Bitcoin Founders Possibly Revealed

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I'm doubtful of these claims, but it's interesting timing that this just happened.

Reported bitcoin 'founder' Craig Wright's home raided by Australian police

Police have raided the home of an Australian tech entrepreneur identified by two US publications as one of the early developers of the digital currency bitcoin.

On Wednesday afternoon, police gained entry to a home belonging to Craig Wright, who had hours earlier been identified in investigations by Gizmodo and Wired, based on leaked transcripts of legal interviews and files. Both publications have indicated that they believe Wright to have been involved in the creation of the cryptocurrency.

Other people who say they knew Wright have expressed strong doubts about his alleged role, with some saying privately they believe the publications have been the victims of an elaborate hoax.

More than 10 police personnel arrived at the house in the Sydney suburb of Gordon at about 1.30pm. Two police staff wearing white gloves could be seen from the street searching the cupboards and surfaces of the garage. At least three more were seen from the front door.

The Australian Federal police said in a statement that the raids were not related to the bitcoin claims. “The AFP can confirm it has conducted search warrants to assist the Australian Taxation Office at a residence in Gordon and a business premises in Ryde, Sydney. This matter is unrelated to recent media reporting regarding the digital currency bitcoin.”

Sure it is.

More at the link.
 
I'm doubtful of these claims, but it's interesting timing that this just happened.

Reported bitcoin 'founder' Craig Wright's home raided by Australian police



Sure it is.

More at the link.
You know, I never been a fan of Bitcoin (and thus, never used it), but I have to ask what part about it is illegal? If it's because it's a digital currency, I can kinda see where they may be going with it. But at the same time, I can't help but think that there may be something else going on with Craig.

Anyway you look at it, it's not going to end well.
 
Wired must be invested in Bitcoin because they've always been hilariously sold out for them and done near-shilling every step of the way. I don't know about Gizmodo, but it's wise to take anything Bitcoin-related with a grain of salt. The community is toxic as all get out, these are the same dudes who had the press harassing an old japanese man because he MIGHT be Pokemoto. The old dude at least got a free sushi meal out of a reporter's pocket out of it though.

You know, I never been a fan of Bitcoin (and thus, never used it), but I have to ask what part about it is illegal? If it's because it's a digital currency, I can kinda see where they may be going with it. But at the same time, I can't help but think that there may be something else going on with Craig.

Anyway you look at it, it's not going to end well.


Most Bitcoiners are into it because they believe in the 'get rich quick' mentality, so they already have hell of a shady past most of the time. But the issue most countries have with the thing is that exchanges are in essence money trading operations, and as such they have to regulate to a strict set of rules. I don't know if there's any exchange left doing that, but yeah, the issue governments have with it is that to exist it needs exchanges and exchanges usually were hella shady and unregulated. That Bitcoin was (is?) used in TOR to buy drugs for the longest time (and supposedly even shadier things) doesn't help its standing with governments, but usually the issue is with the regulations for financial operators that are already in place


EDIT: Yet another edit, I think the proof the 'real' Nakamoto hasn't surfaced yet (and never will) is that he publicly distanced himself from what Bitcoin became, and he never intended for it to be the 'new world coin' or the 'cripto currency' or whatever they're calling it now. For the original Satoshi who wrote the paper, Bitcoin was nothing more than a proof of concept and never intended to go beyond that. For the longest time it stayed what it was, a nerd curiosity-toy, until the libertarians and other people saw the possibility to become the new 1% while waxing poetic about freedoms, and ran away with it.
 
Last edited:
You know, I never been a fan of Bitcoin (and thus, never used it), but I have to ask what part about it is illegal?

Nothing about it is illegal, outside of any country where it has been explicitly outlawed. The feds have aggressively prosecuted Bitcoin-related crime (thanks to bad motherfucker Preet Bharara and other prominent federal prosecutors) but have never alleged that the currency is itself illegal.

The fact that two VC-backed businesses deal in Bitcoin and interface directly with the banking system (Circle and Coinbase) indicates it's legal. You just don't get allowed to use the ACH network like that without government approval.

The community is toxic as all get out, these are the same dudes who had the press harassing an old japanese man because he MIGHT be Pokemoto. The old dude at least got a free sushi meal out of a reporter's pocket out of it though.

The community is toxic, and has more than a few lolcows, but that media shitstorm was entirely the media's fault. Nobody who didn't have shit for brains believed for a moment that guy was the Satoshi Nakamoto who invented Bitcoin. He didn't remotely fit the profile.

I don't believe these two guys were, either, but hey, they could be.

I would be shocked, though, if the late Hal Finney wasn't one of the collective that used the Satoshi Nakamoto name to promulgate the original Bitcoin software.
 
A lot of those "libertarians" who flocked to Bitcoin also brought their shady histories of questionable financial behavior with them.

It's not just get-rich-quickers but people with lots of questionable tax deductions, if not outright tax denial/evasions, in their past. A lot of times, they get nailed on old and long-standing investigations when they just happen to be handling Bitcoin, making it look to the uninitiated (and paranoids) that the government is out to get BTC and all other e-currencies when it's just a case of, as said, a toxic community that's forever trying to find a way to game the financial system.
 
A lot of times, they get nailed on old and long-standing investigations when they just happen to be handling Bitcoin, making it look to the uninitiated (and paranoids) that the government is out to get BTC and all other e-currencies when it's just a case of, as said, a toxic community that's forever trying to find a way to game the financial system.

The flat-out scammers stand out like a sore thumb, at least if you are used to dealing with scammers. A lot of Bitcoiners aren't, and while there's a lot of toxicity in the community in terms of sleazy business practices and flat out crazy people, a lot more common is the kind of fools who buy into what are euphemistically called "high yield investment programs" (HYIPs) but are really just plain old Ponzi scams.

Another pretty obvious area for outright scamming and general greed is, or at least was, in selling hardware to people who wanted to get in on the Gold Rush mentality. One of these was an operation called Butterfly Labs, that took "pre-orders" for vapor products that didn't exist and then shipped late or not at all, before finally being raided and prosecuted by the FTC. Rather shockingly, this operation is not entirely shut down despite having been in receivership.

If there were some conspiracy to shut down Bitcoin, pretty much every principal in this company would already be in prison. Or back in prison, I should say, since its founder, Sonny Vleisides, has already done a stint in Club Fed for other unrelated things. Well, partly unrelated. They were also fraudulent.

Like the Ponzi scammers, though, these clowns found tons of people willing to buy into the scam.

Here's why selling Bitcoin hardware is at least questionable, in terms of whether you'd want to buy it. Suppose you have a bunch of Bitcoin mining hardware. You can sell it to other people or, considering it's basically a machine to literally make money, just run it yourself and generate your own money.

Who is going to sell a money making machine for less money than they can make just by keeping it?

Nobody, that's who. So while there are honest and reliable vendors, they're generally going to charge more than the return on investment over the lifetime of the machine. To make money on that, you're basically betting that you're a better judge of the net present value of highly edgy technologies than the people who invented and manufacture them. These machines are well beyond the early stages, where the calculations could be done profitably on a normal CPU, or the subsequent video card-based miners (GPUs were more efficient at the relevant kinds of calculations).

Then there was a stage of miners using Field Programmable Gate Arrays to run the specialized mining algorithms, but even those are now obsolete, with the standard now being ASIC miners, that is, application-specific integrated circuits, meaning that specialized chips are fabricated with the sole purpose of mining cryptocurrencies.

So then you have operations like Butterfly Labs, and they not only sold vaporware and didn't deliver for months or even years, but they got the best of both worlds. They not only sold the hardware but mined with it, too, often mining and collecting Bitcoin from machines customers were already waiting on. Ha ha suckers!
 
You know, I never been a fan of Bitcoin (and thus, never used it), but I have to ask what part about it is illegal? If it's because it's a digital currency, I can kinda see where they may be going with it. But at the same time, I can't help but think that there may be something else going on with Craig.

Anyway you look at it, it's not going to end well.

People use it in part to launder money, and it's supported by libertarians because it's such a good way to avoid paying taxes from internet transactions and . Also, the people who bought bitcoins when they were a couple bucks saw their wealth explode without paying a single cent in capital gains taxes. I'm guessing he got raided because he wasn't paying taxes.
 
People use it in part to launder money, and it's supported by libertarians because it's such a good way to avoid paying taxes from internet transactions and . Also, the people who bought bitcoins when they were a couple bucks saw their wealth explode without paying a single cent in capital gains taxes. I'm guessing he got raided because he wasn't paying taxes.

Well even since the beginning, if you bought one bitcoin at one dollar and sold when they were $99 (about the only period they were easily sellable and it was possible to 'cash out'), you'd still have $98 to report as capital gains, same as if you won a lotto or in a casino. It's just that bitcoiners thought 'mwahaha now the IRS will never find me'.

Isn't the IRS aware enough now that aren't you supposed to be paying taxes on your bitcoins now? (how they will enforce that, I have no idea, but I really really hope they manage something to catch the coiners)
 
Well even since the beginning, if you bought one bitcoin at one dollar and sold when they were $99 (about the only period they were easily sellable and it was possible to 'cash out'), you'd still have $98 to report as capital gains, same as if you won a lotto or in a casino. It's just that bitcoiners thought 'mwahaha now the IRS will never find me'.

It's as easy to sell them as clicking a button and it goes straight to your bank account. Of course, the entities that legally do this now have the same reporting requirements as something like PayPal, i.e. not quite a bank but some hybrid with that and a money transmitter.

Ths IRS has guidance on it which is about as clear as anything from the IRS gets. For instance, if it's paid as wages, it's W-2 material, even though it's "property."

Only real idiots thought that it was actually legal to make money and just not pay taxes on it, although the community has more than its fair share of "tax protesters," the loons who think the Sixteenth Amendment is somehow bogus, etc.

Anyone with any sense is going to report all that shit accurately, or at least not cheat any more than they do at anything else. To be on the safe side, they'd actually be even more persnickety about taxes in general because of the possibility that anything Bitcoin has the potential to get you flagged for an audit.
 
What I love about those tax-deniers is their devotion to, and continuing support of, schemes that the IRS has, in detail, laid out ON THEIR WEBSITE as arguments that have been TRIED and DO NOT WORK, (with a link to the relevant court case, sometimes even USSC level). So it's not just some propaganda, there's relative and established case law that other courts will follow that points out exactly HOW you will lose, and they preemptively warn you TRYING these mean you not only WILL lose, but the IRS WILL go after you for additional sanctions for wasting their time as they're tired of repeating themselves, and these idiots still try it....
 
Well even since the beginning, if you bought one bitcoin at one dollar and sold when they were $99 (about the only period they were easily sellable and it was possible to 'cash out'), you'd still have $98 to report as capital gains, same as if you won a lotto or in a casino. It's just that bitcoiners thought 'mwahaha now the IRS will never find me'.

Isn't the IRS aware enough now that aren't you supposed to be paying taxes on your bitcoins now? (how they will enforce that, I have no idea, but I really really hope they manage something to catch the coiners)

Yeah I was *yawn* when I wrote that I meant to say they should be paying capital gains taxes which is why this guy is probably being investigated for tax evasion
 
Back
Top Bottom