Sunday, February 25, 2024

Riddle Update


Some updates from the trial (and my continuing deep dive in general):

This post is a follow-up to this post:


So read that first. 👆

I'm putting this in post form, rather than a comment, so I can have the option of cross-posting it on the public blog. The public post has so far gotten 5,000 views in 6 days, and I didn't even promote it. Did it bring in any new Speakeasy subscribers? Yes. [This post was first posted at the SE yesterday. It takes an extra day to reformat it for Blogger. A few minor updates were added since yesterday.]

First, let's start with one of the possible bombshells that I alluded to in the last post. There are a couple that are slightly related, so let me start with the backstory. (And don't worry, I'll get to yesterday's raucous testimony and the COPA high-fiving that followed in a minute, as this is all related. Things aren't as dire for Craig's side as the BTCmaxis are making them out to be.)

The trial was supposed to begin on 1/15/24, but on 12/15/23, during a pre-trial review, Judge Mellor agreed to allow the submission of new evidence from Craig's team, and delayed the trial to 2/5/24 to give the COPA team time to assess the new evidence.

The new evidence was 97 documents contained in two USB drives discovered in a drawer in Craig's house back in September. The drives contain LaTeX files, which is the open-source document preparation system that Craig says he used to draft the Bitcoin white paper back in 2008.

Because this new evidence was going to cause a delay and cost COPA money to have experts examine the new documents, the judge allowed the new evidence but ordered Craig to pay 800,000 pounds by 1/5/24. It's a deposit, in case he loses, which will then go to COPA to cover costs. Craig had already deposited 100,000 pounds for the trial, and 65,000 pounds to cover COPA's costs related to Craig's request for special treatment due to his autism.

So, the total Craig has had to deposit is 965,000 pounds, which is about $1.2M, and the last 800,000 pounds (about $1M) were due on 1/5/24. These are deposits he likely loses if he loses the case.

On that same day, 1/5/24, coincidentally (and as far as I've seen, no one has made this particular connection yet), an anonymous wallet withdrew that same amount, about $1.2M-worth of BTC from Binance, and transferred it to the Genesis wallet/address, which contains the very first 50 bitcoins mined by Satoshi. The actual transfer was 26.917 BTC.

There are a couple of unique things about that wallet, aside from it containing the first BTC ever created. The first is that those first 50 coins cannot be spent. They cannot be moved. But the amount in that wallet has grown over the years as Satoshi fanboys toss in miniscule amounts like coins in a fountain, or graffiti on a statue. It had actually grown to about 73 bitcoins by 1/5/24, so this new transfer was not only almost exactly what Craig Wright had to pay the court by the same date, but it also brought the total in the Genesis wallet up to almost exactly 100 BTC (99.7 BTC as I write).

It was a big mystery in the Bitcoin community when it happened. There are a bunch of articles if you google it, but I only heard about it after following the trial. None of the articles connect it to the trial, and the only tweets I've seen referencing it in relation to the trial did not make the connection between the value of the BTC on that day and the amount that Craig had to pay the court on that day. As far as I've seen, I'm the only one, and now you can see it too.

Article about Craig having to pay $1.2M to the court

Article about $1.2M-worth of bitcoin being transferred to the Genesis wallet

The many articles focus on three main possibilities. The first is that it was some kind of expensive promotional stunt related to the upcoming launch of the ETFs. The second is that it was a tribute to the 15th anniversary of that block, which was actually two days earlier. And the third is that it was a mistake, because that's a lot of money to just throw away.

This is something I've been trying to ascertain, whether or not that $1.2M-worth of BTC is now unspendable forever. I've read differing opinions about whether it's just the first block that's unspendable, even by Satoshi himself, or anything in that wallet/address. Maybe TSN knows the answer, or at least thinks he does. The article above seems to suggest that it might be possible.

The explanation for why the Genesis Block can't be spent is that "Satoshi did not add the genesis block's coinbase transactions to the global transaction database which is used by Bitcoin nodes," and it is unknown whether that was intentional, or just a mistake. So, to my simple mind, it seems like it's possible that coins that came from other "spendable" blocks may still be spendable, but only by Satoshi himself since he has the key to that address. On the other hand, it seems equally likely that they're unspendable once they go in and join the unspendable block. But if that's the case, then how come that address can still receive coins, just not transfer them?

Anyway, one of the tweets I found that connected this $1.2M Genesis transfer to the trial suggested that perhaps it was a gesture from the real Satoshi, saying that he's still alive, still around, and OK with Craig claiming his identity. Of course, the person who tweeted that believes, like I do, that Craig is Satoshi.

So, this is an interesting theory. After all, the real Satoshi has an estimated 20,000+ wallets, most containing 50 BTC, the reward for mining a block during the first four years when he did most of his mining. For his own privacy, he used a different address or wallet for each block he mined, making it difficult to track which ones are definitively his. Only a few from the very beginning are known for sure to be his, although "thousands of 2009, 2010 and 2011 Satoshi-era BTC have moved since Craig's Tulip Trust 9-year lock expired."

The point being, the real Satoshi is one of a very few people who could easily throw away 27 BTC just to make a point. Perhaps the point was that the $1.2M the court made him pay is like nothing to him. Another tweet suggested that it might have been a private demonstration of some kind that ended in Meta/Facebook dropping out of COPA right before the trial. I have a couple theories of my own.

My two theories are that it was a precursor to one of the possible bombshells that could rock this trial. I'm thinking about two scenarios in which Craig moves some coins after being ordered (or asked) to by the judge.

Think about this purely logically. When we get to the end of the trial, the judge gets to decide whether Craig wins or loses, meaning whether Craig is Satoshi or not. It's not going to convince TSN and most of the BTCmaxis either way, because they'll just say that the judge got it wrong if Craig wins. But ignoring that, say we get to the end of the trial, and the judge has to make this decision.

At that point, he's either going to already be convinced that Craig is Satoshi, or he's not. If he's convinced that Craig is Satoshi, then Craig wins. If he's not convinced, then there's a high probability that he'll give Craig one last chance to prove it, either through a public signing or a public coin transfer. Even if he is already convinced that Craig is Satoshi, he will likely do this anyway, for the same reason that Craig did the proof sessions with Gavin and Jon even though he had already convinced them with secret knowledge that only the real Satoshi would know, so that there's objective proof other than the judge's personal opinion. He'd want to do this so that he doesn't get pilloried by laser-eyed maxis for siding with Craig, like happens to everyone else who sides with Craig.


Here's where those 26.917 BTC might come into play. Whether they can be moved again, or they're trapped there forever, there's a plausible scenario here.

If they can be moved again, then let's say Craig had someone who knows he's Satoshi transfer them to that Genesis wallet. Craig will simply send them back to that person. This satisfies one of the main Bitcoin precepts, or concerns, at least in Craig's mind, about moving "original" coins from the few for-sure-known Satoshi wallets. He's not moving any original coins. He's moving coins that were only there for a couple of months.

How would it work? The coins came out of Binance, a cryptocurrency trading exchange, which essentially anonymized them. Binance KYC compliance would know who owns the account that withdrew them, but that's actually a feature of the plan, not a bug. Let's say it's Jon Matonis. Craig transfers the BTC from the Genesis wallet back to Matonis, who shows that he was the one who sent the coins through Binance to an anonymous wallet. Binance, if asked/forced, confirms it was Jon.

If they can't be moved again, if those 26.917 BTC are forever locked in Block 0, then this also satisfies that same main concern in Craig's mind about moving "original" coins from the few known Satoshi wallets. He simply transfers the same amount to an anonymous (but probably his) wallet, from another known Satoshi wallet that can do transfers. It's like printing 26.917 new BTC, which goes against his principles, but then he also shows proof that he destroyed 26.917 BTC by sending them to Block 0. So, on net, no new BTC were released from the earliest blocks.

To me, these possibilities make more sense than any of the others proposed by other people. Craig said that he would have done the coin transfer if the "proof pack" had been properly released. In his mind, perhaps, this trial is the proof pack, and his last and final chance to get it all out there.


Craig would have thought this through, and prepared to do the coin transfer. If the Tulip Trust is still involved, my two scenarios could have been worked out with the trustees, one of whom was identified in court as Denis Mayaka.

I realize that my scenarios seem needlessly complicated as he could simply move coins from one Satoshi wallet to another, but just imagine the delicious courtroom drama when he says, "Before this trial began, I asked so-n-so to send a mil to the Genesis Block…"

That's one possible bombshell. Another one that's related is those LaTeX files on the two USB drives submitted into evidence in December, is that he's saying he wrote the original white paper on LaTeX, and that there may be a fingerprint or watermark that'll prove he wrote it. I know the Bitcoiners think this was already debunked during yesterday's testimony, as there was no Satoshi watermark found by COPA, but it's still in play. This is another possible bombshell that could come out.


Note, also, the article that Will just posted on the same subject:
The Invisible Ink of LaTeX: Embedding Messages in Plain Sight

Excerpt:

The Legacy of Steganography Steganography has traversed a long path from ancient times, evolving from physical subterfuges to intricate digital schemes. In today’s information age, where data is a currency, the ability to convey messages covertly is both an art and a science. We are about to explore an innovative digital application of this timeless art, using LaTeX.

LaTeX: A Primer LaTeX is more than a document preparation system; it’s a meticulous craft that allows for the creation of beautifully formatted text. Renowned for its use in academic and scientific documentation, LaTeX offers an unparalleled level of control over the layout, making it the ideal medium for our steganographic pursuits.

[...]

Conclusion: The Art of Concealment The interweaving of LaTeX and steganography is not just a modern repurposing of an ancient technique but a testament to the adaptability and enduring nature of the human desire for private communication. Through the seemingly mundane but incredibly versatile medium of LaTeX, we find that our everyday tools hold secret capacities. As we continue to explore and innovate, we are reminded that the most secure vaults may not be those of steel and stone, but those crafted from the spaces between our words.


OK, let's talk about yesterday's testimony. Yesterday was the day that COPA got to cross-examine Craig regarding the new evidence he submitted on 12/15/23, the LaTeX files from the USB drives. COPA had a couple of surprises up their sleeves, and this was gonna be a big GOTCHA day, so they packed their side of the courtroom with a bunch of laser-eyed maxis, one of whom was caught on the livestream picking his nose and eating the booger, but I digress.

The first surprise that Craig didn't know was coming, was that they had been able to download a keystroke log from his Overleaf account, which is an online LaTeX editor that Craig used to demonstrate to his attorneys the importance of these LaTeX files. This is how they were able to compile the animation that TSN posted on the last thread:


Matig wrote:

"A cybersecurity expert spends hours using an ONLINE EDITOR to forge a document for the court? I’ve skimmed some of his old unrelated technical writings, and they are credible. It’s hard to believe he could be so dumb as to not consider the risk that the online service would retain his edit history. But it’s even harder to make sense of his explanation to the court for doing this."


This did catch him off-guard, but I thought his explanation was quite reasonable. Here's how I put it all together. First, the discovery of old files on a couple of old hard drives at his home in September or October while preparing for trial makes sense, especially if he was looking for something in particular. I have stacks of old computers and hard drives, and I'm not even a computer guy.

He says he found some of the original LaTeX files from when he was working on the BTC wp (and other papers) in 2008. He would know the importance of these files in compiling the PDF that he published, but that might not be immediately apparent to his attorneys. All of this kind of stuff (i.e., documentary evidence) has to go through your lawyers. They have to understand it. You have to turn it over to them, and then they have to submit it to the court, and then it goes to the other side for review.

He said he had to use the online editor in order to demonstrate how it compiles the LaTeX file into a PDF, because it's the current version and older versions won't compile, and for other reasons as well. I don't know anything about LaTeX, just what I've learned from the trial, so don't shoot me if I get some of this wrong. But his explanation sounded quite innocent. He did a demonstration for his lawyers. He tried to put together what they needed. It sounds like it was a little rushed, and then they submitted it to the court less than a month later.

From what I gather, the real importance of the LaTeX file is not some fingerprint or watermark, although there might still be one, it's how hard (or impossible?) it would be to recreate a new LaTeX file from the original PDF, one which would compile into a perfect match of the original PDF. I think that's what he was demonstrating to the attorneys.

Later, he told COPA and their attorneys how to properly verify the LaTeX files, but they didn't do it. Instead, they ran with this forgery narrative and ambushed him in the courtroom with the animation.


At the very end of the day, they focused in on a specific image detail in the "forgery" that they said had to have been forged in a program called Aspose, and inserted into the LaTeX file from Aspose. It could only have come from Aspose because the level of detail exactly matched Aspose. Craig said he never used Aspose, and furthermore, that edit wasn't in the Overleaf logs!

COPA: These changes show you committing the act of forgery. CSW: No

COPA: the animation shows it in progress. CSW: No, and you are claiming that the edit can exist without the record of edit. It obviously wasn't done in my Overleaf. It shows them being loaded. While I had my computer being screenshotted by a third party...

COPA: You thought you could escape the forgery by withholding the metadata. CSW: I sent Overleaf right away

COPA: But Overleaf showed you forging key by key! CSW: And that doesn't show anything about aspose, so the forging must have been done on another machine!

COPA: Your files are a forgery. CSW: they could be, but not by me.




Here's a good explanation of what Craig was doing in the demonstration:

The Art of Watermarking the Bitcoin Whitepaper

Craig Wright (CSW) demonstrates creating a unique watermark in a LaTeX Bitcoin whitepaper document, arguing it's proof of authorship due to its complexity and the difficulty in replication, highlighting his claim to being the creator of Bitcoin.

Purpose of Adjustments: CSW explains that his adjustments to spacing were intended to demonstrate the creation of a watermark, not to forge the document. This was part of showing the complexity involved in replicating the exact formatting of the original document without knowing the original LaTeX settings. He states, "To show how they work," highlighting his intent to demonstrate the watermark's creation process.

Watermark Creation: Wright's demonstration aimed at showing how the original LaTeX file was set up to create the whitepaper, including a unique watermark. This involved manipulating variables controlling aspects like base spacing and the stretch and shrink limits. Wright emphasizes, "Yes, but this isn't something you can just guess. I'm demonstrating that with 4 variables, you can't fake it," underlining the complexity of this proces.

Documentation and Transparency: Wright mentions documenting the process through screenshots and having his solicitors present during the demonstration, indicating efforts to transparently show how the watermark was created. He notes, "Screenshots and such. Shoosmiths were at my house," suggesting a meticulous approach to proving the watermark's existence and his original creation of the document

Complexity in Replication: The conversation highlights the complexity of the LaTeX formatting, where changing one variable impacts others, making the document's unique formatting challenging to fake. Wright asserts, "Yes, I was showing how difficult it would be to fake," emphasizing the intricate details that serve as a watermark and underscore his authorship claim.

Three-Body Problem Analogy: Wright compares the difficulty of guessing the correct settings to the three-body problem in physics, a complex problem where predicting the motion of three celestial bodies interacting through gravity is notoriously difficult. He explains, "You'll notice 3 values. I was showing the 3 body problem. You can't guess a value and hope it matches," using this analogy to illustrate the complexity of accurately replicating the watermark without knowing the original variable settings.

This conversation underscores Craig Wright's attempt to demonstrate the technical complexities behind the creation of the Bitcoin whitepaper as evidence of his authorship. The emphasis on the unique watermark created through LaTeX formatting variables and the analogy to the three-body problem serve as a strong argument in his claim to being the creator of Bitcoin.

Arguing that the watermark demonstration was a deception misses the point entirely. The watermark serves as a strong piece of evidence precisely because it cannot be easily replicated or guessed. It's akin to a digital signature that uniquely identifies the creator. The complexity of the variables involved and the analogy to the three-body problem highlight the near impossibility of duplicating such a watermark without intimate knowledge of the original document's creation. Therefore, the watermark is not a trick but a testament to the author's originality and technical skill, reinforcing Craig Wright's claim to authorship in a way that simple replication of text cannot.

Interestingly, the demonstration of the unique watermark did not originate from Craig Wright but from his opponents. This raises questions about how they accessed the data.

Their misinterpretation of the demonstration's intent, aiming to use it against Wright, ironically undermined their position, resulting in an unintended self-defeat


Now, this is getting a little more into the weeds than I wanted to go in this post, but Craig mentions Christen Ager-Hanssen (CAH) as someone who could and would have sabotaged his evidence. Christen Ager-Hanssen is a Norwegian billionaire venture capitalist, who was CEO of nChain until Stefan Matthews fired him last September. He hates Craig, and tried to force Stefan Matthews not to testify in this trial. You can read Stefan Matthews' testimony (day 1 and day 2) to get the full story, but Christen Ager-Hanssen definitely has the motive and means to sabotage those files. There's so much money involved that there's a lot of intrigue surrounding this trial, and it's not coming from autistic Craig and the BSV bunch.

Moving on, here's something interesting I came across. I think Midnight Gardner might recognize this guy (the video is cued up to the appropriate point, it's only a minute or so):



Here's more:


Here is that interview, from 5/5/16:

Craig Steven Wright, who over the past days claimed to be the inventor of Bitcoin, has been unable to publicly prove control over any of the keys that (only) Satoshi Nakamoto should possess. While his initial blog post deceptively included a Satoshi Nakamoto signature that was always publicly available, today he announced he will not move any of “Satoshi's bitcoins.”

Yet four notable men in the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency space still believe Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, or leader of a team called “Satoshi Nakamoto” that also included the now-deceased Dave Kleiman. Bitcoin’s former lead developer Gavin Andresen and former Bitcoin Foundation director Jon Matonis met Wright over the past weeks, and – among other things – believe to have seen cryptographic proof. Digital currency veteran and R3-architect Ian Grigg has been publicly backing Wright's claim, too.

The fourth source maintaining that Wright is the man behind the alias Satoshi Nakamoto is New Liberty Dollar issuer Joseph VaughnPerling. VaughnPerling says he met Wright at a conference in Amsterdam three years before publication of the Bitcoin white paper – and that Wright introduced himself as Satoshi Nakamoto at that time.

This is not a new story: VaughnPerling has been saying he met Satoshi Nakamoto for years.

More recently, VaughnPerling appeared on the Bitcoin Core Slack channel, where he predicted Satoshi Nakamoto would reveal himself around this time.

To learn more, I reached out to VaughnPerling via the Bitcoin Core Slack channel myself. Late at night, at 2 a.m. local time, VaughnPerling responded. He seemed slightly pressed for time, and it had been a long day for me, so we only chatted for about 30 minutes.

To avoid too much interpretation from my end, I have decided to publish our full conversation. Bitcoin Magazine has not been able to find any other sources to confirm the information provided by VaughnPerling such as the message from the trustee of the Tulip Trust.

Joseph VaughnPerling: You had some questions?

Aaron van Wirdum: The main question I have right now is: If Wright is Satoshi ... why would he publish fake proof? Any idea?

JVP: I have some very good ideas. If I were in Dr. Wright's position, I would do exactly as he has done.

I also have a message for Dr. Wright from the trustee of the Tulip trust that is controlling the coins that he wants to move. Not yet announced:

“The Tulip Trading Trust trustee, appointed by Dave Kleiman as of Oct 12nd 2012. It has been rumored that Craig Wright will need to access Tulip Trading Trust assets. Trustee acts in the interest of the beneficiary alone and must defend against undue influence by others. In order to authorize movements of trust assets the beneficiary must come forward and make a direct request of the trustee our way – NOT via 3rd party nor any intermediaries. Any coin movement affecting the trust asset without prior authorization will be considered a trust violation and invalid irrespective of any claim of constructive bailment. The Trust alone has control over its assets. Tampering or manipulating with trust assets by anyone (including the beneficiary) might have material legal and tax implications. Beneficiaries are invited to a conference call 12:00 UTC Friday to discuss interests. Principals only.”

AVW: Can you help me out here? Who's who in this message? Is Wright a beneficiary?

JVP: It is not my place to speculate on the transactions and assets of others.

AVW: So you don't know?

JVP: What I know and when I know it is not something I am interested in sharing. At least as regards the matter of the finances of others. It would show me to be a nosy one. And that much is already apparent to anyone looking at me. My nose is hard to miss.

AVW: As I interpret that message, Dave Kleiman locked up Satoshi's holdings with Tulip Trust. In order to move Satoshi’s coins, like Wright said he would, he needs access. Which he may or may not get ...

JVP: Close, but it shows that you are not entirely familiar with how a trust works.

AVW: That is correct.

JVP: Did you have other questions?

AVW: Why do you have this message?

JVP: He will know why.

AVW: Why are you sharing it with me?

JVP: It will also be shared with some selected cryptographers.

AVW: But I can publish it?

JVP: Kind of you to ask. Yes.

AVW: So you're really sharing it with the world then. Which brings us back to "why"...

JVP: I would like for Craig Wright to have his privacy. He has already done more for us than we can repay, but it is not just this. I would like him to be able to do what he wants to do, without interference. We would all be better off when that occurs.

AVW: How does sharing that message help?

JVP: He is following a wrong path, because he must. He is doing it the least-wrong way possible. He is on Meifumando. It is as it has to be.

AVW: What is the wrong path? And what is the right path?

JVP: The world can learn much from what he has done and how. He is showing what cryptography does and does not do. It is a lesson that the world needs to learn before mass adoption can occur.

AVW: Mass adoption of Bitcoin?

JVP: The world was not ready for Bitcoin when it appeared. When the world learns these simple lessons, it will be more ready.

AVW: Why is Bitcoin not ready for mass adoption?

JVP: People do not understand what cryptography does and does not do. People do not understand pseudonymous. Having a key means you have a key. It does not mean you had it previously, or that you will have it in the future.

AVW: Right ... So?

JVP: He is forced on a stage, so he provides a masterful lesson that many who call themselves cryptographers seem to have forgotten.

AVW: In what way is he forced?

JVP: He said it himself, the decision to appear was made by others. Did you not even watch his video on BBC?

AVW: Of course I did.

JVP: Watch it again. You missed a lot.

AVW: But he didn't say in what way he was forced, did he? Or how, or why ...

JVP: I will say this much. If I were in his situation, I would have done as he did, though probably not even as well as he did.

AVW: Wright's Twitter account bio says Ian Grigg and yourself maintain it. Is that true?

JVP: Dr. Wright deleted his Twitter account for his own protection. A friend of his picked up the account as it came available to preserve it for him.

AVW: So Ian and yourself are currently controlling that Twitter account?

JVP: There may be others involved as well, but we are the ones that are taking the bullets.

AVW: How well do you actually know Wright? You speak like you know him very well, but you just met him at a conference once, didn't you?

JVP: I met him at a conference in 2005, he wore the moniker. We discussed what became Bitcoin at great length. He knew all there was to know about Bitcoin in 2005, and he shared it with me. I did not learn his government-registered name until much later.

AVW: So you did get to know him later on?

JVP: That's a story for another time.

AVW: Did you know Dave Kleiman as well?

JVP: Dave Kleiman was an exceptional man. If you want to know more about Dave, you should talk to the SANS folks.

One of the top SANS people is also having a conference in Las Vegas in September, where the Trustee of the Tulip Trust is expected to appear.

AVW: Expected to appear?

JVP: Very high probability.

Not all details are decided, but I have heard that they may be even auctioning consultations with her.

AVW: You realize all of this is a really weird story, right?

JVP: Yes, and you have seen only the snowdrift on the tip of the iceberg. The level of weird is off the scale.

AVW: Do you know the full story?

JVP: I doubt even Craig knows the full story, but I could fill about 20 books.

AVW: No offense, but: Why should I trust any of this? Why should I trust anything you say?

JVP: Do your own research. Keep on your quest for knowledge. When you find someone who can teach you, listen carefully. When you find someone that can learn from you, be kind.

AVW: You're skilled at avoiding questions through what sounds like ancient wisdoms.

JVP: You are a reporter, the ancient wisdom is multiple sources, so ... do your own research …

Author’s note: The transcript was slightly edited for readability. Typos were fixed, punctuation improved (VaughnPerling uses double-spaces), the order of some questions was changed, and seemingly irrelevant text (like our chit-chat introductory talk) was removed. I tried to stay as close as possible to the original text and context, however.

Image via YouTube





Another interesting development is that, just this past Thursday, a guy named Martti Malmi released a treasure trove of 260 of his private emails with Satoshi from 2009 through 2011 when Satoshi bowed out.


He writes:

This is the correspondence between myself (Martti Malmi, AKA Sirius) and Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.

I did not feel comfortable sharing private correspondence earlier, but decided to do so for an important trial in the UK in 2024 where I was a witness. Also, a long time has passed now since the emails were sent.

The archive is incomplete and contains only emails from my address @cc.hut.fi. My university email addresses changed to @aalto.fi in early 2011, and I don't have backups of those emails.

There are some passwords and a street address mentioned in the emails, but those are no longer valid or relevant.



It has only been less than 48 hours since they came out, but already a new narrative is circulating in the Bitcoin community, dissuading people from reading the emails. It goes like this:


That's because, some of the emails written by the real Satoshi sound an awful lot like Craig:


This is basically where it stands today. The lasereyed maxis are taking victory laps this weekend, high-fiving, saying it's over, he's done, Creg is cooked, but the trial is really only half over.



To be clear, I'm not predicting the outcome of the trial. Craig could lose, but unless something changes, I'll still be sure it's him. The circumstantial evidence that it's him is simply overwhelming. I think some of the COPA witnesses know it's him, and they're lying because there's so much money at stake. Plus, they just don't like him.

Martti Malmi, the guy who published his private emails with Satoshi, is the guy who moved the Bitcoin forum from Bitcoin.org to Bitcointalk.org, and didn't even invite Satoshi. Satoshi invented Bitcoin, but these early developers had their own ideas about which way it should go, and that's basically where it is today. They're saying that even Satoshi didn't understand Bitcoin properly, even in those very early days as evidenced in the emails. How funny is that?


And just to be even more clear, I'm not suddenly a fan of Bitcoin, BSV, Satoshi or Craig Wright. I started my blog two months before Satoshi released the Bitcoin white paper, and I'm still on the same track that I was then. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has zigged and zagged, jumped the tracks (and the shark) many times, and the earliest participants (who are mostly all a little younger than me) are off doing their own things. My view of BTC hasn't changed since 2011: It's a tulip-style trading bubble. Notably, I wrote my first Bitcoin post a couple of months after Satoshi abandoned the developers to work on something else.

Now I'm learning about how nChain is running over a million transactions a second, which is apparently really fast:


Here's the very last thing Craig said on the stand yesterday:

COPA: Your claim to be Satoshi is a fraud. CSW: No. I have proved bitcoin can scale beyond Oracle and any Silicon Valley system. Nobody can do a million tx/second. Customers don't care if I'm Satoshi. they care about the science and the tech.



One thing I don't think the Bitcoiners understand is that BSV is not trying to do the number-go-up thing. It's not something you save. It's not a speculative asset.


Here, when he says "Bitcoin is fine," he's talking about BSV, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, which BSVers call the real Bitcoin:


You see, this isn't me getting into crypto or anything like that. But taking this deep dive into the trial, as an outsider with kind of a unique perspective, has opened my eyes to another angle on it. It was never intended to be what it became, at least not by the guy who started it, even by 2011 when it popped up on my radar.

I find myself agreeing with these BSVers that BTC is doomed to fail. I have thought that since 2011, but they only started thinking that in 2017. Satoshi apparently thought that in 2011. Today you've got all these bitcoin whales living in 20,000 square foot mansions with nothing to do but buy another Lambo. That's not success. That's clearly the top of the bubble, and it's not sustainable. This thing is doomed to fail.

With BSV, nCrypt, Teranode, this whole idea of big blocks, millions of transactions per second, with transaction fees of a couple of cents, all on the main blockchain, I can finally see some merit in the idea. Plus, it's not something you buy for the moonshot. It's not trying to bubble like BTC. If it ends up working, it'll be "backed by cash" as Satoshi wrote. It'll be fixed to the dollar, or whatever currency is backing it, by the central bank. It'll simply be a new component of the monetary base, along with physical cash and commercial bank reserves, as I wrote in this post, only it will make digital micropayments simple enough for boomers, and practically free.

And I don't think the idea that CBDCs might use this software nChain is developing is so outlandish. No, they're not going to give Calvin Ayer control of their CBDC network, but they might buy nChain's system, not because of patents, but because it's turnkey and it works. That's what governments and bureaucracies do. They take the best from the private sector and use it. Governments and bureaucracies are, by nature, slow and stupid. Here's a flashback from a 2009 post on my blog:



I think I'll end this here, because it's getting late, and this is still a developing story. Don't let the maxi-technobabble fool you. This is far from over. The maxi narrative of Craig as an epic forger has evolved into a tight, cohesive belief system over the years, complete with an explanation for anything and everything. So has the BTC small-blocker number-go-up narrative, but I watched it grow all the way from its first seeds in 2011, and believe me, they made it up as they went along.


Sincerely,
FOFOA



Posted by at 6:44 PM

1 comment:

Post a Comment

Comments are set on moderate, so they may or may not get through.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)