[midmagico]

That is a lie—in terms of funds being controlled specifically absent owner signatures, by the developers, how did even Bitcoin Cash set such a precedent?

In fact, there are specific counter-examples with Jeff Garzik's godmode patches which were so roundly denied and rejected that they were DOA.

Ethereum is irrelevant because of how much total premine it was and how they misrepresented it, and misrepresented the involvement of famous cryptographers like Ralph Merkle.

None of your comments about key ownership have any basis in reality or even logic, because of the direct counter-evidence of key ownership for the keys he is claiming ownership of.

So, you also have no idea what you're talking about.

[evilspammer]

It wasn't a lie. What's the direct counter-evidence for the key ownership? I was not aware of that.

I saw someone comment above that one of the keys in question signed a message saying that they were not Wright, which is a good example for that particular key.

My comment you replied to specifically mentioned a scenario where the key owner did not defend themself. So we are talking about different scenarios.

In any case, I wasn't lying when I posted what I referred to as my thoughts, & certainly do know what I'm talking about. Thanks for the correction.

[midmagico]

It is a lie, since Bitcoin Cash never moved funds that weren't signed by their owners. You're going to have to prove that, now, or admit you overspoke.

The direct counter-evidence against Craig's claimed key ownership are the facts that many of his claimed addresses signed that he was a fraud, that Wizsec showed that the 1feex address was actually stolen MtGox funds (and nothing to with Craig at all,) the court records of Klein v. Wright showing he completely made up the list of claimed addresses by instructing Shadders (a shoddy programmer from nChain) to construct the list entirely algorithmically from broken precepts.

So no, it wasn't just "one" key. It was dozens.

(Lots of addresses that Craig claimed were his, signing that Wright is a fraud): https://craigwright.lol/

(An outline of why the 1feex are entirely NOT Wright's Bitcoins): https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoi... https://blog.wizsec.jp/2020/06/mtgox-march-2011-theft.html

(An ultra-early miner, maybe the second miner, signing his own early blocks proving they aren't Craig's, either): https://twitter.com/druidian/status/1447833107143483393

You are doing a slippery thing here by claiming that your directly-falsifiable statement about Bitcoin Cash being a "precedent" where "developers control the funds"—while now in the above statement claiming that this was actually in regards to Satoshi likely not stepping up to defend his own key ownership—is somehow related.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, or else you could show me even a single instance where Bitcoin Cash moved funds absent its owner's key signature—which is entirely what this entire thing is about, namely a court case where Wright is suing to attempt to force a backdoor into Bitcoin which would move funds specifically to his possession without a key owner's signature (or a coinbase pay.)

Finally: reasons why you don't have any idea what you're talking about, itemized:

1) You didn't know that Bitcoin Cash never moved funds without a coinbase payout or a key owner's signature but asserted it did.

2) You didn't know about the direct evidence of Craig's claimed keys being owned by other people.

3) You don't know how hard forks work because you think that hard forks can happen gradually and that pressure from minor buy-in can push it to adoption.

Aside from the DAO (which is irrelevant because Ethereum is a scam) you haven't had a very good batting average in general, and for Bitcoin, it's atrocious.

[evilspammer]

My statement about BCH was referring to the duplicate coins it created