Telegram´s Channels
@SatoshisQuotes
@BitCoin2008_2010
@BitCoinWP
@BitCoinSourceForge
@BitcoinTalkForum
@Hal_Finney
@RayDillinger
@IanGrigg
@JosephVaughnPerling
@GavinAndresen1
@MikeHearn
@StefanMatthews
@CalvinAyre
@Jimmy_Nguyen
@SteveShadders
@GeorgeGilder
@DavidRees
@DaveKleiman
@KleimanVsCSW
@UyenTNguyen
Craig Wright
@Craig_Wright. 40 Members
@CSW_Academic 95 Members
@CSW_Articles 104 Members
@CSW_Books
@CSW_Business
@CSW_Cybersecurity
@CSW_Economics
@CSW_Ideology
@CSW_interviews
@CSW_interviewsVideos
@CSW_Legal
@CSW_Patent
@CSW_Religion
@CSW_Satoshi 199 Members
@CSW_Slack. 480 Members
@CSW_VideoTalks
@CSW_Videos
@CSW_Asperger
@CSW_Gallery
@theArtofBitcoin 64 Members
@TheSatoshiAffaire 50 Mem.
@DonLynam
CSW personal Batlles
@BitCoinWP
@Double_Spend
@BitCoinDatabaseOwnership
@BitCoin_Domain
@RamonQuesadaNews -140
@SatoshisQuotes
@BitCoin2008_2010
@BitCoinWP
@BitCoinSourceForge
@BitcoinTalkForum
@Hal_Finney
@RayDillinger
@IanGrigg
@JosephVaughnPerling
@GavinAndresen1
@MikeHearn
@StefanMatthews
@CalvinAyre
@Jimmy_Nguyen
@SteveShadders
@GeorgeGilder
@DavidRees
@DaveKleiman
@KleimanVsCSW
@UyenTNguyen
Craig Wright
@Craig_Wright. 40 Members
@CSW_Academic 95 Members
@CSW_Articles 104 Members
@CSW_Books
@CSW_Business
@CSW_Cybersecurity
@CSW_Economics
@CSW_Ideology
@CSW_interviews
@CSW_interviewsVideos
@CSW_Legal
@CSW_Patent
@CSW_Religion
@CSW_Satoshi 199 Members
@CSW_Slack. 480 Members
@CSW_VideoTalks
@CSW_Videos
@CSW_Asperger
@CSW_Gallery
@theArtofBitcoin 64 Members
@TheSatoshiAffaire 50 Mem.
@DonLynam
CSW personal Batlles
@BitCoinWP
@Double_Spend
@BitCoinDatabaseOwnership
@BitCoin_Domain
@RamonQuesadaNews -140
Forwarded from CSW 320 Lisa (sister) & River (Lisa's daughter) (@RamonQuesada 🌷)
Twitter
Omg Coins
@riverish333 Can you confirm that you did actually see Dave Kleiman with Craig at your house in Australia talking about crazy internet money when you were 15? https://t.co/gsVc03ffYn
Forwarded from 2008 361 Ray Dillinger - Bear 400 (@RamonQuesada 🌷)
If anyone can falsify my claims, I go to prison. I have sworn in testimony that I am Satoshi Nakamoto, and I created bitcoin. To journalists, there is no way to prove. Anything can be taken and twisted in social media. You can't do that in court if you twist the narrative and you lie you face the consequences.
Others who claim to be Satoshi so that they can gain fame have to prove their point. Each point of evidence needs to be falsifiable. If it can be falsified, they face prison time. There is nothing from any of these people that I cannot falsify. I can demonstrate categorically in court with evidence that all of these people have created a false narrative to either defraud people or engage in other scams.
Those like Gizmodo and Wired were not interested in the real story. It's the same as that author who wanted to paint me in the same light Julian Assage. But of course, is the false narrative we get to take part. The way that that story was written was to sell a populist idea of what bitcoin and Satoshi mean, and it is not what I intended. It is not why I invented bitcoin, and it is not the story that needs to be told.
What I expect to happen is that people like Roger and Vitelik will oppose me because they know their scams require that I do not get a voice. They will seek to censor me and will be seen to do such. Then, everything that there claiming will be shown to be false and malicious. Next, we would expect many of the other scammers who have to double down to attack, and they can claim that they worked with me and that they were part of this and this is why we need to keep some things close. If everything is out there, I cannot discredit others who seek to say that they were part of the Satoshi group.
That idiot in BCH, David and others he worked with planned Jihan and wanted me to be a part of a larger group early on which gives them power. People like Bear, Hal and Dave, helped me, but they did not create bitcoin. They didn't even really know what bitcoin was. Even Dave wrote not a single line of code. He gave me a few grammatical suggestions on the Whitepaper and his real role was keeping me psychologically sane as I dealt with these people. He was a sounding board and a friend.
What we are going to find is the narrative changes to say that these were part of my group. We already see this. If they know the full story, these people can twist and become seemingly part of it and lie, it becomes hard for us to weed them out.
But going forward, I have things they don't know. And they won't be able to give them before we get them in court and tear them apart. Once we have a few people torn apart, preferably people who are under oath and then demonstrated to have perjured themselves we can ensure that others know that if they do this if they seek to add themselves to my story, I always have something that will ruin them.
This is why we need court because otherwise other people are going to twist the story and continue their scams.
CSW
May 25, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1558795610306000?thread_ts=1558795604.305900&cid=C5131HKFX
Others who claim to be Satoshi so that they can gain fame have to prove their point. Each point of evidence needs to be falsifiable. If it can be falsified, they face prison time. There is nothing from any of these people that I cannot falsify. I can demonstrate categorically in court with evidence that all of these people have created a false narrative to either defraud people or engage in other scams.
Those like Gizmodo and Wired were not interested in the real story. It's the same as that author who wanted to paint me in the same light Julian Assage. But of course, is the false narrative we get to take part. The way that that story was written was to sell a populist idea of what bitcoin and Satoshi mean, and it is not what I intended. It is not why I invented bitcoin, and it is not the story that needs to be told.
What I expect to happen is that people like Roger and Vitelik will oppose me because they know their scams require that I do not get a voice. They will seek to censor me and will be seen to do such. Then, everything that there claiming will be shown to be false and malicious. Next, we would expect many of the other scammers who have to double down to attack, and they can claim that they worked with me and that they were part of this and this is why we need to keep some things close. If everything is out there, I cannot discredit others who seek to say that they were part of the Satoshi group.
That idiot in BCH, David and others he worked with planned Jihan and wanted me to be a part of a larger group early on which gives them power. People like Bear, Hal and Dave, helped me, but they did not create bitcoin. They didn't even really know what bitcoin was. Even Dave wrote not a single line of code. He gave me a few grammatical suggestions on the Whitepaper and his real role was keeping me psychologically sane as I dealt with these people. He was a sounding board and a friend.
What we are going to find is the narrative changes to say that these were part of my group. We already see this. If they know the full story, these people can twist and become seemingly part of it and lie, it becomes hard for us to weed them out.
But going forward, I have things they don't know. And they won't be able to give them before we get them in court and tear them apart. Once we have a few people torn apart, preferably people who are under oath and then demonstrated to have perjured themselves we can ensure that others know that if they do this if they seek to add themselves to my story, I always have something that will ruin them.
This is why we need court because otherwise other people are going to twist the story and continue their scams.
CSW
May 25, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1558795610306000?thread_ts=1558795604.305900&cid=C5131HKFX
Forwarded from 2006 History (@RamonQuesada 🌷)
RE: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:43:08 +1100
Hi Dave,
It is true that there are cases/incidents that go to court (even virus infections). These are statistically the
anecdotal case is just the exception. In fact if 1% of all corporate (even excluding personal incidents) incidents
involving virus incidents alone where to go to court, the court system would fold.
Look at the volume of cases in any given country in total. No organisation would take a case to court for this for
costs of less than $50,000 loss - it can not be justified financially and the process will generally cost more than
this.
An extra 10,000 - 20,000 cases in Australia (lets take the NSWSC and other Supreme courts in the other states as these
are the required starting point to file claim at this level of loss etc etc) would result in the total collapse of the
legal system. Cases would not be heard. The backlog each year would exceed the number tried.
[http://www.austlii.edu.au is a good source for cases etc]
Based on the number of companies (not businesses, lets narrow this) in Australia, if every "REPORTED" virus incident
was to go to court this would involve at least 200,000 additional cases. (figures calculated from SANS, Symantec and
APRIA data). Even taking the incidents with a reported impact of greater than $1,000,000 based on loss estimates from
the companies we are looking at 30,000 to 40,000 (Mean 37,102 +/- 3,458 at alpha = 5%).
So taking this reduced figure at about 37,000 cases. This is far more than the courts can handle. If only 1 in 4
incidents (with costs over $1,000,000) go to court, this is still more than the system can handle.
Even looking to 100 cases worldwide going to court. This does not even come to 1% of incidents. Thus any incident which
does go to court is an anomaly.
I am certain that the US does not have that many idle judges that they could handle the extra load any better.
As to the CFO and embezzlement. It is rare to have large fraud tried. I teach corporate fraud detection as one of my
"hats" at a chartered firm (like a US CPA organisation).
I have to argue again, Forensic ALWAYS involves court. This is the nature of the word. As stated, involves court does
not mean that it will end up in court, but an affidavit (deposition eqv. US) is a court process even if the document
never sees the light of day.
Dave, you state "But, if we treat them all as if they might end up in litigation and do them in a forensically sound
manner, are our clients, organizations etc, not better served?" Well yes in the ideal world. The real world is not as
nice and not as clear cut.
It is clear that we lack knowledge of the others respective process requirements. Statute is one thing, rules of the
courts another.
Always remember that anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.
Regards
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: dave kleiman [mailto:dave () davekleiman com]
Sent: 10 February 2006 3:44
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator
https://seclists.org/basics/2006/Feb/155?s=09
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:43:08 +1100
Hi Dave,
It is true that there are cases/incidents that go to court (even virus infections). These are statistically the
anecdotal case is just the exception. In fact if 1% of all corporate (even excluding personal incidents) incidents
involving virus incidents alone where to go to court, the court system would fold.
Look at the volume of cases in any given country in total. No organisation would take a case to court for this for
costs of less than $50,000 loss - it can not be justified financially and the process will generally cost more than
this.
An extra 10,000 - 20,000 cases in Australia (lets take the NSWSC and other Supreme courts in the other states as these
are the required starting point to file claim at this level of loss etc etc) would result in the total collapse of the
legal system. Cases would not be heard. The backlog each year would exceed the number tried.
[http://www.austlii.edu.au is a good source for cases etc]
Based on the number of companies (not businesses, lets narrow this) in Australia, if every "REPORTED" virus incident
was to go to court this would involve at least 200,000 additional cases. (figures calculated from SANS, Symantec and
APRIA data). Even taking the incidents with a reported impact of greater than $1,000,000 based on loss estimates from
the companies we are looking at 30,000 to 40,000 (Mean 37,102 +/- 3,458 at alpha = 5%).
So taking this reduced figure at about 37,000 cases. This is far more than the courts can handle. If only 1 in 4
incidents (with costs over $1,000,000) go to court, this is still more than the system can handle.
Even looking to 100 cases worldwide going to court. This does not even come to 1% of incidents. Thus any incident which
does go to court is an anomaly.
I am certain that the US does not have that many idle judges that they could handle the extra load any better.
As to the CFO and embezzlement. It is rare to have large fraud tried. I teach corporate fraud detection as one of my
"hats" at a chartered firm (like a US CPA organisation).
I have to argue again, Forensic ALWAYS involves court. This is the nature of the word. As stated, involves court does
not mean that it will end up in court, but an affidavit (deposition eqv. US) is a court process even if the document
never sees the light of day.
Dave, you state "But, if we treat them all as if they might end up in litigation and do them in a forensically sound
manner, are our clients, organizations etc, not better served?" Well yes in the ideal world. The real world is not as
nice and not as clear cut.
It is clear that we lack knowledge of the others respective process requirements. Statute is one thing, rules of the
courts another.
Always remember that anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.
Regards
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: dave kleiman [mailto:dave () davekleiman com]
Sent: 10 February 2006 3:44
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator
https://seclists.org/basics/2006/Feb/155?s=09
Dave Kleiman
Dave Kleiman (1967 – April 26, 2013) was a computer forensics expert, an author/coauthor of multiple books and a noted speaker at security related events. Dave was the key figure beside Craig that involved in the development of Bitcoin software. He was also a regular contributor to Cryptography and Security mailing lists where discussions included technical aspects of crypto-systems. He died in his home in April 2013 of complications suffering from a disease called MRSA.
https://gobsv.com/creator
Dave Kleiman (1967 – April 26, 2013) was a computer forensics expert, an author/coauthor of multiple books and a noted speaker at security related events. Dave was the key figure beside Craig that involved in the development of Bitcoin software. He was also a regular contributor to Cryptography and Security mailing lists where discussions included technical aspects of crypto-systems. He died in his home in April 2013 of complications suffering from a disease called MRSA.
https://gobsv.com/creator
Gobsv
Inventor - Bitcoin Docs for developers and businesses
Bitcoin inventor and people involved
Bitcoin como un Security
Por Craig Wright
25 julio 2021
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/bitcoin-como-sistema-de-seguridad-por-craig-wright/
Bitcoin as a Security
By Craig Wright
25 Jul 2021
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/bitcoin-as-a-security/
Por Craig Wright
25 julio 2021
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/bitcoin-como-sistema-de-seguridad-por-craig-wright/
Bitcoin as a Security
By Craig Wright
25 Jul 2021
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/bitcoin-as-a-security/
Ramon Quesada
Bitcoin como un "Security". Por Craig Wright | Ramon Quesada
Bitcoin como un “Security” (Depósito de valor) Por Craig Wright 25 julio 2021 https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/bitcoin-as-a-security/ En la publicación de hoy, me esforzaré por explicar algunos de los razonamientos detrás de cómo creé…
http://www.davekleiman.com/ interesting that Dave was working for NASA and the Securit-e-doc for Cyber Communication.
For those who like the ironic
Blacknet was first officially funded in 2001
I was disillusioned and left in 2010
2001 was Hal and Dave
2010 was after Hal and Dave
2010 was released in 1984
Core ARE 1984
Movie, 2001 a space odyssey
I started filing What is now metanet in 2001
Hal came in and unfucked a lot
Dave was better than me on some things, I have zero elegance in coding.
I was a functional coder.
Old school. Waterfall. Design first, argue design, then when it works in your head and on paper
Code each part
Or better, hand it off to others :)
CSW
Feb 22, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1550857088320800?thread_ts=1550857088.320800&cid=C5131HKFX
Blacknet was first officially funded in 2001
I was disillusioned and left in 2010
2001 was Hal and Dave
2010 was after Hal and Dave
2010 was released in 1984
Core ARE 1984
Movie, 2001 a space odyssey
I started filing What is now metanet in 2001
Hal came in and unfucked a lot
Dave was better than me on some things, I have zero elegance in coding.
I was a functional coder.
Old school. Waterfall. Design first, argue design, then when it works in your head and on paper
Code each part
Or better, hand it off to others :)
CSW
Feb 22, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1550857088320800?thread_ts=1550857088.320800&cid=C5131HKFX
Let me make this entirely clear.
The court case is entirely about the origins of bitcoin and Satoshi.
For all the core people out there trying to play this down, there is nothing in this court case if I'm not Satoshi
The issue Is that Ira Kleiman seeks to promote Dave Kleiman as 50% of Satoshi. That is not correct
I don't deny that I had Dave in my life giving moral support and I don't deny that after 2011 we worked together on a few projects
I don't deny that I tried to invite him to work on bitcoin in 2008
I don't deny that I tried to give me contract for work in 2009 that he didn't accept and this led to a venture capital funded company called Greyfog In Australia that produced devices that used the Blockchain in 2009.
However, Dave never accepted the contract as he was too ill and I ended up taking other people who were directors and shareholders in that company including John Keeble and others in the venture ( vulture) capital field
CSW
Oct 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635621574238900?thread_ts=1635621574.238900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3254
The court case is entirely about the origins of bitcoin and Satoshi.
For all the core people out there trying to play this down, there is nothing in this court case if I'm not Satoshi
The issue Is that Ira Kleiman seeks to promote Dave Kleiman as 50% of Satoshi. That is not correct
I don't deny that I had Dave in my life giving moral support and I don't deny that after 2011 we worked together on a few projects
I don't deny that I tried to invite him to work on bitcoin in 2008
I don't deny that I tried to give me contract for work in 2009 that he didn't accept and this led to a venture capital funded company called Greyfog In Australia that produced devices that used the Blockchain in 2009.
However, Dave never accepted the contract as he was too ill and I ended up taking other people who were directors and shareholders in that company including John Keeble and others in the venture ( vulture) capital field
CSW
Oct 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635621574238900?thread_ts=1635621574.238900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3254
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Oct 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635621574238900?thread_ts=1635621574.238900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3254
Oct 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635621574238900?thread_ts=1635621574.238900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3254
No, Satoshi was Me.
Not a partnership. I own my role.
Ps... Dave never coded a line in his life, and documentation is not code.
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636500014074100?thread_ts=1636500014.074100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3346
Not a partnership. I own my role.
Ps... Dave never coded a line in his life, and documentation is not code.
CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636500014074100?thread_ts=1636500014.074100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3346
Ironically, the COPA case will fall apart before it even starts.
In a few weeks, the case will end, and the evidence will show that I created bitcoin, alone.
Oh, an injunction to seize a domain takes less than an hour to obtain.
Coinbase could vanish from the Internet in a moment
They are my 1st head
Then Core.
Every dev will capitulate or be enjoined
And, that is from SegWit on.
Resignation now, meaningless
I hope they fight.
I made the offer, I prefer the rejection
I want their heads
I am doing this Genghis Khan style
Ironically, that is similar to the wolf picture Dave had, and which Ira gave away.
CSW
Nov 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636660962497900?thread_ts=1636660962.497900&cid=C5131HKFX
In a few weeks, the case will end, and the evidence will show that I created bitcoin, alone.
Oh, an injunction to seize a domain takes less than an hour to obtain.
Coinbase could vanish from the Internet in a moment
They are my 1st head
Then Core.
Every dev will capitulate or be enjoined
And, that is from SegWit on.
Resignation now, meaningless
I hope they fight.
I made the offer, I prefer the rejection
I want their heads
I am doing this Genghis Khan style
Ironically, that is similar to the wolf picture Dave had, and which Ira gave away.
CSW
Nov 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636660962497900?thread_ts=1636660962.497900&cid=C5131HKFX
Forwarded from CSW Chat
Kleiman v Wright: Special Report | November 18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZGFGk4qAmI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZGFGk4qAmI
YouTube
Kleiman v Wright: Special Report | November 18
Live report from the base camp of Dr Craig S. Wright. Kurt Wuckert Jr. gives a detailed recap of the events of the $66 billion case over digital Assets and Intellectual property.