Hey @piluso, I found the link. His claim is that Bitcoin is a Russian conspiracy.
Congratulations for pointing to the single answer we definitely know is wrong
- If Craig is not Satoshi why then does Ira Kleiman sue Craig for 1.1 million Bitcoin allegedly stolen from his best friend Dave Kleiman? Ira Kleiman’s accusations only confirm Craig is Satoshi.
- Craig is the only one who has publicly said he is Satoshi.
- Craig understands Bitcoin better than anyone else (he was the only one who said Bitcoin is Turing complete). BSV is a proven evidence that BTC can scale.
Not evidence, sorry.
Please entertain me: how is “he said” even remotely evidence?
a) Bitcoin is not actually Turing complete. Again, “he said” is not evidence. Can you show me proof bitcoin is Turing complete?
b) HE F*CKED UP THE TIMESTAMP OF A SIGNATURE HE FAKED – so much for “understanding bitcoin” lmao
c) “LET’S BIG 'EM BLOCKS” is not scaling. It’s pushing the envelope. Using something as “sophisticated” as brute force. It provides sub-linear benefit and can’t go too far because it takes time for new blocks to saturate the network and get verified by peers. Soon enough, there will be too many orphaned blocks.
The real Satoshi could prove beyond any possible shadow of doubt that he/she/they are Satoshi by signing a single message with one of the keys that belong to Satoshi. Anybody who expects others to believe he’s Satoshi and yet refuses to do so has just proven they are lying.
Yes, and this was done on purpose to disallow features (such as loops) that would make the language not deterministic. Being not Turing complete we can know when a given program will end.
By stating the contrary Craig proves that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
I’m now officially publicly claiming that I am Satoshi … I’ve had a stroke though so don’t ask me any questions about any of it.
sorry had to troll that one.
yeah, but at that time Craig was busy getting his doctorate in theology in Australia
The best part of this story is that Wright later “wrote” a paper to prove bitcoin was Turing complete but in fact that was just a badly scanned and poorly copy-edited replica of a 1964 paper by Corrado Böhm with minor changes to fit it to the context.
This picture has the plagiarized parts highlighted:
P.S. The “proof” doesn’t apply to bitcoin; it isn’t Turing complete.
He was born in Australia and is still an Australian citizen whom the Australian Tax Dept still expect him to pay taxes to.
From the horses mouth
Dr Craig S Wright is an Australian/Antiguan computer scientist, businessman, and inventor, who challenges the world with visionary ideas. He is the creator of Bitcoin and author of the Bitcoin white paper under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Dr Wright is one of the earliest minds behind what we now know as blockchain technology, and established nChain to unleash the technology and its intended purpose—now preserved in the form of the Bitcoin SV Node reference implementation and Bitcoin SV.
I challenge anyone to sound more vain and fake than this As if being a proven liar wasn’t enough…
I have nothing but contempt for people like this.
From Peter McCormack himself. "Craig Wright submitted a crazy amount of evidence that he is Satoshi in my lawsuit. " Is it coincidence that he wanted to settle the lawsuit peacefully with Craig? Is it coincidence that tether that funded Peter at the beginning decided to withdraw their support with their tail in between their legs? Craig is Satoshi whether you like it or not.
How can anything Peter McCormack says negate all the lies, plagiarism, and plain idiocy from Wright? Come on man, your arguments have so far been based on appeal to authority instead of fact and logic. You need to do better than this to be taken seriously.
Justify the plagiarized paper that aims to (but fails) to prove bitcoin is Turing complete. If you manage to, we can talk. Until then, it’s all a big joke.
By the way, if you check McCormack’s tweet that Tone Vays responds to and McCormack quotes, it becomes clear that he implies just as Wright is not Satoshi in spite of all the evidence he brought, there was also no election fraud in spite of all the claims of evidence to it. I guess thanks for shooting you in the leg by quoting him?
Anyway, I’m leaving this thread because I can feel myself dragged down into the filth this sad excuse of a person represents
WGAF? Until the coins in the previously untouched wallet are moved, it really does not matter.
exactly! Lets assume the real satoshi at the start said I am locking those coins to remain anonymous. Ok that’s fine but now you have made your decision. You can’t come back later and say wait I am satoshi but I locked myself out of ever proving it
You may want to check this out. " Bitcoin script is Turing Complete: sCrypt’s ‘Game of Life’ is Proof"
Bitcoin script is turing complete, but not bitcoin itself.
To be fair, i could be entirely wrong, this goes well over my head.
Quoting Craig Wright "Turing completeness (TC) is not a great marker in itself, it requires an implementation that is usable and even PostScript can be seen as TC.
Bitcoin is based on a concept known as Total Functional Programming (TFP) that was formulated in the 90’s. This is also known by the terminology, “Strong Functional Programming” .
The distinction in what most people see as a TC language is that TFP must end. This does not mean that a function cannot be developed in a TFP, but that only programs that Halt can be developed. The limitations on real world TC systems are associated with non-infinite tapes. There will never be an infinite tape.
There is no requirement for a Turing Machine to have a single tape. A TC system can also be built iteratively. Here, a transaction can lead to the source of a subsequent transaction and hence script. A series of recursive functions that are automatically linked and which have to flow is TC.
Treating each transaction separately allows us to have highly parallelised code .
This allows for a system that supports a pay as you go approach to formal methods.
What Bitcoin script is comes from a system defined in computability theory. This is a Decider. This is a machine that always halts 
A decider is also know as a “Total Turing machine (Kozen, 1997). That is, a Turing machine that halts for every input.
This is my solution to the Halting problem and code. As a result of the Halting Problem we cannot have a standard loop (such as Ethereum uses). This does not solve the problem, it changes it. The issue is not knowing if a program will halt or not with Bitcoin, determining whether an arbitrary system can be created that can be run in Bitcoin is the problem. As can be seen easily, in Bitcoin, every function must be a total (not partial) function. As such, it must have a definition for everything inside its domain.
 Sabry, Amr (January 1993). “What is Purely Functional Language ?”. J. Functional Programming. 8
(1): 1–22. doi:10.1017/S0956796897002943.
 Sipser, M. (1996), Introduction to the Theory of Computation, PWS Publishing Co.
 Kozen, D.C. (1997), Automata and Computability, Springer.
This is a Turing Complete system with LESS ability that BTC
As Wiki states
…languages are Turing complete if the limitations of finite memory are ignored.
The thing we have is a defined Maxima for recursion
This stops infinite regression which is not desirable.”
As I said over my head.
I dont believe he’s satoshi.
He got caught with faked proofs, now that in itself isn’t evidence.
Until someone signs a message from an address with satoshi coins I will not believe them.