answer the question.

This is perhaps (inadvertently) the most concise explanation of why BSV is not Bitcoin.

@kurtwuckertjr @libertylover007 @vamosvigilante 1. What key are you talking about? 2. This is 100% opinion, but you state it as historical fact. Misleading.

@libertylover007 @vamosvigilante Nope

Old money didn't murder Bitcoin. They made it their pet. This is the part of the Blockstream story the cypherpunk press refuses to print: the lion doesn't commit a crime by eating the gazelle. The keepers building the cage do. ⏳ CHAPTERS 0:00 🔥 Cold Open 0:05 🦁 The Ruling Class Did Exactly What You'd Expect 0:13 🏛️ MasterCard, AXA, Bilderberg, The Fed, The NYSE 0:59 ⚖️ The Lion and the Gazelle: The Real Crime 1:13 🍦 The McDonald's Ice Cream Conspiracy 2:01 🧊 Blockstream's Identical Architecture (1 MB, Liquid, Lightning) 2:32 💸 Barry Silbert Said the Quiet Part Out Loud 3:28 🐉 The Dragon They Made Into a Pet 3:59 📜 Read the Full Investigation 🥩 THE MEAT Bitcoin's institutional capture was not a hostile takeover. It was incentive structures doing exactly what they were built to do. 🏛️ MasterCard exists to protect $900 billion in annual payment volume. AXA exists to protect insurable assets. The Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve, the New York Stock Exchange, and CME Group exist to coordinate Western finance and make markets in tradable instruments. So when Blockstream's commercial architecture forced BTC's base layer to stay constrained at one megabyte, then sold Liquid and Lightning Network as "the fix," it wasn't a betrayal. It was the same playbook McDonald's runs with the Taylor ice cream machine: intentional breakage as a service contract. The system works on breakage. The fix is the product. 📈 Then Barry Silbert, founder of Digital Currency Group, said the quiet part out loud. Quote: "We are still far away from Bitcoin being a functional currency. First, it's going to function as a speculative investment." That was not a prediction. That was his business plan. The Federal Reserve, MasterCard, Western Union, and the entire derivatives complex saw a dragon they could not kill, so they kept it small, kept it expensive, wrapped it in custody, listed its derivatives, and paid the developers who told the rest of us blocks could not get bigger. The capture was logical. The crime is that the Bitcoiners took their money and helped them do it. Sovereign money requires sovereign builders, not pets. 🎯 THE DIVERGENT FACTOR Mainstream crypto media frames Blockstream as a neutral technical org, sells Lightning Network as a clever scaling innovation, and writes off Barry Silbert's "speculative investment first" quote as Bitcoin's natural evolution. Kurt names the structure for what it is: a deliberate franchise architecture borrowed straight from McDonald's, where the base product is designed to fail at its stated purpose so a managed service can charge to keep it broken. The cypherpunks didn't get outflanked. They got bought, and they took the money.

@HAFPINTMUSIC They were all examined by the judge and lawyers and experts on both sides.

Thank you Proven my point None of the evidence submitted by dr. Craig wright was reviewed by judge not any lawyer in this case. This should tell the obvious truth that this case had nothing to do with nothing besides to silence Satoshi and buy some time

@kurtwuckertjr Also, that RNG was suspected to be backdoored even in 2007, so there wouldn’t even need to be any “inside” knowledge, if that’s the conclusion you were going to draw.

@kurtwuckertjr Snowden didn’t reveal any curves to be problematic. His leaks strongly implied a specific random number generator was backdoored by the NSA. But you can use any random number generator with any curve, so it wouldn’t really affect a curve choice.

Pump this

@kurtwuckertjr I mean the incorrect assertions like the “r” curve being proven to be backdoored. That’s just wrong. In fact, you may be using it to connect to Twitter right now (it’s used in TLS a lot).

@steverabinow The choice of curve I merely point out as a curiosity. It means something, but I don’t know what. At his word, we could believe he “just picked one,” but that seems too lucky, imo.

@kurtwuckertjr There’s a lot more I haven’t touched on yet, since I don’t know how open you actually are to corrections. But I’m glad to hear you’re considering updating the sections on the alert system, open source development model, send to IP functionality, and the choice of curve.

@steverabinow You’ve made that clear. I’ve written about 50-60k words in the published part of this series, and probably 400-500 citations. I’ve already told you I appreciate you linking to sources that I can use for corrections.

@kurtwuckertjr Again, I don’t care that you have a narrative. I only care that you’re misrepresenting the facts. That *ought* to the absolute primary concern of a historian — getting the facts right! You’re (ostensibly) drawing your conclusions from them.

@steverabinow The notion that someone could dive deeply and not come to any conclusions about their research is absurd. “But you’re biased” is to say “but you’re a human.” Sorry that upsets you. Again, write your own series and explain your findings.

@kurtwuckertjr You do have a narrative. You explicitly say you’re building “a profile” and include statements like this. You’re *drawing inferences* (“almost certainly working”?!) from selected (and incorrect in some cases) facts. This is interpretive argumentation (ie - a narrative).

@steverabinow I don’t have a narrative either. I just want the story chronicled.

@kurtwuckertjr I don’t have any narrative I’m pushing, though. The facts speak for themselves (unless they’re misrepresented, which is what I’m trying to correct here).

@steverabinow You should publish your own series then. The more the merrier.

@kurtwuckertjr Would take two minutes to either delete the offending parts or note that they’re under contention or something in the meantime.

@steverabinow Each article takes me about 3 weeks to write because of the sourcing and citations and edits. I’ve kept note of your added context, and it’s in the pipeline to correct errors, but I have a schedule to maintain, and it takes hours to circle back.

@HAFPINTMUSIC > Not even one single document submitted by Craig wright was reviewed or brought up in the court case. Nearly every single document that Madden showed was forged **was submitted to the court and relied upon by Wright**. They were literally called the "Reliance Documents".

51k people who saw this video of csw v copa in court and basically watching craig wright simply admitted the truth on how myob files work and copa did not want to run the test and prove csw right once again therefore beat around the bushes in a whole day of court. Copa was able to waste the courts time without any consequences and outcome to silence Craig wright aka Satoshi nakamoto. Leaves the question how much more power and pull the copa fraudster goon club has and how many other strings they were allowed to pull -Besides wasting the courts time - having the judge rule in favor - silencing csw aka Satoshi until 2026 -not reviewing the files and evidence submitted by csw -not running the tests that could’ve been done in a few minutes but instead waste the whole day calling Satoshi a liar lol Copa fraudsters money and power runs deep But the truth still shines through out the fraud and clearly shown here in this court case Bitcoin is bsv Let’s Craig wright is Satoshi Nakamoto And the myob files were determined to be as Craig wright stated when you run the live update Also they didn’t even review the credit card used to purchase the online domain by Satoshi and they didn’t even request the bank payments for the Bitcoin white paper from chase bank And the courts didn’t even shine any light on any of Craig wrights documents and files submitted to court using a pgp email directly to the courts and judge. This says alot about what happened here in this court room. Most interesting part is to question why did judge mellor only review the documents provided by madden (copas attorney) and these documents were the only thing reviewed in the entire case. Not even one single document submitted by Craig wright was reviewed or brought up in the court case. Duhhhh They bought this case out before it even started Using the lawyer that was not originally signed to this case. And guess what the lawyer used by cops was the same lawyer from the next door building of the court lol 😂 last minute switch on lawyers. Hahahaha So when you know the facts there is no denying Craig wright is Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin is bsv Let’s Get this video to everyone on earth And let’s have people verify my information and pull all the records And then actually review csw documents and statements in this case to verify if he was saying the truth Here we go Bitcoin is bsv Csw is sn

@78Kadmon @tuftythecat Remember? x.com/78Kadmon/statu…

@tuftythecat Final and binding? - only for unquestioning cult members. A court ruling does not determine the truth.

Two years ago today, Mr Justice Mellor issued his judgment in COPA v Wright, which confirmed the declarations made at the end of the trial on 14 March that Wright was not Satoshi and did not write the White Paper, 3 years after COPA issued proceedings in response to Wright's threats. The judgment went much further, with Mellor J concluding that: "Dr Wright's attempts to prove he was/is Satoshi Nakamoto represent a most serious abuse of this Court's process"; "he lied repeatedly and extensively in his attempts to deflect the allegations of forgery"; and "the case that Dr Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto is overwhelming". Wright was subsequently ordered not to threaten or issue proceedings on the basis of any rights in Bitcoin, was then found in contempt of court for doing exactly that, and is currently still at large, subject to a suspended prison sentence and pending a decision on perjury charges being brought by the CPS. The wheels of justice grind very slow. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…

@kurtwuckertjr This is almost entirely false. The P-256 curve (the “r” curve) is still used everywhere today. Snowden pointed out a potentially backdoored *random number generator*. (But that was already known in 2007.)

In 2008, every dev on earth used the NIST encryption curve. Satoshi picked the only secure one. 5 years later, Snowden confirmed the NSA had backdoored the standard curve.

In 1996, someone posted a blueprint for internet money on the cypherpunks mailing list. 12 years before Bitcoin. The post is still there. You can read it right now. Nobody talks about it because they're busy killing Satoshi. But here's why that matters: 🧵👇

@bsvarchie @JasonPLowery One problem is that bitcoin can be sent without a signature by design. (The whitepaper is not a spec. It’s a high level design doc.)

The "Coin" in Bitcoin is not arbitrary like @JasonPLowery says in his 2023 MIT Bitcoin Expo. Coins are not money. Things that are coined make for good money. "Coin" comes from Latin cuneus — a wedge used for stamping. It first meant the die that did the stamping, then the stamped object itself. To coin something is to authenticate it with a mark of authority. @SLictionary The Lydians (an ancient kingdom in what is now western Turkey) started coining metal around the 7th century BCE. The breakthrough wasn't the metal — electrum (a natural alloy of gold and silver) was already valuable. The breakthrough was the stamp. Raw gold → mint (melt, weigh, assay, stamp) → coin. After stamping, merchants don't have to weigh and assay the metal themselves on every transaction. They look at the mark, feel the weight, and trust it. That's the work the stamp does. It transmits the mint's authority into the metal so anyone can verify it at a glance. @kurtwuckertjr — you probably already knew this but figured we'd tag you since you like history and numismatics. Satoshi, in the whitepaper Section 2 (bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf): "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures." Not a unit of money. Not a token. A chain of authentication acts. The signatures do what the mint's stamp did - authenticate. The whitepaper uses the word "mint" — but to describe the OLD centralized model Bitcoin replaces. What replaces the mint? Section 3: the Timestamp Server. The "stamp" in "timestamp" and the "stamp" of coining are the same word doing the same conceptual work - coining. A common framing — like @anil_bharrat's recent post: "Bit + Coin = Data + Cash System." This puts the cart before the horse. Better reading: Data + Integrity. Once bits have integrity, you can do anything with them — electronic cash, identity, SPV, data provenance, anything. "Coin" is not arbitrary. It is not synonymous with money. It is integrity. cc @vamosvigilante — what I was trying to explain in Austin last year. Better in writing.

@kurtwuckertjr Any word on when the updates will go live? It seems irresponsible for a historian to knowingly leave incorrect information up. I suggest at least taking it down until the updates are in place.

@kurtwuckertjr I’d be happy to review them for you if you’d like. I hope you aren’t relying on unsubstantiated hearsay.

The research part of my History of Bitcoin series is so fun, and so enlightening, but it's also a lot of work. It's hard to keep track of the rabbit holes and tangents where there might be golden nuggets. I'm also at a decision point on whether to publish the 2013-2015 article or publish a tangent article specifically on the influence of Brock Pierce and his relationship with old money, new money, big money and emerging money. I need about 5 hours to polish up whichever article I decide to publish, but I'm torn on the details.

@WKCosmo @karch_andreas That's a fine explanation. I didn't see that it exported it in that bizarre form by default (without the institution that 'differentiated' the same author). I still wouldn't go so far as to say it's a "correct citation", though. Honest/nonmalicious, sure.

@steverabinow @karch_andreas The BibTeX entry is the one in the fucking database. Are you brain damaged?

I thought this guy was just another internet dipshit, until I looked at his bio. Caltech professor. 🤦