This is very telling... How does a court in Florida have access to give the First Bitcoin ever mined? Who did they get it from? How was it obtained given BitCoin and Blockchain are said to be nearly invincible to hacking? Why can they not just check the blockchain like they said they would be able to do?
It's not really that complicated, Craig Wright and David Kleiman has made the claims that they are Satoshi. That means it's up to them to prove it, until they've proven it they're legally not Satoshi.
If they truly where, they could prove it by for instance proving ownership of Satoshis wallet, simply by transferring a small amount out of there. But they haven't, hence it's unproven.
Think of it as you making the claim that your net worth is $50B in gold, now if this where true, all you would have to do is to bring the judge and the jury to where you keep your stash and prove that it's yours and that you have it. No matter what happens next, you can't blame any of it on the gold itself. People may have doubts, some may wonder from where you got the gold. But either way, he who makes the claim must prove it.
Now, it's possible that they're telling the truth and just lost their keys, but I don't think that's very likely, neither does the Jury apparently.
Yes. That was obvious. HOW DOES THE COURT HAVE ACCESS? Why are they involved at all? If either man could move any amount it would prove it was either of theirs, but why would they need to prove it and what would be the next step of the COURT if one had proven? Like you said it is possible that they lost access to their wallet, I have lost access to my own in the past. Any wallet that I have ever tried to use was very specific that they would be lost if you didn't have the seed, there would be no way to retrieve them as there would be no way to prove it was yours without a backup or seed. Again, I want it explained to me what the role of the COURT was in all of this. Unless they can access the wallet they are completely useless in trying to prove who owns it or granting access to it. This begs the question, are the wallets truly secure? Is crypto what they claim it to be as secure if a COURT can gain access? If it is truly decentralized how would a COURTs decision allow one to gain access? Moving forward are we going to allow COURTs to dictate ownership? BitCoin and all the others are quite clearly, to me, a con job/ponzi scheme. If the COURT was to make any decision at all it would be to stop it from being allowed because it isn't legal to preform con jobs or ponzi schemes.
They don't, nobody has. Except for the real satoshi. However, anyone who knows the public address to the wallet can view incoming and outgoing transactions, even you and I could do that.
Why are they involved at all?
Because of two knuckleheads suing... whoever the hell they are suing in an attempt to prove that they are Satoshi, even to they haven't to this day managed to prove it.
but why would they need to prove it
They never needed to do that, it's something they chose to do for some reason. However, if they're gonna make such claims and then go and sue everyone here and there, of course they would have to prove it. We're not in the medieval ages where anyone could accuse anyone for anything without proof.
Any wallet that I have ever tried to use was very specific that they would be lost if you didn't have the seed, there would be no way to retrieve them as there would be no way to prove it was yours without a backup or seed.
Yep, this is exactly how crypto works, not your keys, not your coins. And if you lose your keys it's pretty much like dropping your gold at the deepest point of the ocean, you'd always know how much gold you had, where it is, but you'll never be able to retrieve it again.
Again, I want it explained to me what the role of the COURT was in all of this. Unless they can access the wallet they are completely useless in trying to prove who owns it or granting access to it.
Exactly, the court is pretty useless, and the two knuckleheads who are obsessed by officially being recognized as satoshi is just wasting the courts time in this case. If they truly where, they would have been able to prove it in seconds, case closed.
This begs the question, are the wallets truly secure?
Absolutely, try brute force a 256bit key. That's 2²⁵⁶ different combinations. For reference, dedicated hardware may be able to test 1 million keys per second. If you where Jeff Bezos and decided to kick out everyone from AWS, and use all those data centers and servers, perhaps you could test 1 trillion keys per second, that's about the same performance you'd get from a theoretical quantum computer.
So let's assume you're the globalist elite, you have 1000 of the best existing quantum computer (impossible in reality). Close to that would be 2⁵⁰ tests per second. That's 2²⁵⁶ - 2⁵⁰ = 2²⁰⁶. Now divide by 360024365, and you'll get: 3.261162951*10⁵⁴, that's how many years it would take you to brute force your way through all possible key combinations. With 1000 quantum computers, i.e about all computation resources that exist in the world.
Now let's be fair, if you start at a random point and test 1% of the keys from there, you may find 1% of the keys, still tho, that would take you: 3.261162951*10⁵² years. I think it's fair to say that it is safe.
Is crypto what they claim it to be as secure if a COURT can gain access?
The court have no access, nobody has, except whoever has the key to a certain wallet. Remember, the blockchain is public, last thing you want is for anyone to somehow hack your keys through brute force or similar techniques. That's why these insanely big numbers are used in the first place.
If it is truly decentralized how would a COURTs decision allow one to gain access?
Still no access, tho there are 11 000 nodes in this decentralized network, and anyone can setup their own node and sync to the network. All data in the node is public and contains all transaction history, wallets etc. Anyone can view everything. But if you don't know who owns a certain wallet, it's just a big ass number you're looking at and nothing more.
Why did the courts accept this case knowing that the owner would have access and no one else would and if the owner had lost access that access could not be regained? Shouldn't it have been considered moot and a waste of taxpayer dollars? Where they suing each other? For what, the ability to claim that they were satoshi? What good would that be to be claimed the maker of something that lost access because of their own design? This makes my head hurt just thinking about it. The legal system, I suppose.
Why did the courts accept this case knowing that the owner would have access and no one else would and if the owner had lost access that access could not be regained?
Most courts really are stupid and inexperienced when it comes to cryptocurrency. They literally can't tell the difference between this case and say a regular business twist when two parts fight over a piece of property, or perhaps a server or website. They really are that stupid.
Shouldn't it have been considered moot and a waste of taxpayer dollars?
Yes, it should have never been accepted. But because of corruption and stupidity they took it in anyway.
Where they suing each other?
Honestly, I have no idea who they where suing or why. But they did go to court, trying to prove that they both or them as individuals where the real satoshi for whatever reason. There's been some speculation about it, some say they are, others point to the fact that these two knuckleheads really hasn't contributed much to Bitcoin at all.
What good would that be to be claimed the maker of something that lost access because of their own design?
Fame is probably the reason, looking at altcoins like Ethereum or Cardano they both have well known creators, who are both pretty famous, tho none of them seems to enjoy it that much. Craig and David always seemed more like the type of people who would love insane amounts of fame.
As for the lost access, it's likely they thought they could fool the court in some way. Proof through usage of the keys, or signing the genesis block is something only the crypto community talks about, and suggest. And you'd bet that's the proof it would take to convince the crypto community. The average sheep however might believe whatever the court and fake news media says.
This makes my head hurt just thinking about it. The legal system, I suppose.
Best solution to this would be not to think about it too much. It's a shit show and faggots like those two makes crypto look bad, because like it or not, they are both parts of the original team, they did a few contributions code wise after Satoshi released the original and they've been participating in many discussions.
The only reason Bitcoin still has credibility is because of it's transparency and open source code which makes knuckleheads in the developers team obsolete.
The Australian computer scientist who claims he created Bitcoin was ordered by a federal jury to pay $100 million in damages over a breach in intellectual property rights to the family of a deceased business partner.
The fact that anyone would voluntarily claim to be Satoshi is just ironic. He disappeared for a reason, because he knows what happens to anyone who oppose the banking system. Many rumors speculate that he's dead by now which doesn't seem unlikely either. Who really knows, maybe he mined a secret stash for himself while leaving the big wallets untouched, then moved to some old nazi village in Argentina for retirement.
If I where Satoshi and still alive, I would have laid low, not trying to get celebrity status or anything, just enjoying live as a secret billionaire while looking poor.
This is very telling... How does a court in Florida have access to give the First Bitcoin ever mined? Who did they get it from? How was it obtained given BitCoin and Blockchain are said to be nearly invincible to hacking? Why can they not just check the blockchain like they said they would be able to do?
It's not really that complicated, Craig Wright and David Kleiman has made the claims that they are Satoshi. That means it's up to them to prove it, until they've proven it they're legally not Satoshi.
If they truly where, they could prove it by for instance proving ownership of Satoshis wallet, simply by transferring a small amount out of there. But they haven't, hence it's unproven.
Think of it as you making the claim that your net worth is $50B in gold, now if this where true, all you would have to do is to bring the judge and the jury to where you keep your stash and prove that it's yours and that you have it. No matter what happens next, you can't blame any of it on the gold itself. People may have doubts, some may wonder from where you got the gold. But either way, he who makes the claim must prove it.
Now, it's possible that they're telling the truth and just lost their keys, but I don't think that's very likely, neither does the Jury apparently.
Yes. That was obvious. HOW DOES THE COURT HAVE ACCESS? Why are they involved at all? If either man could move any amount it would prove it was either of theirs, but why would they need to prove it and what would be the next step of the COURT if one had proven? Like you said it is possible that they lost access to their wallet, I have lost access to my own in the past. Any wallet that I have ever tried to use was very specific that they would be lost if you didn't have the seed, there would be no way to retrieve them as there would be no way to prove it was yours without a backup or seed. Again, I want it explained to me what the role of the COURT was in all of this. Unless they can access the wallet they are completely useless in trying to prove who owns it or granting access to it. This begs the question, are the wallets truly secure? Is crypto what they claim it to be as secure if a COURT can gain access? If it is truly decentralized how would a COURTs decision allow one to gain access? Moving forward are we going to allow COURTs to dictate ownership? BitCoin and all the others are quite clearly, to me, a con job/ponzi scheme. If the COURT was to make any decision at all it would be to stop it from being allowed because it isn't legal to preform con jobs or ponzi schemes.
They don't, nobody has. Except for the real satoshi. However, anyone who knows the public address to the wallet can view incoming and outgoing transactions, even you and I could do that.
Because of two knuckleheads suing... whoever the hell they are suing in an attempt to prove that they are Satoshi, even to they haven't to this day managed to prove it.
They never needed to do that, it's something they chose to do for some reason. However, if they're gonna make such claims and then go and sue everyone here and there, of course they would have to prove it. We're not in the medieval ages where anyone could accuse anyone for anything without proof.
Yep, this is exactly how crypto works, not your keys, not your coins. And if you lose your keys it's pretty much like dropping your gold at the deepest point of the ocean, you'd always know how much gold you had, where it is, but you'll never be able to retrieve it again.
Exactly, the court is pretty useless, and the two knuckleheads who are obsessed by officially being recognized as satoshi is just wasting the courts time in this case. If they truly where, they would have been able to prove it in seconds, case closed.
Absolutely, try brute force a 256bit key. That's 2²⁵⁶ different combinations. For reference, dedicated hardware may be able to test 1 million keys per second. If you where Jeff Bezos and decided to kick out everyone from AWS, and use all those data centers and servers, perhaps you could test 1 trillion keys per second, that's about the same performance you'd get from a theoretical quantum computer.
So let's assume you're the globalist elite, you have 1000 of the best existing quantum computer (impossible in reality). Close to that would be 2⁵⁰ tests per second. That's 2²⁵⁶ - 2⁵⁰ = 2²⁰⁶. Now divide by 360024365, and you'll get: 3.261162951*10⁵⁴, that's how many years it would take you to brute force your way through all possible key combinations. With 1000 quantum computers, i.e about all computation resources that exist in the world.
Now let's be fair, if you start at a random point and test 1% of the keys from there, you may find 1% of the keys, still tho, that would take you: 3.261162951*10⁵² years. I think it's fair to say that it is safe.
The court have no access, nobody has, except whoever has the key to a certain wallet. Remember, the blockchain is public, last thing you want is for anyone to somehow hack your keys through brute force or similar techniques. That's why these insanely big numbers are used in the first place.
Still no access, tho there are 11 000 nodes in this decentralized network, and anyone can setup their own node and sync to the network. All data in the node is public and contains all transaction history, wallets etc. Anyone can view everything. But if you don't know who owns a certain wallet, it's just a big ass number you're looking at and nothing more.
Thank you for this!
Now I have more questions.
Why did the courts accept this case knowing that the owner would have access and no one else would and if the owner had lost access that access could not be regained? Shouldn't it have been considered moot and a waste of taxpayer dollars? Where they suing each other? For what, the ability to claim that they were satoshi? What good would that be to be claimed the maker of something that lost access because of their own design? This makes my head hurt just thinking about it. The legal system, I suppose.
Most courts really are stupid and inexperienced when it comes to cryptocurrency. They literally can't tell the difference between this case and say a regular business twist when two parts fight over a piece of property, or perhaps a server or website. They really are that stupid.
Yes, it should have never been accepted. But because of corruption and stupidity they took it in anyway.
Honestly, I have no idea who they where suing or why. But they did go to court, trying to prove that they both or them as individuals where the real satoshi for whatever reason. There's been some speculation about it, some say they are, others point to the fact that these two knuckleheads really hasn't contributed much to Bitcoin at all.
Fame is probably the reason, looking at altcoins like Ethereum or Cardano they both have well known creators, who are both pretty famous, tho none of them seems to enjoy it that much. Craig and David always seemed more like the type of people who would love insane amounts of fame.
As for the lost access, it's likely they thought they could fool the court in some way. Proof through usage of the keys, or signing the genesis block is something only the crypto community talks about, and suggest. And you'd bet that's the proof it would take to convince the crypto community. The average sheep however might believe whatever the court and fake news media says.
Best solution to this would be not to think about it too much. It's a shit show and faggots like those two makes crypto look bad, because like it or not, they are both parts of the original team, they did a few contributions code wise after Satoshi released the original and they've been participating in many discussions.
The only reason Bitcoin still has credibility is because of it's transparency and open source code which makes knuckleheads in the developers team obsolete.
Why do I love people?
Oh man. I am going to take your advice and not think about it.
Oh neat, pretty cloud!!!
The Australian computer scientist who claims he created Bitcoin was ordered by a federal jury to pay $100 million in damages over a breach in intellectual property rights to the family of a deceased business partner.
The fact that anyone would voluntarily claim to be Satoshi is just ironic. He disappeared for a reason, because he knows what happens to anyone who oppose the banking system. Many rumors speculate that he's dead by now which doesn't seem unlikely either. Who really knows, maybe he mined a secret stash for himself while leaving the big wallets untouched, then moved to some old nazi village in Argentina for retirement.
If I where Satoshi and still alive, I would have laid low, not trying to get celebrity status or anything, just enjoying live as a secret billionaire while looking poor.
How in the fuck do you mine a shitcoin?
Will this evolve into the next Sword in the Stone story?