“Why the ‘Bitcoin David’ Must Defeat the Core Goliaths with One Hand Tied Behind His Back”
Will you Sign The Declaration of Identitypendence?
“To sign or not to sign, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the vision of Satoshi to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against an alliant sea of cryptocreeps and by opposing END THEM. To die — to sleep, no more; and by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to: what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause — for who would bear the tweets and scorns of the court of social media, th’ zuckerberg’s wrong, Judge Bloom’s delay, the insolence of patent companies run by double-agents working for too-small sums, and the spurns that patient merit of th’ unworthy bad-takes, when he himself might his quietus make, with a bare private key? Who would bitcoiners bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary start-up life, but that the dread of something after career death, the undiscovere’d SINC [0], from whose bourn no knowledge-seeker returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those boring but safe desk jobs at giant pharmaceutical and finance companies we have, than gamble on startup products we know not of? Thus a feared confidence game narrative doth make cowards of us all, and thus the native hue of honest casual computation-backed coins and a Byzantine-tolerent distributed WORM database is sicklied o’er with the pale private key of ECDSA, and enterprises of great pith and moment with this regard their currents turn awry and lose the name of Satoshi Nakamoto — inventor of BitCoin” — Shakespeer2peer
When the Declariation of Independence was signed, it was done in a room of men — otherwise known as witnesses. There was no turning back for men like John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Robert Morris (who damn-near financed the entire Revolutionary War), and George Washington. Why? Because witnesses are people, and thus no forging could be claimed. If the Tories won the war and decided to “off with their heads” the revolutionaries, which at the time would’ve been custom punishment for inssurrection against the monarchy and Parliament, these signers would easily be IDENTIFIED. Their identities were not the signatures on the paper, which could’ve been forged, back-dated later, or denied in court, but the WITNESS of their peers. People verifying people.
Identity!
Done correctly, via people — honest witness — the way it’s been done since before writing existed or Edison discovered the building block of computers [1: thermionic emission] in his lab in Menlo Park, NJ. Marriage now has a document upon which people rely, with signatures, but no marriage in the annals of time has EVER occured without witness, not even in the fly-by-night Elvis chapels of Las Vega$.
This article is about helping you understand the CORRECT and ONLY strategy of Satoshi Nakamoto in Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) vs. Dr. Craig S. Wright. There is only one efficient strategy, and 99.9% of people are missing it, thinking the correct strategy is the opposite of that taken by Wright. Consider this your explanation, as well as your “to be or not to be” moment, where you get to decide, and maybe even sign something yourself.
Where were you when…?
“Where were you when JFK was shot?”
“Where were you when you learned the towers had been attacked?”
I was in midtown, and at the top of my inbox was an invite from eSpeed to the 95th floor of WTC I, with Fred Veracchi for 9am on 10/11 2001. “Ten-Eleven” was what turned out to be the “rain date” for 9/11. I still live and breathe thanks to the weather that day.
“Where were you when a skinny dimunitive man challenged the greatest boxer of my lifetime to a bare-knuckles no-holds-barred street fight?”
I will never forget it. This was one of the most surprising events of my life. A thin man of about 169 pounds from Brazil [0] named Royce Gracie challenged the most feared boxer in the world, Iron Mike Tyson, to what amounted to a street fight, with no gloves! Did you know that a boxer’s fists can be considered by a judge/court to be deadly weapons, and Guam requires registration of hands and feet of experienced martial artists?
Iron Mike ultimately declined, which says it all. Some say Mike accepted a challenge against bigger Rickson Gracie, but Tyson’s boxing supporters saw no upside in it, as a win would be expected for Tyson and a loss could ruin boxing. So those around him talked Iron Mike out of it. (give credit to Tyson for having no fear) It turns out, the UFC 1 contest in 1993 had already rung the bell on professional boxing as the most popular fighting sport in the world, so Tyson’s backers should’ve let the fight of a century take place and we’d all be better off — including Tyson.
UFC 1 was the first well-marketed no-holds-barred [3] bare-knuckles any-discipline fighting match, and it was set up by a man named Rorion Gracie, the second oldest son of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu co-inventor Helio Gracie. Rorion’s advantage was he was familiar with the marketing of Hollywood, having been a fighting consultant for movies like Lethal Weapon when the director wanted realistic street fighting moves to be incorporated, rather than the cheezy fist-fights of the 1970s and 80s. Rorion, in promoting UFC 1 and later 2, 3, 4 & 5 (before quitting due to easing-up of fight rules), understood that for his family’s martial art to gain true respect it had to not only be pitted against all the other martial arts (even sumo wrestling), but he took it one SURPRISING step further!
Rorion picked the smallest weakest Gracie brother to participate in the contest. Why would he try to win a tough fight tournament (multiple fights inside 2–3 hours! CRAZY!) with “one hand tied behind his back” like that? It’s now obvious, and Gracie lore: You do it because if your weakest smallest brother can take on boxing Heavyweight contenders (Art Jimmerson, #10 ranked, 205 lb.), ~300 pound sumo wrestlers and martial artists who outweigh him by 30 pounds and with longer reach, then Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) will be on the radar of every kid who ever got bullied in a schoolyard (Gracie Academy’s best class is for youth ages 8–12 and called “BullyProof”), and every fight-fan on the planet. This is exactly how it went down too. Royce beat all comers in 4 of the first 5 UFCs (he had to forfiet UFC 3 due to injury — after beating a much larger and stronger opponent Kimo Leopaldo). Rorion succeeded with his plan, BJJ is now the cornerstone of American marital arts, and UFC champions today don’t even bother with getting in a ring until they have a sufficient BJJ ground-game to withstand weaker more-knowledgable grapplers. Facts. Ask your friend who’s into MMA.
What was the downside to Rorion entering his largest fiercest Gracie brother, Rickson, into the UFC matches?
“FRAUD! FAKE! RIGGED!”
It turns out, there’s another guy who is as smart of a marketer as Rorion Gracie, and his name is Dr. Craig Steven Wright. Wright markets bitcoin, the bitcoin that matches the white paper’s claims (“small casual transactions”, “a distributed timestamp server proves data”, and “incentive… entirely… transaction fees” for example). Initially, his marketing savvy included putting the name of a cryptography-mailing-list subscriber into his references — something I bet Satoshi could take BACK. But currently there’s an ever bigger marketing opportunity coming in January 2024 (in 3 months), and Craig Wright has signalled he’s been willing to win this “Trial of the Century” contest with “two hands tied behind his back”, as we used to like to brag in the schoolyard. The contest is called Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) vs. Dr. Craig Steven Wright. It starts January 15 and may not be decided by it’s lone judge until March.
Why would Rorion and Craig do this? JUST WIN DAMMIT! We’re all waiting. Blackrock’s ETF filing is waiting for this case to be decided before they pick WHICH “bitcoin” their planned ETF uses, even mentioning Craig Wright in the risk factors. You see, what everyone including a Norwegian judge in 2022 thinks Wright should do to prove he’s Satoshi Nakamoto the pseudonymous inventor of bitcoin, is “sign the satoshi coins” or “SIGN!!!”. But the problem here is, the detractors and highly incentivized adversaries of Craig Wright will claim Dr Wright’s signing is fraud, fake, and rigged. How can we be so sure?
It already happened. Craig Wright signed satoshi coins privately for the two most respected bitcoiners of the era in 2015. Gavin Andresen was second only to Satoshi in the bitcoin pecking order, and Satoshi trusted him with the bitcoin code repository keys as well as maintenance of bitcoin. This wasn’t given lightly, as Gavin had a highly respected resume and had spent countless hours over an almost 2 year period conversing about bitcoin with Satoshi over a two year period. Gavin was considered, in 2016, to be the foremost authority on bitcoin other than Satoshi himself. Jon Matonis was equally respected, and was even the Founding Director of the 2012-formed Bitcoin Foundation, charged with improving the reputation of bitcoin after several scandals. Who better to determine if a signature was valid, than Gavin and Matonis? The correct answer, as it turns out, is NO ONE.
No matter how realistic a fake ID is, it’s still fake. No matter how suspect-looking a true ID is, it’s still true. Signing a satoshi coin didn’t solve the mystery in 2016, because highly-incentivized crypto-space bros took to the media, and paid detractors like Arthur Van Pelt, to spin the signings as elaborate frauds. What’s funny, is the in the COPA vs Wright trial, backers of Wright have tried to arrange a “Harvard signing” in which University “experts” in bitcoin arrange a highly-santized place for Wright to sign his Satoshi-era coins from the first days of bitcoin (January 2009). Please, readers, explain how this would be any different? If people could shout “FAKE” in 2016 after Gavin not only attested to a signing but futhermore tested Wright’s inside knowledge of communications only Satoshi and Gavin were privy, then how will nameless Harvard people do any better? They won’t. The only way they could do it properly, is construct a computer from scratch using one atom at a time, while everyone including Wright waits in a clean room, and then creates a test. Simply not happening, absurd!
Now I’ve got a podcast with Kurt Wuckert on this topic in a few minutes, but I’ll finish this article later, and explain why NOT signing in court, and still winning the case that Craig Wright = Satoshi Nakamoto is good for bitcoin businesses and adoption — better than signing which would overwhelm the trial’s other proofs, and the incentivized detractors would simply say “if he hadn’t signed with stolen keys, nobody would even believe this fake story”
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
References:
[0] Definition of SINC courtesy of SLictionary.com
https://www.slictionary.com/seek/SINC
TheSun.com & Men’s Health
https://www.the-sun.com/sport/2795673/mike-tyson-royce-gracie-fight-deathmatch-ufc/ (2021)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Top-Enter-Octagon-Ring-Entertainment/dp/1785318853
Men’s Health, a 1 page advertisement challenge by Royce Gracie to Mike Tyson.
[1] Thomas Edison layed the groundwork for modern computing
by discovering the effect that led John Ambrose Fleming to invent and patent the vacuum tube (“thermionic valve”) in 1904: https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=561
[] TodayIFoundOut.com article by Davin Hiskey
[3] Kurt Wuckert will be “no holds barred”’s WordBaron soon! He loves the term. SLictionary.com/WordBounty