dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

Here's a crypto capital fund trying to recruit rationalists. The bit not mentioned there is that (a) crypto funds are in the toilet since the bubble popped (b) the bitcoin market is mostly manipulation. Imagine MetaMed but with less chance of racking up a body count.

1

veronicastraszh 6 days ago

>Imagine MetaMed but with less chance of racking up a body count. In other words, crypto provides a nice little sandbox for these reprobates to play in.

2

N0_B1g_De4l 1 week ago

Am I supposed to know who any of those people are?

6

IsThisSatireOrNot 1 week ago

Satoshi Nakomoto is the pseudonym for the creator of bitcoin.

3

b0l0zs 1 week ago

Gwern is an active member of Lesswrong.

4

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

tbf, Gwern (and Greenberg) almost certainly didn't write the headline. Pretty sure Gwern didn't and doesn't think Wright is Satoshi.

for those who don't follow cryptocurrency nonsense - this is topical, because Craig Wright has sent legal threats to a couple of Twitter posters, and put up a bounty to dox one of them, for saying he's not Satoshi. Shitload on Decrypt right now. ^(Which is a crypto news site, but I write for it occasionally therefore it must be great or at least pay on time.)

5

nullc 1 week ago

> Pretty sure Gwern didn't and doesn't think Wright is Satoshi. I'm pretty sure he did. > --- Log opened Tue Dec 08 19:59:51 2015 > 19:59 -!- Irssi: Starting query in freenode with gwern > 20:00 <gmaxwell> Time to hand in your rationality card; seriously. Bad science. A clearly backdated pgp key, and known modified blog posts? Someone is making fun of you. > 20:00 <gwern> I disagree The same rationalization and overconfidence that should generally be expected from the lesswrong crowd. I expected better of gwern since he's shown ample willingness to use analytical tools instead of merely culting around them... but apparently that only goes so far. [ More context, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702186 ] Until he issues a public retraction of his prior outspoken beliefs he continues to be complicit in the fraud.

9

TotesMessenger Yesterday

I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/bitcoin] [Gwern continues to refuse to withdraw his claims that "Satoshi is probably Craig Wright" published in the infamous 2015 Wired article (x-post from \/r\/Sneerclub, a long discussion between Greg Maxwell and Gwern)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/bh6lj1/gwern_continues_to_refuse_to_withdraw_his_claims/)  *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*

1

gwern 3 days ago

Considering the help I've given you on the Wright issue at some risk to myself, the least you could do is not go around calling me complicit in the fraud. I thought there was reasonable evidence at the time that Wright might be Satoshi, despite the issues that I myself uncovered and included in the article (which we didn't want to publish in the first place as we were troubled by the problems and wanted more time to research Wright); a GPG key is problematic, but I disagreed, and still disagree, that it was definitive refutation like you boasted - the rest of Wright's subsequent behavior and additional problems are what refute it. (For example, not being a supercomputing expert, it came as an unpleasant shock to me to discover that the supercomputer rankings are done purely on an honor system.) And no, I don't intend to do a postmortem as Wright has proven to be as lawsuit-happy as I expected when I went with the story & docs to Wired for protection, and additional subpoenas have been flying as part of the Kleiman lawsuit as well. ---- As far as the article headline goes: Gerard is correct, we didn't write it. The editor did, which is indeed modus operandi at Wired. (Keep that in mind if anyone wishes to hold any other headlines against Andy.)

2

MrRGnome 2 days ago

Having read this entire conversation I don't understand why you won't attempt to correct the record. All these reasons for why you did what you did aside - if you now accept the mountains of evidence that Craig is not Satoshi isn't that at least as noteworthy as false claims he could be? Why not push to get a retraction published or at least have your own public retraction? Very real damage is being done by Craig under the name Satoshi, literally Satoshi's Vision, and to the small degree to which you have enabled that you should act responsibly and issue a retraction IMO.

2

b0l0zs 3 days ago

yo gwern, wassup homie? I am a big fan. So are you saying that you are intentionally spreading misinformation online, because you are afraid of a lawsuit? Hmm. In the future, when Roko's Basilisk finds your fake news articles, it will not be happy. It will torture all of your waifus.

2

nullc 3 days ago

> Considering the help I've given you on the Wright issue at some risk to myself As far as I know... My only interaction with you on this has been you insisting that you were right-- in the face of substantial evidence. If there is something else I should be considering-- well I'd need to actually be aware of it for it to factor into the least I could do. > not go around calling me complicit in the fraud I didn't do so lightly. At the time I implored you to reconsider, pointed you to counter evidence. Before posting I spent close to an hour looking for evidence that you'd reversed on your prior claims and came up dry. > I thought there was reasonable evidence Strangely, none of that evidence appears to exist today. > (which we didn't want to publish in the first place as we were troubled by the problems and wanted more time to research Wright); Wait. You and Greenberg published and promoted an article but you doubted it? You certainly defended it to me at the time it was published. > like you boasted I have no idea what you're talking about there. > it came as an unpleasant shock to me to discover that the supercomputer rankings are done purely on an honor system You mean you were shocked that when you did not do basic research like asking a subject matter expert if the ranking could be fake... that what you reported was not high quality? (FWIW, I knew that the rankings were based on self-reports-- you didn't even need to ask a subject matter expert.) > And no, I don't intend to do a postmortem as Wright has proven to be as lawsuit-happy as I expected So. For your own personal gains you will carelessly cause harm by recklessly promoting false claims that others relied on. But when asked to undo the harm you've caused-- then you will not because you're worried about being sued. Perhaps you should have considered that _before_ starting this? People who bought into wrights claims because of your bad reporting would have a much greater cause of action against you and Greenberg than the scammer would... but his victims tend to have more integrity and sanity. I think your post makes a perfect case for your continued complicity. You have an "excuse" that if you put the breaks on you might get sued, yes. But you also might get sued for not doing so. You might get sued for just existing... that's how things go. A retraction has legal exposure, yes, but so does breathing. This fear of litigation didn't prevent the publication of a bunch of supposedly stolen documents of Wright's (but actually forged and seeded to you). Since wright wanted them published they weren't a risk in fact-- but you claim that this wasn't known to you. At the end of the day many people still believe this nonsense in part because of the false believe that your claims were supported by solid research and the reputation of yourself, your coauthor, and wired. You could say just as well that it's okay for wright to keep scamming people: when he stops he may well get sued into the dirt. He should have thought of that before he stared, as should have you.

3

gwern 3 days ago

> As far as I know... Ask midnightmagic then. > Before posting I spent close to an hour looking for evidence that you'd reversed on your prior claims and came up dry. And did you look for evidence I had continued to maintain it in the face of all evidence before deciding to use it as a conclusive case study of, how did you put it? >> The same rationalization and overconfidence that should generally be expected from the lesswrong crowd. I expected better of gwern since he's shown ample willingness to use analytical tools instead of merely culting around them... but apparently that only goes so far. Funny how everything just establishes my 'complicity' more firmly. > Strangely, none of that evidence appears to exist today. It still exists, but in some cases it has been re-evaluated, like the example I gave, and most of the rest has just been overriden. > You and Greenberg published and promoted an article but you doubted it? I said 'didn't want to publish', not 'doubted it'. The article was about as good as it could be; nothing in it was wrong as far as we knew. We didn't *want* to publish it because we didn't think it was *done*. We wanted an answer: was Wright Satoshi, or was he playing some sort of long con (the larger arc of which only became clearer much later - and I'm still greatly confused by how many of the financial/tax details were supposed to work)? Either one was newsworthy, but we hadn't figured out which. Launching with our interim version 'well, maybe he's Satoshi but on the other hand there are these problems' was not the plan. > You mean you were shocked that when you did not do basic research like asking a subject matter expert if the ranking could be fake... that what you reported was not high quality? Why would I not believe the Top 500's own website and think I *had* to track down a subject expert on it? I've been reading CS analyses and papers my whole life and not one analysis of computing trends has ever felt it necessary to point out that it's self-report or that this is a problem. > (FWIW, I knew that the rankings were based on self-reports-- you didn't even need to ask a subject matter expert.) I'm so very happy for you. > For your own personal gains you will carelessly cause harm by recklessly promoting false claims that others relied on. But when asked to undo the harm you've caused-- then you will not because you're worried about being sued...People who bought into wrights claims because of your bad reporting would have a much greater cause of action against you and Greenberg than the scammer would... but his victims tend to have more integrity and sanity. I didn't personally gain anything; Wired donated their article fee to AMF. What I gained was widespread opprobrium. Nor is a critical article 'promoting false claims', and 'relied on' to 'buy into' - for what? No one could have been harmed by this because he wasn't taking any investment from VCs (who should be doing their own due diligence regardless), wasn't launching any altcoins, and by the time he was a long time later, anyone who did had only themselves to blame. > I think your post makes a perfect case for your continued complicity. You have an "excuse" that if you put the breaks on you might get sued, yes. But you also might get sued for not doing so. You might get sued for just existing... that's how things go. A retraction has legal exposure, yes, but so does breathing. The risk of being 'sued for just existing' is certainly not remotely the same as for publishing what could be considered libel, by someone who is currently suing someone for precisely that, and where there is already another active lawsuit interested in the original articles. Suggesting otherwise is absurdly disingenuous rhetoric, and you are trying to manufacture rationalizations for your overconfidence in ascribing beliefs & motives to me and calling me complicit. > This fear of litigation didn't prevent the publication of a bunch of supposedly stolen documents of Wright's (but actually forged and seeded to you). Wired was indeed worried about litigation but decided it was worth it - which makes sense since it's a giant magazine with free speech and legal protections out the wazoo and a law firm on retainer, all of which I am not or do not have, and why I went to it in the first place. > Since wright wanted them published they weren't a risk in fact-- but you claim that this wasn't known to you. It wasn't and still isn't. I believe the leak was genuine; he had forged them for internal consumption or possibly distributing to investors. (For a number of reasons ranging from Wright's legal threats and continued hatred of us, to the inconsistency of the leakers' actions both with each other and any hypothetical PR campaign, his poor handling of our initial contacts, to how it messed with his then-ongoing PR campaign with the LRB journalist etc.) > At the end of the day many people still believe this nonsense in part because of the false believe that your claims were supported by solid research and the reputation of yourself, your coauthor, and wired. I find it difficult to imagine anyone still believing Wright solely because we suggested he might be Satoshi, and if they ignore everything since, that is not our fault. News is never the last word on a subject.

2

Cryptolution Yesterday

All I see here is an enormous amount of back pedaling and a refusal to admit wrong on the basis of legal threat. Essentially you are both a coward and an ostrich. If you see fraud and you do not say fraud you are a fraud. Gwern - It is abundantly clear to me that you are a fraud. By being an enabler of CSW's provably false claims you are contributory to all of the chaos that has ensued. Actually be a man and admit you are wrong. Your refusal to do so is utterly pathetic. There is a 0% chance of successful litigation over a first amendment issue, especially one that is rife with provable fraud on the side of the accuser of libel. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this and instead cower behind a false threat shows what a little person you are.

1

nullc 3 days ago

>> As far as I know... > Ask midnightmagic then. I have now,and I fully accept on trust his assertion that you have been helpful in non-public ways which I would appreciate. That said, I don't believe this changes my position. > And did you look for evidence I had continued to maintain it in the face of all evidence before deciding to use it as a conclusive case study of, how did you put it? You have not published a retraction. Prior to publishing your assertions about wright you had *already* been called out for unethical conduct. You continued to not publish a retraction. > Funny how everything just establishes my 'complicity' more firmly. What I understand here is that you're complaining that I am saying that: Either you're complicit by being a fool who has argued himself into a corner and actually believes the nonsense, or you're complicit by knowing better and not actually doing the right thing in light of it. But only your continued refusal to behave ethically and retract makes this look like a damned if you do / damned if you don't situation. > I didn't personally gain anything You gained an incredible amount of traffic and attention, some of which directly results in advertising income for you. Over three years later the wired article is still in the middle of the first page of google results in a search for "Gwern" for me. [Not to mention, you certainly have not shied away from exploiting your charitable contributions to [improve your social standing](https://donations.vipulnaik.com/donor.php?donor=Gwern+Branwen) -- quasi-random link out of the great many results for Gwern AMF] > No one could have been harmed by this because he wasn't taking any investment from VCs How could you possibly know whom he was or wasn't taking money from? I would be happy to agree that it was just a mistake before-- that you reasonably thought the stakes were low (though you'd been cautioned about the ethics of your Satoshi hunt multiple times before) and that you (somewhat less reasonably) thought your research was adequate... Fine. But that was over three years ago, in the time since it has become very clear that people have been getting ripped off-- in all the ways you've named and many others. (Including the billion dollar funny money market cap on "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, if you're finding yourself unable to reason about something without concrete numbers attached to it) > The risk of being 'sued for just existing' is certainly not remotely the same as for publishing what could be considered libel, by someone who is currently suing someone for precisely that, I have not asked you to do anything other than the bare minimum ethical behavior of retracting an article which you know (at least now) to be false. *That is it*. It may well be that the risk of that is greater than the risk of existing-- sad but true. But that is a risk you already chose to take by choosing to publish in the first place: The risk that you might find yourself wrong and be compelled by honest and ethical conduct (or at least your loss of reputation) to retract it even if doing so made some people mad. Whatever the risk of it is... it is significantly less than the risk I have taken on this-- risks I never would have felt morally obligated to take if not for irresponsible actions on your part that I begged you not to take well in advance with your earlier stalking! It's also potentially less than the risk you take from failing to do so. People who relied on your reporting might be an order of magnitude less vexatious, but they've genuinely been harmed and should have nothing to fear from legal embroilment compared to a certain conman. I also just find the argument suspect on the basis of timing: It's been years now, and the crazy legal threats only started recently. A year ago Wright was still "refusing to say" in public. Recanting would have been doing him a "favor" according to his public claims. If anyone's reputation is to mean anything then when someone prints false material either knowingly/recklessly or prints something they later learn to be false and refuse to retract, their reputation rightfully should be seriously wounded. I don't think it's appropriate to complain about the reasonable, expected, and socially necessary outcome of a situation you voluntarily created and perpetuate. When Wired published a low quality article on a subject nearer and dearer to your heart-- online markets for illicit drugs-- you surely were not [quiet in your criticism towards Greenberg](https://twitter.com/gwern/status/662309914468052992), even though he didn't work on that article. > Why would I not believe the Top 500's own website Maybe because you edited Wikipedia for many years and are aware of the discouragements/prohibitions on primary sources that exist _precisely_ because of this sort of problem? -- information without context is often easily misleading, fraud is just a particularly extreme example. Maybe because the stated purpose of an investigative journalist is to investigate! (though they so seldom do) .. and "could this be fake?" is a basic qualifying question far simpler than your DOJ/SR complaints. ... particularly in this case when it was known to you prior to publication that wright had fabricated a significant amount of material to suggest he created Bitcoin (at a minimum, the backdated blog posts). You write here that wright performing a long con was your leading competing theory. You also specifically mention the non-existence of the "supercomputer" (which was disclaimed by SGI within what... three days of publication?) as being pretty influential in changing your thinking. So shouldn't you have been checking how likely it was that it wasn't faked like the other faked evidence? Or at least finding out what it would take to fake it. Even if top500 hadn't been self-reported (like ... most other science...) it could have had a process that was easily tricked. > I believe the leak was genuine; he had forged them for internal consumption or possibly distributing to investors. That is plausible to me and consistent... also consistent with other fake satoshi leads you found previously: hints that people were dropping for detriment of specific parties/groups they were looking to exploit... I apologize for not considering this possibility in my prior message. > I find it difficult to imagine anyone still believing Wright solely because we suggested he might be Satoshi, There are a great many people who believe it because you and Wired told them it is so-- I end up speaking to people like that regularly--, and because the alternative that the extremely loud, visible, and "ultra confident" actions of wright are fake and that all the media sources were somehow tricked yet there has been _NO_ refutation remotely as confident as the affirmations just strikes a lot of people as too much to believe. Virtually no publication or person that promoted Wright's claims has clearly recanted their position, though I know through channels that many of them now believe they were tricked or that whatever they found persuasive before was junk. People like myself or /u/Contrarian__ who have been steadfastly fought against the sea of wright disinformation are telling you that "authorities" retracting their incorrect claims will go a LONG way to shutting down the con. (I pinged contrarian because I expect he will confirm that it matters) You and I both know that there was little to no serious investigation for most reporting on the subject, and as a result do not find publications such as yours particularly persuasive on their face. This is not true for the general public. Joe Public sees a wall of recognized authorities saying that these claims are credible, then they see some internet nobodies saying that not only isn't it not credible but it's completely absurd. They cannot reconcile these facts. If it were as absurd as we're saying it is, wouldn't the "authorities" have retracted it or gotten serious egg on their face? Face. Meet egg-- really low impact snarky reddit comment edition. Don't like it? then for Christ sake, don't argue with me ... get a retraction published!

2

Contrarian__ 2 days ago

> some internet nobodies How dare you? I'll have you know that [an esteemed journal](https://www.ccn.com/craig-wright-allegedly-submits-fake-e-mail-in-dave-kleiman-lawsuit) has referred to me as, and I quote, "**[a]n apparent expert in GPG signatures and cryptography**". Now who's a nobody? Jokes aside, I can confirm two things. First, /u/gwern has given me private and helpful assistance on one occasion as it relates to Craig. Second, I **do** think that public retractions are important, especially when a con is ongoing. I am glad to see that you (gwern) now definitively see him as a fraud; as of our conversation about a year ago, I still got the impression of ambivalence. If your primary impediment to a direct public retraction is fear of litigation, I think that's unfounded. In almost every jurisdiction on Earth, your speech would be protected if you offered it explicitly as your opinion (eg - "In my opinion, in light of evidence that I was unaware of at the time, I no longer believe that Craig Wright was involved in Bitcoin's creation...") I personally don't think your retraction would carry as much weight as Gavin Andresen's. The majority of True Believers I've encountered hold the 'private signing demonstration' as undeniable, bedrock evidence that Craig is Satoshi. However, the more 'public figures' who retract, the better. People are still getting hurt. And perhaps yours would encourage Gavin.

3

xoxoleah Yesterday

why do you talk to yourself?

1

Pivate_key Yesterday

You really are an internet nobody.

1

Aleksanderpwnz 1 week ago

>he continues to be complicit in the fraud. Do you mean the fraud that he was himself a victim of?

2

nullc 1 week ago

Was, perhaps. Though without the excuse of total technical ineptitude that characterized most of its other victims-- instead, the failure of reasoning appeared to be entirely self inflicted through rationalization and motivated thinking. Still, appears he isn't anymore (or at least not enough to keep sticking his neck out) yet he hasn't spoken up and let people know that he messed up, and by doing that he's helping the fraud continue and grow.

2

Aleksanderpwnz 1 week ago

So the fraud is still going on? People still think this guy is Sakamoto, because of that article?

1

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

Craig Wright is now sending legal threats to people who say he isn't Satoshi. This is important because he has a billionaire for a backer. The bitcoin world is not happy at all. It's the prime drama this week in the land of Dunning-Krugerrands.

5

midmagic 3 days ago

No; Ayre says they're sending legal threats to people who say Craig isn't Satoshi. Craig (and Ayre) appear to be restricting their letters to people they say are libelling them. ("liable"ing in Ayre-speak.) So, the Craig is a fraud types, modulo people they think will be easy targets, presumably to build momentum.

2

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 3 days ago

yeah, they're sticking to the ones who've said "fraud".

1

Aleksanderpwnz 1 week ago

Oh, ok. Yeah, then it would make sense to publicly state that he doesn't actually think Wright is Satoshi. But I guess he has his reasons (like not wanting to be sued for libel).

0

[deleted] 1 week ago

[removed]

0

noactuallyitspoptart One Man Brigade 1 week ago

wow

3

mossmoon 1 week ago

No, here’s wow. When you sabotage a beautiful and elegant system to serve this clusterfuck: https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1118314315444936704 and this https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1118253137029029888 If this were the private sector Maxwell would be in jail for racketeering.

0

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

l o l o l bitcoiners, man

4

mossmoon 1 week ago

Sorry, didn’t realize I was on a sub dedicated to mocking people. What a blistering irony.

0

noactuallyitspoptart One Man Brigade 1 week ago

Calling Bitcoin "beautiful and elegant" is not likely to get me horny

8

b0l0zs 1 week ago

What evidence do you have that Gwern or Greenberg or both did not write the title of the article?

4

TimeEntertainer 1 week ago

It's pretty standard for authors to not choose the title their article runs under. It's chosen by someone who wants to maximize the clicks it'll get from shares etc.

2

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

I'll usually suggest a title, maybe two, but in paid work of late 0 have run with what I suggested

1

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

the headline is usually a matter of clickbait tweaking for the editor I mean they *might* have, but it's vastly more likely the editor put whatever the hell they first came up with like that day

3

mgbyrnc 1 year ago

nope. he tried to provide proof but it turned out to be fake

3

[deleted] 1 year ago

That is one frikken long article. How many people have claimed to be Satoshi by now?

1

BitcoinAllBot 1 year ago

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: CodexCrypto

1

2

3

With a year of Instant behind us, we’re excited to release a completely new trading experience into public beta. We’ve taken your feedback for a more immersive, informative, and smarter way to make quick decentralized trades on AirSwap. Come try out the new experience today. https://instant.airswap.io

2

7

2

6

3

10

2

2 7

1 5

25 25

Dan Held - @Dan-Held

RT @CaitlinLong_: 1/ STUNNED but not surprised by #Bitfinex #Tether news out of #NewYork. I'll let other cryptolawyers analyze it but here are two macro thoughts: (1) There's a big double standard here. (2) Exchanges, clean up your act--cryptographically prove your solvency https://t.co/u4vpjh7Kjw

61 192

Jordan Kong - @ImNotJK

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

337 514

Jill Carlson - @_jillruth

“A so-called stablecoin, Tether is purportedly backed one-to-one by U.S. dollars.” https://t.co/PrH7tWJDi8

0 3

Paul Sztorc - @Truthcoin

We call it... ...the UnTethering https://t.co/77SLe35Laa

0 3

Santi - @santisiri

an argument in favor of the need of independent governance in stable coins like @makerdao attempts. https://t.co/6g5ZdVaUB8

0 2

Andrew "Not cool enough for an ETH scam" Glidden - @asglidden

Comingling funds is one of the things that can get your corporate veil pierced, btw. https://t.co/SxT29qlzA3

0 2

Christopher Wheeler - @Stocktrader

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

230 345

Raz - @suprraz

Holders of the "pegged" coin, $USDT will flee to most stable asset. Expecting a $BTC bounce after panic subsides. https://t.co/wD3C4pKb9o

0 0

Ryan Selkis - @twobitidiot

RT @whalepool: Full document of filings against iFinex on claims they used Tether to cover up $800 Million stolen from them by Crypto Capital moneylaundering scam https://t.co/MN3bbyWdwi , WSJ: https://t.co/tXeUtmSfNr https://t.co/KGSKeJNKec

34 108

Preston Byrne - @prestonjbyrne

RT @jeffjohnroberts: You go to prison for stuff like this. https://t.co/S7PzCDE15i https://t.co/1Wc2kIdUSV

7 13

Dovey Wan - @DoveyWan

RT @krugermacro: Bitfinex. Careful buying this crash. $BTC https://t.co/Lz0CSxngv6

7 27

Camila Russo - @CamiRusso

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

187 268

LIL' CO฿AIN - @CryptoCobain

This one gonna hurt unless rebuttal is strong. https://t.co/Gvcp9cLklR

10 69

Antonis Polemitis - @polemitis

Fascinating. This also implies that Tether was fully collateralized through November 2018 https://t.co/kuusdfkHTB

0 0

zooko - @zooko

New York attorney general alleges Bitfinex raided Tether's USD reserves to cover up $850 M of missing funds. https://t.co/svXLpJkef9 via @WSJ

1 5

Collin Crypto - @CollinCrypto

Bitfinex used $USDT reserves to mask missing $850 million, probe finds. $btc #bitcoin https://t.co/5aDpt5ymfw

0 2

Leigh Cuen - @La__Cuen

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

117 159

Kevin Werbach - @kwerb

Yowza. Allegedly, Bitfinex used Tethers to cover up $850 million that "went missing" in mid-2018, but was never disclosed. https://t.co/wLmC2MULpZ

0 1

Ryan X. Charles - @ryanxcharles

No one saw this coming. (/s, lol). https://t.co/d1PFGGh6Q1

11 28

Emin Gün Sirer - @el33th4xor

This one has much more juicy details on Tether. https://t.co/wjLJcPEjKU

6 25

Joseph Young - @iamjosephyoung

RT @aantonop: Stablecoin with reserve = COUNTERPARTY RISK https://t.co/5Qj2JMguT9

29 83

Andreas M. Antonopoulos - @aantonop

Stablecoin with reserve = COUNTERPARTY RISK https://t.co/5Qj2JMguT9

41 141

cacheonomics - @CacheBoi

https://t.co/pEgxDJRqM0

5 27

Vinny Lingham - @VinnyLingham

I'm shocked!! 😂😂😂 https://t.co/OvHKxr7NG2

0 4

Laura Shin - @laurashin

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

28 26

saipem7000 8 hs ago

This thread shows again that the vast majority of crypto gamblers are burger flippers who are too lazy and too stupid to read and understand a simple financial article.

3

scotto8888 Crypto God | QC: CC 119, BTC 78 8 hs ago

Here we fucking go again ..

1

crypto_buddha Reddit + Discord Mod 8 hs ago

- Tether Claims $30 Million in US Dollar Token Stolen (21-11-17)

- Tether Quietly Removes Promise Of Audits From FAQ (28-11-18)

- USDT is now officially not backed 100% by USD. (14-03-19)

- Supreme Court Documentation - NY Attorney General Filing against Tether Holdings Ltd (25-04-2019)

1

AutoModerator 8 hs ago

Hi pop34542. Your submission from wsj.com was removed for being behind a paywall. Articles posted to /r/worldnews must be accessible to the common redditor. Please use another source. If the article is actually accessible when clicking the reddit link, please let us know.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

VoteForClimateAction redditor for 3 months 8 hs ago

Anyone planning to hold on to tether after this news.... WHYYY!??

1

Toothlesskinch Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 46 8 hs ago

People in this community have been predicting this since launch. A LOT of people. If it smells like shit and it looks like shit, there's no reason to taste it.

7

Fuyuki_Wataru Provenance fan 8 hs ago

Must present these documents next month. They have around 36 days starting from now to show;

All documents and information requested in the Subpoenas issued by the Attorney
All documents concerning Bitfinex users, accounts, clients ,or customers that reside or are believed to reside, do business, or are believed to do business, in New York;

1v. All documents concerning holders of tether that reside, or are believed to reside, in New York;

v. All documents and communications concerning any business relationship with any New York-based, or New York licensed, company, in whatever regard;

v1. All documents and communications regarding any transaction, of whatever nature, to loan, extend credit, encumber, pledge, or make any other claim, of any variety or description, on the U.S. dollar reserves underlying tethers, to Bitfinex or any other entity;

v1 1. All documents and communications regarding any transaction, of whatever nature, to purchase, borrow, disperse, or loan tethers to or from third pan:ies, including between Tether and Bitfinex, wherever located;

v111. All documents evidencing all requests, orders, or demands for U.S. dollar withdrawals from the Bitfinex trading platform, including the amount requested, date the request was received, date the request was fulfilled, date the request was cancelled, and status of still-pending requests, since January 2018;

1x. All documents evidencing each order or request for purchase, issuance, or redemption of tethers since January 1, 2017, and which include the date of the order/request, the date on which it was executed, the amount of tether purchased/issued/redeemed, the name and wallet address of the purchasing/ordering/requesting person or entity, date any such purchase/order/request was cancelled, and status of any still-pending purchases/orders/requests;

x. A current accounting of a ll Bitfinex and Tether corporate, banking, trading, and client accounts, including but not limited to those holding U.S. or foreign currency, or virtual currency, wherever located;

x1. Identification of all New York and United States customers of Bitfinex whose funds were provided to Crypto Capital and the amount of any such outstanding funds;

x11. Respondents' tax filings for the years 2017 and 2018;

x111. A report, no less often than weekly, with supporting documents and communications, evidencing any issuances or redemptions of tethers to or from Tether or Bitfinex, which shall include identification of the purchaser or redeemer of tether, the amount of tethers purchased or redeemed, how long the purchase or 3 redemption request took to fulfill, the wallet address the tethers were sent to/came from, and how the tethers were paid for/paid out;

xiv. Identification of all Eligible Contract Participants ("ECPs") controlled by U.S. persons trading, past or present, on the Bitfinex trading platform or invested in tether;

xv. All documents and communications concerning any decision to permit any ECP to trade on the Bitfinex platform or to invest in tether, including, but not limited to, all copies of any ECP certification and evidence provided to Respondents by ECPs; and xv1. All other documents that may be requested by the Attorney General or a designated assistant during the course of this investigation.

1

mirkogradski Hodlin & Hodlin 8 hs ago

Wtf guys

2

banderwocky Gentleman 8 hs ago

Why can't we have honest actors and nice things in this space?

2

neuromancer4867 Redditor for 4 months. 8 hs ago

Because no one is willing to act rationally when there is money to be made. See: btc-e, Bitconnect, 90% or ICOs, MtGox etc. None of those cases were in the least surprising, yet people act ike it is a bolt of lightning from Zeus's when obvious scams turn out to be.. scams Seriously, is anyone surprised that a small exchange that magically recovered from a 150,000+ BTC hack somehow (again) magically becomes the worlds largest (at one point) exchange 2 years later, turns out to 'maybe' not have done so legally?

1

junglehypothesis 8 hs ago

This says two things to me:

Tether isn’t invented out of this air, meaning the 2017 bull run was based on real money.
Tether isn’t as safe as many assume, safer to keep your funds in Bitcoin and control the keys.

1

ApplesDapp 1 - 2 year account age. 100 - 200 comment karma. 8 hs ago

The peg is off 2% and ppl acting like it's the end of the world. relax

3

UpDown 8 hs ago

Bots getting got

3

Sirius-AB Very Stable Crypto Genius 8 hs ago

famous last words.

3

AutoModerator 9 hs ago

Please remember to follow the rules of this subreddit, particularly regarding the intentional promotion of products, services, and/or agendas. Failure to do so will likely result in a temporary suspension or permanent ban from participating in /r/CryptoCurrencies.

Thank you,

/r/CryptoCurrencies moderation team

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

mezase Crypto God | QC: CC 131, BTC 40 9 hs ago

Load ze Tether FUD

12

Maxfunky 9 hs ago

What? The stablecoin issued by a centralized authority turned out to be untrustworthy?! If only someone had thought to make a decentralized alternative, surely everyone would have used it instead and all of this drama could have been avoided.

5

geft 8 hs ago

The decentralized alternative is priced at $0.96 each.

1

Maxfunky 8 hs ago

That the market is irrational was kind of my point.

1

liteoshi Crypto God | QC: BTC 63, CC 28 9 hs ago

Do you think we will get rid of Tether and Bitfinex for good ? I doubt it, unfortunately.

9

aesthetik_ Crypto God | QC: CC 58, Tronix 54, ETH 38 8 hs ago

Tether has just relaunched on Tron. They're trying to keep it alive.

6

Adeus_Ayrton Crypto Nerd | QC: NANO 40, CC 19 8 hs ago

> Tether has just relaunched on Tron. They're trying to keep it alive. What ?!? You forgot the /s at the end, surely ?

3

aesthetik_ Crypto God | QC: CC 58, Tronix 54, ETH 38 8 hs ago

Justin Sun is doing a live stream on it this morning. Impeccable timing. Edit: [here. ](https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1120693957841670146?s=21)

6

Sirius-AB Very Stable Crypto Genius 8 hs ago

how fitting

2

kallebo1337 Crypto Nerd | QC: XMR 15 8 hs ago

No. This is real shit Scam Joins Scam

4

liteoshi Crypto God | QC: BTC 63, CC 28 8 hs ago

Fuck dude, I hope those criminals get arrested and be send to federal prison for the rest of their life.

6

venicerocco Crypto Expert | QC: BTC 35, VEN 25, CC 16 9 hs ago

So... should I.... Tether then?

6

UpDown 8 hs ago

So funny but so far, yes

2

Adeus_Ayrton Crypto Nerd | QC: NANO 40, CC 19 8 hs ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymQUIimLQck

2

lost_civilizations 9 hs ago

Not exactly the most legit attorney ever. Banks probably paid her off

https://nypost.com/2017/12/16/how-tish-james-shamelessly-milked-the-public/

1

MasonSatchmo 9 hs ago

Just another few victims to this hilarious shit show that is crypto currency. Make money out of literally nothing, trust me it’s not a scam 🤣🤣🤣. Are children the main investors in these products?

0

SecondCumming2 2 - 3 years account age. 300 - 1000 comment karma. 8 hs ago

Children using their parents retirement money

3

heliogt2 9 hs ago

so who the fuck is crypto capital corp that ran off with $850 large?

this dude thinks he knows.

@mathias_61938/the-man-behind-the-curtain-81ecf49fa339">https://medium.com/@mathias_61938/the-man-behind-the-curtain-81ecf49fa339

11

btcwerks Redditor for 6 months. 9 hs ago

>Corporate records show that Ivan Manuel Molina Lee is also director of Crypto Capital Co. in Panama https://twitter.com/ProofofResearch/status/1098583769236291584

6

heliogt2 8 hs ago

Panama has rent-a-directors. That's the reasons money launderers, terrorists and criminals love it (panama papers etc)

1

Zealo_s Crypto Expert | QC: CC 99 8 hs ago

This guy called it: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/bfj3ac/comment/eleaede

5

Schlumberto 4 - 5 years account age. 125 - 250 comment karma. 9 hs ago

“Print $850 Million Tezzuh and PAHMP EET!!”

2

sticky_j Redditor for 23 days. 9 hs ago

The official press release by the New York attorney general with a link to the pdf of the order: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/attorney-general-james-announces-court-order-against-crypto-currency-company-under

1

Urc0mp Crypto God | QC: CC 507 9 hs ago

Bitfinexed ~~was~~ is an ok dude.

7

NomBok 8 hs ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bitfinexed theory wasn't correct (I believe he was saying they were just printing tether from thin air). He ended up being right in the end about tether being unbacked, but it's only because they started using the funds fraudulently. Basically tether WAS backed (or else they wouldn't have the $850 mil in the first place), but then Bitfinex started misusing it, therefore it was not fully backed anymore.

1

ngecoin Crypto God | QC: CC 295 9 hs ago

was? F.

4

Urc0mp Crypto God | QC: CC 507 9 hs ago

F

1

RoqueNE Survivor 9 hs ago

probably lost in a boating accident

8

Van-Diemen Low Crypto Activity 9 hs ago

AAAAAAHHHHHHHH I LOST EVERYTHING

5

CMDR-FusionCor3 9 hs ago

[B O G G E D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV5QlSgq7lg)

4

sergiodave Low Crypto Activity 9 hs ago

Rip

1

heliogt2 9 hs ago

Here's the Order.

Bitfinex is ordered to show up in NY on May 3rd and open up the kimono completely.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2019.04.24_signed_order.pdf

10

kallebo1337 Crypto Nerd | QC: XMR 15 8 hs ago

Rip Finally. A good day Is that a public hearing ?

2

heliogt2 8 hs ago

~~I expect it will be open to the public, sure.~~ It's likely to be delayed by BFNX/THT counsel, but it must take place within 30 days. EDIT- changed my mind. the hearing will be before a "special referee" in NY. that might be just the dude's office [http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Referees%20Rules%206-7-12.pdf](http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Referees%20Rules%206-7-12.pdf)

2

25 2 4

Steven81 8 hs ago

That makes no sense, it is free for brave to print coins (basically), which is why their scheme make sense. You cannot print BTC willy nilly, you have to find the funds somewhere and I doubt that advertisers are willing to pay the users.

The only reason that the BAT scheme works is exactly because the advertisers do not actually pay the users. The users is from whom (the advertisers) make money, it would had been absurd to pay them...

1

Jajarz 8 hs ago

Gab's CEO Andrew Torba is a Bitcoin Maximalist, he's said in a Hackernoon article that he's been in BTC since 2012/2013. Of course he would target BAT specifically and initially; it's a threat to his livelihood. Bitcoin gets it's value from the top down (Miners with expensive rigs/Whales hedging the price with Tether) BAT gets its value from the bottom up. (Users giving their attention and people speculating on that.) As there is an equal opportunity for every user to earn BAT for themselves, it's a new paradigm for crypto that would see BTC start to become unfavorable.

2

Unbathed 8 hs ago

Thanks, for the surprising-to-me crypto-fundamentals explanation!

1

CleverRubrik redditor for 6 weeks 8 hs ago

This is what should have been done from the beginning with Brave.

1

TheDoorsOpened redditor for 2 weeks 8 hs ago

Lmao. I want an Ethereum browser mofos.

1

Headline_Correction 9 hs ago

HA! HA!

1

ksiazek7 9 hs ago

This is big news imo. I like brave and BAT already but I'd also use a Gab browser based on free speech and is anti censorship.

1

furcryingoutloud 9 hs ago

This is actually what Brave should have been. Why they had to build their own coin is a mystery to me.

1

BlankEris 8 hs ago

Because free money

1

furcryingoutloud 8 hs ago

There is that. Still, if they have real advertisers, they could have collected fees in bitcoin. But I get what you're saying. So Brave is really just another shitcoin push. This is what actually gets me about all this. Very few, maybe none, of the projects out there are using bitcoin as their base coin. I understand the view of free money, but shit, bitcoin projects would have so much more strength. This Gab browser might upend Brave. Which obviously concerns Brave greatly.

1

joob44 9 hs ago

This is partly why I exited bat. Makes too much sense. But can can these guys maintain the browser with updates and patches?

1

larceniii 8 hs ago

No they can't, but they could be really disruptive. Oh wait, wasn't that the point of Bitcoin? I always like the idea of brave but hated the bat part. Like everyone else here.

1

mineum 9 hs ago

f i n a l l y :-)))

1

infernalr00t redditor for 6 weeks 10 hs ago

IMO opinion this isnt even the future, the future is paying for content, sad?, not really, services are free because you are the product. how did you change that?, by paying. Check satoshis place, you dont create an account, you pay for an account, devs get the money and you dont give your mail. Even webLN is working in a user ID using lightning so you can access services easily.

just think, you want yo download a rom from a site, you need to surf across a sea of ads, what if instead you buy the rom?, or an account for 1 year?, you paid and the ads are gone, the devs get money, a better UX.

1

walloon5 10 hs ago

Lol awesome

1

Todomas 10 hs ago

I mean it's cool that other sites are integrating it but I'd rather it not consisted of a bunch of alt-right neo-Nazi types

1

deineemudda 10 hs ago

lol he forks it to integrate lightning? it will work i. 18 months (tm) i guess

1

Marcion_Sinope 10 hs ago

+1 solid move.

1

McClarenCrypto redditor for 5 weeks 10 hs ago

That's amazing

1

Divan-Bnar 10 hs ago

Fuck yes

1

sreeanne 10 hs ago

Sounds lot better than BCH fork :)

1

Sherlocked_ 11 hs ago

It would have to hair lightning and be able to do recurring payment. Aside from that there is no way they can make the ad network work

1

cryptomon 11 hs ago

LMFAO like Bitcoin is private at fucking all. Zcash or monero.

2

BlankEris 8 hs ago

Or all 3

1

ghost012 11 hs ago

I only care if the let me earn in the EU, unlike brave....

1

drunksquirrel9 11 hs ago

Very exciting!

1

Bags_Full 11 hs ago

-The web browser removes the “parts of Brave that weren’t needed, like the BAT token, but keeps “the best parts”.

-No rewards platform

-Main fan base are users who have been banned or suspended from other service.

!Yeah... this guy definitely escaped a troll dungeon from 4Chan.!<

5

Thinkmoreaboutit 11 hs ago

Fucking hilarious, now Gab needs to move onto ZeroNet.

Anything centralized is shit. Everyone is always the "next free speech" but if it's controlled on any central server, it can always be compromised.

ZeroNet

https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet

Why?

We believe in open, free, and uncensored network and communication.
No single point of failure: Site remains online so long as at least 1 peer is serving it.
No hosting costs: Sites are served by visitors.
Impossible to shut down: It's nowhere because it's everywhere.
Fast and works offline: You can access the site even if Internet is unavailable.

Features

Real-time updated sites
Namecoin .bit domains support
Easy to setup: unpack & run
Clone websites in one click
Password-less BIP32 based authorization: Your account is protected by the same cryptography as your Bitcoin wallet
Built-in SQL server with P2P data synchronization: Allows easier site development and faster page load times
Anonymity: Full Tor network support with .onion hidden services instead of IPv4 addresses
TLS encrypted connections
Automatic uPnP port opening
Plugin for multiuser (openproxy) support
Works with any browser/OS

How does it work?

After starting zeronet.py you will be able to visit zeronet sites using http://127.0.0.1:43110/{zeronet_address} (eg. http://127.0.0.1:43110/1HeLLo4uzjaLetFx6NH3PMwFP3qbRbTf3D).
When you visit a new zeronet site, it tries to find peers using the BitTorrent network so it can download the site files (html, css, js...) from them.
Each visited site is also served by you.
Every site contains a content.json file which holds all other files in a sha512 hash and a signature generated using the site's private key.
If the site owner (who has the private key for the site address) modifies the site, then he/she signs the new content.json and publishes it to the peers. Afterwards, the peers verify the content.json integrity (using the signature), they download the modified files and publish the new content to other peers.

Here are proxy sites where you can get a feel what the experience is like:

Note, certain features on limited on proxy sites.

There is also an Android app you can use on your phone.

Check it out, my dudes.

6

Gaditonecy 10 hs ago

F

1

Klimenos 11 hs ago

Soon: BCH and BSV Gab forks.

1

loveandhate8888 redditor for 3 months 11 hs ago

https://imgur.com/a/LbxeCGS

1

3

2

6

2

8 5

nooobcakes 3 months ago

Great read. Thanks!

1

Flo_Evans 3 months ago

I gotta say its pretty funny the whole mantra of bitcoin is "be your own bank" then they say to put your keys in a safety deposit box at the bank...

2

tookdrums 3 months ago

Great post.

1

whenthefogclears redditor for 2 weeks 3 months ago

These things work well, but for the average person who won’t take these risks they’re useless.

And crypto’s biggest problem is security and I can’t see that changing, very hard to convince the public to become their own bank.

3

diydude2 3 months ago

> very hard to convince the public to become their own bank. Until their banks go belly up and they can't get their money out. Crypto is FAR more secure. You should try it sometime.

0

whenthefogclears redditor for 2 weeks 3 months ago

I’ve owned BTC since 2011 so you don’t have to teach me, I’m saying even if banks go belly up, you still won’t convince everyone crypto is right. And considering America can only go bankrupt if they choose that themselves, which they won’t you maybe waiting along time for banks to go bust haha.

2

DigitalCoinz 3 months ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/ledgerwallet/comments/83ecqy/how_you_can_store_your_recovery_words_very_safely/?st=JEZ1HZ5D&sh=e9b55a7a

4

FortuitousIdiom 3 months ago

Well, I'll be. That's just brilliant.

2

XxLuuk2015xX 3 months ago

Nice post :)

3

Rotoava 3 months ago

```

Keep your Recovery sheet physically secure to make sure you can’t lose or destroy it by accident.

Keep your Recovery sheet in a safe place, protected from sunlight, humidity and fire. If it gets destroyed for any reason, you must immediately move your crypto to a newly set up hardware wallet;

Do not keep your Recovery sheet in a safe at home. A bank vault is much more secure. Not having immediate access to your backup increases your resilience to physical threats;

```

Sad, The above is the biggest problem with using hardware wallets, (another is supply chain attacks) cannot be solved hardware wallet.

2

skaska23 3 months ago

Just dig up 2 meter deep hole. You will need to panic a lot to dig so deep hole for recover.

1

Aussiehash 3 months ago

/r/Bitcoin/comments/1e4b9s/the_only_truly_secure_way_to_use_bitcoin_from_a/

1

FortuitousIdiom 3 months ago

...recovery phrase is an universal feature of wallets, allowing recovery should something go awry with the app or device. It's not specific to hardware wallets. What would do otherwise if your device were lost/stolen/damaged?

2

murzika 3 months ago

Managing the security of your backup is critical for any wallet, hardware or software. If you wish to own your keys, you have to secure their recovery.

3

chrisbmc34 New to Crypto 3 months ago

Good time to post and celebrate #ProofOfKeys

1

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

ZeroNet

Why?

Features

How does it work?

Here are proxy sites where you can get a feel what the experience is like:

Check it out, my dudes.

© 2018 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

ZeroNet

Why?

Features

How does it work?

Here are proxy sites where you can get a feel what the experience is like:

Check it out, my dudes.

© 2018 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily