Hi all.
The next bonus episode of the Dr Bitcoin podcast (which will be free to all) will be our second Ask Arthur Anything, where anyone can put questions to Arthur van Pelt. So if you've got any burning questions about CSW or Bitcoin it's a good chance to have them answered by someone who knows these things. Find out more here https://twitter.com/DrBitcoinPod/status/1675041875189694465.
We're also working on a way to get access to all the bonus content in one hit with a single crypto payment rather than monthly fiat payments. Will post here when we have it.
So yeah, think up some questions and fire them over.
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP4038829A1/
TBF Craig is not the inventor of the patent. He should fire those ignorant employees who know nothing about Bit Coin.
Willie Gault, ex NFL for the Bears, and also a hell of a track/field athlete is SLOWER than BitConnect Roy Murphy.
Gault was also the part of the 1983 World Championships 4x100m winning relay team with Carl Lewis no less.
Gault continued competing even when retired from the pros and ran the over 50s 100m in 10.88 seconds.
However, yesterday BitConnect Roy (also over 50) absolutely SHATTERED that with a 10.44 secs.
Just amazing the shite BitConnect Roy comes out with. But of course, as is usual with Roy, there's never any proof, just his word...
But if gets even worse because Roy says that 'in his prime' he used to run a sub 10 secs 100m which puts him amongst the best professional sprinters in the world. Linford Christie (almost certainly on the juice) holds the British record at 9.87. I assume Roy is not juiced so according to him would probably beat a non-juiced Christie when in their primes.
PS. The claims get even more fanciful because last week BitConnect Roy said this -
"Since the dawn of the World Wide Web, my companies have intercepted and processed roughly 1/6th of all global internet traffic in all of its history. Zero server downtime in over 30 years."
Of course, and typical Roy, nobody ever knows what his companies are, what they're called, where they're based, and what they actually do.
Another interesting point is why if the above is true (stop laughing!) why would a 'Tech Titan' have the time or even inclination to make loads of VERY supportive BitConnect videos? And how is it possible for a man with an IQ of 180+ to fall hook line and sinker for an obvious ponzi scam? So many questions with BitConnect Roy Murphy.
No wonder many in BSV shun the man moron as he comes across as a complete fantasist. Faketoshi for once was speaking sense when at the beginning of the year he called Roy 'a parasite that's done nothing'...
There was just a conference call on the Florida case (I'm not sure if Wright was on it, so I don't know if it was a con call or not):
-
Craig's representatives said Craig won't be attending his own contempt hearing, now it's being proposed to delay the hearing (perhaps trying to buy time to get an order that he attend in person). The new date isn't established yet.
-
Reinhart basically said that Craig was only brought up for contempt as a result of Bloom's prior ruling that there would be a contempt hearing if Wright didn't fill out the form correctly. Hardly sounded like he cared.
-
Reinhart said he would drop the contempt proceeding against RM if the parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement. (Countdown until RM announces they settled with the faux-W&K huckster?).
I think this last point is a load of crap, R&M has been actively aiding Wright in perpetrating multiple frauds upon the court-- it's a matter of public interest, not merely a harm to real-W&K, and even if (real)W&K sensibly accepts a payment for the time they wasted we're still left with an apparently corrupt law firm that can continue to defraud the court if a cost/benefit analysis comes out in favor of doing so.
The ghost town of r/bitcoincashsv seems to be infatuated with John Reed Stark quotes lately. They are so dumb they think BSV is not included in his rants on crypto. He SPECIFICALLY calls our the pseudonymous nature of cryptos as the problem. Not anonymous, pseudonymous. He spells it out for the idiots in plain words. If only they could read. Also, when John lists regulator requirements of banks, they are delusional and think it applies to Bitcoin and other cryptos but not BSV. Stop laughing, they really think this.
But that's not the point here. The most recent regurgitation posted is a long rant from Stark, but they must have not made it to the end where he says:
" First, take your libertarian conflict to Congress and not to the courts (because you will lose). "
So he knows what everyone else except them seems to know already. You will not win cases in court, there is no path for the delusional cultist BSV hot takes there. The SEC former chair you all have been sucking on for weeks is now telling you this straight up. Welcome to law and good luck losing all your cases Creg.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/88/c2/09/328c141f641a81/US20220292471A1.pdf
In this example, the contract reads: “The holder is entitled to a one-off prize dinner date on 31 Mar. 2016 with George Kludgy at the Spiffy Hotel in central Sydney including a taxi ride home.” The metadata is defined to represent the following critical parameters: NumShares=1; ShareVal=1 date; PeggingRate=0. These parameters define an indivisible contract limited to one share, wherein a share in the contract has a value of 1 date, and wherein any amount of underlying Bitcoin within the transaction corresponds to one share in the contract. In this example, the TotalIssuance is 1 date.
Attorney Advertisement by Bucher Law PLLC. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
No worries we still have 6 months left
and what might be left of assets on their (CSW and CA) side,
to borrow any more (fake) liqidity ?
How many exchanges are left to define the "value of BSV" ?