The Conspiracy Against Satoshi Nakamoto and The World
- SN wrote to two mailing lists before releasing BC. The "Cryptography" list and the "Cypherpunks" list. Why are there zero emails from the latter?
- Hal Finney wrote in his deathbed last email that after initially installing bitcoin in Jan 2009 he forgot all about it until 2010, yet there exists a lot of correspondence between HF and SN during that time. Why? Insiders say this is because HF let SN use a shell account on HF's server and the passwords to HF's email accounts and vice versus.
- Was bitcoin announced Aug 22nd 2008, Oct. 31st 2008 or Jan 3rd 2009 or Jan 11th 2009? Or was discussed in mailing lists before any of those dates?
- How many versions of the bitcoin white paper have you seen? Insiders say the original was in ASCII and the subsequent PDFs had version numbers.
- What happened to the original Sourceforge mailing lists, forums and code repos? Edit: the sourceforge project has suddenly returned!! Not seeing any forums though.
- Are there mysterious deaths surrounding SN?
- Why didn't anyone think to put SN's correspondence or the bitcoin white paper on the blockchain. If SN did, what happened to it?
- Did the Bilderberg Group purchase the "Blockchain" company? What else do you need to know to understand SN may be in danger?
- Re. Craig Wright. SN claimed nothing, but gave away his ideas to the public domain, anonymously. Does that sound like CW?
- If SN was in danger what would it look like? Email/date alterations. Deletions. Coverups. Censorship. Did that happen?
- SN mentioned microtransactions for things as minute as viewing a web page. He mentioned future exchanges would be willing to process "free transactions". He mentioned bitcoin being the end to fiat inflationary bubbles. What happened? Bitcoin was supposed to save humanity but it currently looks like a worst case scenario for income disparity. Sound like Bilderberg to you?
- If SN was in danger; his writings lost, trusted friends compromised or dead, his comms monitored and manipulated, what should be do? What org could he turn to for help?
Ask me questions if you like. I know people who may have answers.
Ok, posting this comment again.
Questionable says "nothing to see here folks" when Blockchain is owned by Bilderberg Group.
Really???
Is English even your first language? Because you not only don't seem to understand how the internet works. You seem to think a hypothesis involves writing a series of Bullet points Questions, and then attacking the only person who takes an interest in your thread, after you called him in to it via a post in a different thread. What you are doing here, does this make sense to you?
And how do you get this:
From this:
???
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but what do you want from me?
Regarding your points I seem to be able to address:
How I get "nothing to see here" from your post is that you didn't build upon any of the bullet points and you didn't ask any questions. It was as if the list of bullet points and conspiracy claim meant nothing to you. Any more questions?
Regarding calling you to a different thread. I wouldn't claim to have called you to action. Instead, I would say that your matter of fact insinuation that a patron of the shared-ledger concept is "on their own" with less protections than the "evil" banks provide was not the intention of Satoshi. This point would be evidenced if Satoshi's prior writings had not been systematically deleted and "forgotted" [sic] from the internet. If you don't believe me via extrapolation or based on the work built upon what we do have remaining from Satoshi, I'd be happy to brainstorm with you solutions to the problem you matter-of-factly bestowed upon all cryptocurrency users.
Long story short: the concept of a shared ledger extends beyond Proof of Work, and can include various relations such as contact networks, timestamp/transaction order, reputation, content, DNA, human fingerprints, digital fingerprints, contact tracing, digital contracts, etc. There's more than one way to skin a block. Edit: I feel like I didn't write the following: Long story short shorter: the blockchain concept can be used to reliably secure money in a seamless user-friendly way.
I would have said blockchain can be used to reliably secure information, property, people and events.
Here are the problems with your thread:
You can make points without bullet points.
Questions can be asked with out Question marks.
Theories need to be stated and presented in a readable manner.
Nothing you have stated here is related to your own original 'theory'.
This isn't a brain storming session.
^Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' ^I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅWhoops, sorry about that.
I meant to suggest more of a general high-octane speculation-type conspiracy for us to dissect, not a brainstorm.
But, keep your ideas and commentary coming, I like your energy!
Do you have a source for this claim?
Blockchain can't be owned by Bilderberg Group, that's the point of a distributed ledger.
Which is exactly why I’d like to hear where OP got that idea from...
Good point!
Not the theory of blockchain, some corporate entity I read about a couple days ago with "Blockchain" as the business name.
"Blockstream was compromised, because they were bought out by AXA Insurance. Berwick goes on to say the head of AXA is the same person who heads the Bilderberg group. According to Berwick, it appears that central bankers bought out Bitcoin in order to destroy it or hamstring it."
Source: the-story-of-how-bitcoin-was-compromised/
Are you aware of what that your source is Bitcoin.com, a site that shills for Bitcoin Cash as being "the real bitcoin" and has been trying to slander bitcoin since 2018?
I can give you more info if you weren't aware of that and are interested. If you're a b-cash supporter, then I won't waste any more of my time.
Thanks. If I have other questions, mind if I shoot them your way?
Bch is the real bitcoin. Btc was stripped of it's utility (op codes, 80 character memo etc etc) so blockstream could peddle second layer solutions. The bitcoin.com you speak of didn't come to the BCH camp until November 2017 many months after the split once it was obvious that segwit was a lie and they were not going to implement the 2mb block increase per the hong kong agreement. Do you research and you will see that I'm correct. I have been a miner since ver 0.3