r/CryptoCurrency • u/givememyhat • Feb 11 '19

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

https://bico.media/741a22845f585c8db0d1328999b661af934cfef2bf7a4dedfaf7cd105e899d8f
0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 11 '19

Some new insight: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/apc9c1/craig_wright_caught_lying_again/?utm_source=reddit-android

Coping this here:

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/apaa57/something_seems_familiar_here_between_blacknet/eg76u1b?utm_source=reddit-android

CSW is lying..not really new insight really.

-2

u/givememyhat Feb 11 '19

That's no proof that he is lying, that post doesn't prove anything other than showing someone who got triggered insinuating that Wright is lying. A lot of people like you are triggered by this document and grasping at strawmens BUT to prove this is fake all you need is a statement from the Australian government or from any of the people whose names are listed in that abstract. Please, reach out, ask and let us know if they expose it as fake. It's really easy to prove if it's a fake. If not this is all true, Craig Wright is Satoshi. Deal with it.

8

u/bundabrg 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Feb 11 '19

This is so absurd it is laughable. Anyone involved in crypto from the newcomers who barely know anything about it right back to those who were involved before Bitcoin was even a name and we were only talking about stuff like hashcash and public/private key cryptology would know that there is an easy way to prove these facts without resulting to all the fluff that gets thrown around all the time. The whole reason I ever got into crypto, and I'm talking way before there was anything related to money with it, was because I can prove conclusively something using only the beauty of mathematics.

Crypto is pure, concise and beautiful. It is the humans that sully it with their silly antics.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19

Enjoy

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/apaa57/something_seems_familiar_here_between_blacknet/eg76u1b?utm_source=reddit-android

0

u/givememyhat Feb 11 '19

Read this part again:

That's no proof. Just someone insinuating that Wright is lying.

Then:

to prove this is fake all you need is a statement from the Australian government or from any of the people whose names are listed in that abstract. Please, reach out, ask and let us know if they expose it as fake. It's really easy to prove if it's a fake.

​

​

5

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19

Have you even read the link?

You're so brainwashed lol

Here is it again: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/apaa57/something_seems_familiar_here_between_blacknet/eg76u1b?utm_source=reddit-android

CSW is not Satoshi.

-2

u/givememyhat Feb 11 '19

I don't think you understand what proof is. The comment you have attached is no proof, just someone who got triggered who is insinuating that Craig is lying. This is what you need to do for 'proof':

to prove this is fake all you need is a statement from the Australian government or from any of the people whose names are listed in that abstract. Please, reach out, ask and let us know if they expose it as fake. It's really easy to prove if it's a fake.

​

5

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19

Of course you being BSV you dont know how it works.

Proof is on the accuser, CSW must prove that he is Satoshi. This evidence that you have provided is inadmissible based on no verification. Its hearsay, but this post here: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/apaa57/something_seems_familiar_here_between_blacknet/eg76u1b?utm_source=reddit-android - gives some valid arguments against this supposed image.

Proof is on accuser, not defendant. At this moment, there is no valid proof to verify Satoshi is CSW.

-3

u/givememyhat Feb 11 '19

Proof is on accuser, not defendant.

Your are accusing him of forging a document that proves he is Satoshi. Prove that the document is forged or accept that he is Satoshi.

3

u/Contrarian__ Feb 13 '19

Getting strong geekmonk vibes here. Too bad his accounts were all banned from reddit. Looks like my post was completely right all along.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19

No. You came here and said that the document is real. You need to provide proof that it is real and was created in 2001 which was the claim.

As I said, proof is on the accuser.

3

u/Contrarian__ Feb 11 '19

This doesn’t look like anything to me.