On 9th May 2019, Jameson Loop had published an op-ed on Bitcoin Magazine where he discredited Craig Wright’s claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto.
On 9th May 2019, Jameson Loop had published an op-ed on Bitcoin Magazine where he discredited Craig Wright’s claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. Under the legal counsel of Craig Wright, Jameson Loop’s article has been geo-blocked in the UK and Australia.
Following the Geoblocking of the article, a number of people joined together and copy pasted the article on other websites to ensure people in the UK and Australia can read the article. Riccardo Spagni, the lead developer of the privacy-focused cryptocurrency, too created several copies of the article, so people can read it.
Jameson Loop, the lead developer at CASA, wrote an op-ed in which he points out flaws in Craig Wright’s claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. He uses past actions of Satoshi Nakamoto and compares them with statements Craig Wright has said publicly.
Some of the points raised by Jameson Loop are,
Satoshi Nakamoto always mentioned Bitcoin as “Bitcoin” while Craig Wright in his early writings from 2011 mentioned Bitcoin as “Bit Coin”.
Wright said that he never called Bitcoin as “cryptocurrency” while Satoshi Nakamoto did on many occasions.
Craig Wright publicly said “I am a lawyer and this [financial law] is my area of specialty,” while the real Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 said “I am not a lawyer and I can’t possibly answer that”
“Why are we not talking about Adam Back and Samson Mow, two of the most visible employees of Blockstream publicly siding with Bitfinex given that …
Crypto Twitter (CT) is a grueling battleground between digital currency enthusiasts, company executives, maximalists, journalists, lawyers, and so-called thought leaders and luminaries. For instance, on May 8, reporter Larry Cermak posted data concerning Blockstream and its sidechain project Liquid’s performance over the last seven months. After Cermak shared unbiased figures and queried an alleged conflict of interest, the Blockstream account instantly blocked the journalist.
Liquid’s Lack of Traction Sparks Intense Crypto Twitter Debate
CT is a wonderful place so long as you toe the maximalist party line, sing kumbaya, and tell everyone how great BTC is on a daily basis. Because if you don’t repeat these values, you just might be designated persona non grata. This week on CT, the founding partner at Adamant Capital, Tuur Demeester, tweeted about Blockstream’s latest Liquid announcement and said the sidechain “could become a DTCC for Bitcoin.” In response, The Block analyst Larry Cermak shared data concerning Liquid’s overall performance in the last seven months.
“So far, in its 7-month history, Blockstream is barely gaining any traction,” Cermak replied. “Liquid has had 61,700 total transactions and is currently capitalized with $313,000 from the net value of less than 400 peg transactions.”
Demeester responded: “Let’s wait until tx fees on the main chain spike again.” The following day, after Cermak posted his tidbit of publicly available data, he found out he was blocked by the official Blockstream Twitter account. “This is pretty pathetic — Yesterday, I posted data that showed that Blockstream’s Liquid isn’t doing well (so far) after being live for 7 months,” Cermak tweeted. “Literally I just posted publicly available data and I got blocked by Blockstream’s official account.” Blockstream’s chief strategy officer, Samson Mow, claimed he was the one who blocked Cermak “because he’s a moron.”
Questioning a Conflict of Interest Apparently Makes a Reporter a Moron
So did Blockstream decide to block an analyst for posting data? Well according to Blockstream employees it was really because Cermak publicly asked if there was a conflict of interest between Blockstream, Adam Back, and Samson Mow sticking up for Bitfinex.
“Why are we not talking about Adam Back and Samson Mow, two of the most visible employees of Blockstream publicly siding with Bitfinex given that Bitfinex is an early investor in Blockstream?” asked Cermak. “The conflicts of interest in this space are something else” The Block analyst continued, adding:
What’s the issue with this, some are asking? — And at this point, it seems that the only people siding with Bitfinex and Tether are shareholders or somewhat involved.
The Block’s Frank Chaparro asked why simply asking a question brought out all the pitchforks. Blockstream’s Adam Back replied that “It happens to be untrue, however, which I confirmed for another journalist who asked privately about the claim.” Back continued by stating: “Simply the quote ‘It’s because Bitfinex invested in Blockstream’ is untrue, and did not fact check. You don’t have to fact check, but stating as fact untrue allegations is not that cool.” Back seems to think Cermak should have asked people FUDing Bitfinex, and that his defending of Tether was simply him just refuting “publicly known FUD as a public service.”
The story continued as maximalists decided to harass The Block for accepting $25K in funding and allegedly not reporting on Coinbase objectively in an attempt to flip the story back on the publication. However, after defending the news outlet, The Block CEO Mike Dudas disclosed that the company would return the funds to Coinbase. Quite a few crypto supporters thought that Blockstream was wrong for getting upset with Cermak’s objective data and his valid question. After all, a good number of people on CT have already been questioning Blockstream’s seeming conflict of interest.
Moreover, the anonymous owner of Bitcoin.org, Cobra, detailed that he was also blocked by Blockstream for questioning them. He remarked that when Coinbase and Bitmain were catching flak from the community they never blocked people and he insisted that members of “Blockstream are delicate snowflakes.” Cobra is also known for questioning Blockstream when Back showed support for Halong Miners, a startup accused of simply buying Innosilicon miners and applying Halong stickers on them for resale.
The thought police on CT are starting to look no different than the pigs in the famous Orwell novel Animal Farm. The social media platform is filled with teenage angst, confirmation bias, and groupthink, and is no different to the archetypal high school groups that thrive on immaturity and bullying.
What do you think of the events on Twitter between The Block’s Larry Cermak and Blockstream? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Animal Farm, Twitter, and charts shared by The Block.
At Bitcoin.com there’s a bunch of free helpful services. For instance, check out our Tools page!
The political tension in Venezuela has affected local cryptocurrency adoption. While there are roadblocks, many crypto-advocating projects continue to thrive… read more.
Jamie Redman is a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open source code, and decentralized applications. Redman has written thousands of articles for news.Bitcoin.com about the disruptive protocols emerging today.
The cryptocurrency market is rife with controversies, with the main question concerning the actual identity of the person behind the Satoshi Nakamoto …
The cryptocurrency market is rife with controversies, with the main question concerning the actual identity of the person behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym. Craig Wright, nChain’s Chief Scientist, grabbed headlines after he claimed that he was the legendary creator of Bitcoin [BTC]. However, these speculations have been shot down several times after allegations that Wright was faking and misrepresenting evidence.
The latest cryptocurrency proponent to go all out against Wright is Riccardo Spagni, the lead developer at Monero. He tweeted about Jameson Lopp’s Craig Wright article being geo-blocked in the UK and Australia. Spagni’s tweet read,
“If you’re in the UK or Australia and want to read up on how Craig Wright is a massive fraud, I’ve got you covered fam.http://archive.is/kBv6T”
He also followed up with additional archive links, all of which contained evidence pointing to the fact that Wright was not Satoshi. Yiros, a cryptocurrency enthusiast, commented on Spagni’s tweet by saying,
‘I’m in Australia.I already know he is a fraud. Apologies on behalf of a nation.”
Jameson Lopp’s piece on Craig Wright titled, “How many Wrongs Make a Wright?” was an extensive coverage of all the claims made by Wright and the rebuttals proving that he was lying. Lopp started his article by stating,
“In other articles and on social media, some people have called into question Craig Wright’s character on a personal level and tried to establish patterns of fraudulent business practices not specifically related to the matter at hand. While my research led me to examine these allegations, I decided to narrow the focus of this particular article on evidence solely as it relates to Wright’s claims that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.”
BTC has strayed completely away from the original definition and design of Bitcoin as explained by Satoshi Nakamoto in his white paper on the …
Regardless of what some may believe, Bitcoin Core (BTC) is not Bitcoin. BTC has strayed completely away from the original definition and design of Bitcoin as explained by Satoshi Nakamoto in his white paper on the subject. If one were to compare the characteristics of Bitcoin and BTC side by side, the differences would become glaringly obvious. Dr. Craig Wright, who knows Bitcoin better than anyone else on the planet—he should; he designed it—explains in a Medium post some of the reasons why BTC is not Bitcoin.
Wright leads off by attempting to set the record straight on Bitcoin. He explains, “Firstly, there is the fallacy that Satoshi acted in a particular way. The reality is that as Satoshi, I interacted with people who held views that differed from mine. In creating Bitcoin, I sought to create an honest and legally enforceable cash system. To be cash, that is to be money, Bitcoin needs to be neutral. It is not a system that is friendly to crime but a system that is friendly to most people. Such are people who act across the law in a variety of ways.”
Bitcoin was designed to be private, not anonymous. A look at a number of the digital currency offerings shows how the idea of privacy has been completely bastardized and misdefined by a number of crypto developers looking to support their own agendas.
Bitcoin was really, in essence, according to Wright, designed to allow people to conduct transactions without having to use a credit or debit card. Perhaps they don’t own one, they don’t want to give it out, or perhaps they don’t want to get stuck with a recurring bill. Regardless of the reason, Bitcoin was to offer an easy, peer-to-peer solution for a number of problems.
Wright explains, “There is a great falsehood about Bitcoin that has been spread by such people seeking to hijack the platform and create something else. It is the claim that Bitcoin was anti-authority. Bitcoin is an immutable log and an immutable evidence trail. Bitcoin is a form of money that is traceable allowing for the requirements of a sound and honest money dictated by Joseph Stiglitz. Unfortunately, the people who sought e-gold and DigiCash and tried to create bit gold did not want Bitcoin. Such groups sought something completely different to what Bitcoin is, and have hijacked the narrative.”
Despite a believe by some crypto fans that Bitcoin can operate with governments, this is a fallacy that shows how little these individuals understand of currency, Bitcoin and governments. Wright states in his post, “Bitcoin doesn’t stop banking fraud and doesn’t stop fraud at all. Fraud is stopped when you have requirements to act under law and Bitcoin as an evidentiary trail. The point is, Bitcoin reduces the need for certain governmental controls when government exists.”
Developers have already shown that they can—and will—change digital currencies to suit their own needs. This is precisely the issue Bitcoin was striving to address—the ability of a central government to change currencies on a whim. This is why BTC, and other coins like it, are not Bitcoin and why they will ultimately fail. It is also the reason that Bitcoin SV is the original—and only—Bitcoin and why it will ultimately succeed.
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (SegWit) chain are referenced as BTC coins; tokens on the Bitcoin Cash ABC chain are referenced as BCH, BCH-ABC or BAB coins.
Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) is today the only Bitcoin project that follows the original Satoshi Nakamoto whitepaper, and that follows the original Satoshi protocol and design. BSV is the only public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin and will massively scale to become the world’s new money and enterprise blockchain.
The man is claiming to be the inventor of Bitcoin and his latest moves involved sending legal notices to Ethereum’s founder Vitalik Buterin and …
You may recall that not too long ago, we reported that the whole crypto space seems to be having enough of Craig Wright’s speculation and major exchanges have begun delisting his token, BSV.
The man is claiming to be the inventor of Bitcoin and his latest moves involved sending legal notices to Ethereum’s founder Vitalik Buterin and podcaster Peter McCormack, according to the online magazine Investinblockchain.
Following an order issued by the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida, the self-proclaimed creator of Bitcoin, Wright has submitted a list of BTC addresses that are associated with a blind trust.
More in-depth analysis could prove whether or not Wright really is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, as he’s been claiming to be for quite a while now.
Wright is involved in an ongoing court battle against the estate of his former business partner Dave Kleiman, the Tokyo-based Bitcoin researcher and software developer Kim Nillson of WizSec said that the redacted addresses are “not hard to guess,” as reported by the Daily Hodl.
Instead, he claims that “Wright just scraped the blockchain for early block reward beneficiaries and claimed those.”
WizSec says that if you “Take the list of the first 70 block reward addresses (excluding the Genesis block) and they line up perfectly with Wright’s redacted list. We can even make educated guesses for the other redacted text by typing up candidate text in a word processor with matched formatting and checking whether it lines up with the original document.”
There are no cryptographic signatures to support ownership
WizSec continues and says “What Wright does provide appears to be just a lazy copy-paste from the blockchain, without any cryptographic signatures to support his claims of ownership.”
So, it seems that things are not exactly going the way Wright was hoping. We’ll keep you posted on the subject.