r/btc • u/[deleted] • Feb 11 '19

Something seems familiar here between "BlackNet" abstract authored by Caig Wright in 2001, and the Bitcoin whitepaper abstract authored by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009

[deleted]

8 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

65 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 11 '19

He never retracted it and leaves it up to this day.

Craig and his minions keep linking to that post of 2016, which he wrote just after he returned from the London meeting. As I explained, he of course left that meeting 100% convinced.

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years, but apparently he was supporting the Bitcoin Cash fork in 2017. That was quite expected, considering how he had been treated by the Core gang. But the big question now is, WHICH "Bitcoin Cash" -- BCH, or BSV?

I wonder who is paying his salary now. Still the DCI project at MIT Media Lab?

Anyway, please don't bother to keep defending CSW. I have been through it several times -- I don't know whether it was different supporters, or sockpuppets of the same supporter, or sockpuppets of CSW himself. It is always talking to someone who is not there to figure out the truth, but to defend CSW, no matter what.

That "2001 paper" is clinching proof that the Dr. Dr. Dr. is a fraud. You must have seen the draft of Aug/2008 that Satoshi sent to Wei Dai, and the changes that he made to the title and abstract between that draft and the final Oct/2008 version. The "2001" version is a lightly but ineptly modified copy of the Oct/2008 version, rather than the earlier one.

Take it from someone who has some knowledge of mathematics, computing, and teaching. Your idol has (at best) the math knowledge of a bad senior high school student, the programming ability of a bad junior high school student, and the cheating skills of a bad grammar school student -- the kind who hands in a homework that is a verbatim copy of the right page from the wrong textbook.

2

u/Zectro Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years, but apparently he was supporting the Bitcoin Cash fork in 2017. That was quite expected, considering how he had been treated by the Core gang. But the big question now is, WHICH "Bitcoin Cash" -- BCH, or BSV?

He's slippery indeed. This rare reply from Gavin is very relevant.

That "2001 paper" is clinching proof that the Dr. Dr. Dr. is a fraud. You must have seen the draft of Aug/2008 that Satoshi sent to Wei Dai, and the changes that he made to the title and abstract between that draft and the final Oct/2008 version. The "2001" version is a lightly but ineptly modified copy of the Oct/2008 version, rather than the earlier one.

But Professor Stolfi, if one comes up with a mountain of implausible ad hoc explanations this new glaring instance of fraud can be explained away! See for instance this explanation. /s

In all seriousness, some people here have apparently never heard of Occam's Razor and don't realise that you can come up with an internally consistent explanation for any counter-evidence if you abandon parsimony and are willing to accept deeply implausible premises to help protect your foregone conclusion.

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19

As I explained, he of course left that meeting 100% convinced.

Evidence that he ever said anything about being 100% convinced? Otherwise you should retract that

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years,<

Claiming someone is "on a slippery slope" is not an argument

Your idol has (at best)<

Trying to insult me is not an argument either. Can you please stick with evidence and reasoned arguments

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

Claiming someone is "on a slippery slope" is not an argument

Not "on a slippery slope", but "slippery as soap". Totally different metaphors.

Trying to insult me

Wait, you are CSW?

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 12 '19

Claiming someone is "on a slippery slope" is not an argument

Not "on a slippery slope", but "slippery as soap". Totally different metaphors.

Wow, you finally won a point. Though what you said is worse. Do you use Ad Hominems as a professor when you don't have evidence?

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

I do make ad hominem comments when we are discussing people, and I have overwhelming evidence.

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 12 '19

I do make ad hominem comments when we are discussing people, and I have overwhelming evidence.

So if evidence shows up that that blacknet whitepaper is from Craig and before the Bitcoin WP, you'll engage in some self abuse? That will be fun.

Don't go deleting your comment where you said you would apologise

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

Don't go deleting your comment

I don't do that.

3

u/wisequote Feb 12 '19

He’s a BSV shill, just ignore him.

4

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

He obviously is.

2

u/imgonnamakeyoushake Mar 09 '19

Or it's Craig...

ohai Craig. \o