A veteran crime scene recreation expert said the purported UFO crash landing in Las Vegas last year is &quot;authentic&quot; and he believes he spotted two creatures.

Las Vegas alien video's previously missed detail proves 'authenticity,' expert says: 'You can't deny it' | Fox News

A US expert who analysed the viral video of an alleged alien encounter outside a Las Vegas residence in Nevada last year confirms that the footage has not been altered and asserts its authenticity.

Watch | 'Once You See It, You Can't Deny': Expert Claims Viral Las Vegas Alien Encounter Video Is 'Authentic' - News18

”His music, his guitar style, his amp settings, they were all primal attacks, and they were all with a huge heart of love behind the machine, well-oiled and assured.”

Thurston Moore pens lengthy tribute to Steve Albini: "an authentic visionary, a person alive with the delight of creative impulse"

“There’s no editing. That is an original video. We tried to debunk it to see if there was something that was added to the video. All of our results came back as it was authentic,” he said.

Video of aliens spotted in Vegas is totally ‘authentic,’ expert says: ‘You can’t deny it’

Now, a new twist has come to the fore with a former federal officer and forensic expert claiming that the video is authentic. The expert, who investigated the video thinking it to be edited or altered, found it to be authentic and even shared his findings with a national TV.

Ghost Or Alien? Expert Certifies Las Vegas Family's Alien Encounter Video As Authentic | Science & Environment News | Zee News

Authentic

authentic

How to Implement Multi-Tenant Authentication with Keycloak in an Angular Spring Boot Stack

3 Real-World Examples of Why Companies Need Better Email Authentication

This text began as a defense of the characters that inhabit us, our own fictions, and their expressions in virtuality. However, as usual, I succumbed to a nearly endless diatribe, raising arguments to dismantle possible ideas. In the end, the defense of performance turned into a rejection of essence, such as authenticity. In other texts, I mentioned the need to consider the amplifying potential of the Internet and the social context in which the development of technologies occurs when reflecting on digital habits. In this sense, virtuality amplifies the calls of our time. Amid the calls to become our best selves, to establish our personal brand, to explore all possibilities, and to express our opinions on almost everything, there is the call to express ourselves authentically and in a way that represents our own essence, showing ourselves as we truly are. After all, this would represent integrity. Obviously, this call is expressed in the use of technology. In Zuckerberg's words: “You have one identity…The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly…Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” [1] Curiously, criticisms of social media make use of similar arguments, supported by the idea of the impossibility of multiple and concurrent ways of being. Like when they mention that there is no real in the virtual, that we are merely characters in constant performance. I believe that these comments and arguments have roots in two points: assuming that there is an authenticity outside the network and an accessible essence; and believing that knowing more, learning more, is always beneficial. In this text, I limit myself to exploring the first point. The notion of essence can be seen as a way of dealing with the lack of guarantees of existence, with the anxiety of the uncertain and the indeterminacy to which we are, in many ways, subjected. To think that there is an essence to be achieved, accessed, capable of alleviating our anxiety and giving meaning to our existence, can be comforting. However, it can also be a source of discomfort and serve the discourses of self-improvement and the instrumentalization of care. Not presupposing an essence requires us to accept and deal with ambivalence and contradiction, both in ourselves and in others. We must be capable of recognizing the nuances and complexity that come with being human. In order to do this, accepting that we will select what we choose to represent may be an option, and this is, to some extent, a performance. Authenticity in this context is interpreted as synonymous with self-expression free from performance, which would bring us closer to an essence. However, what is being referred to as performance may serve a function of containment of limitation. Let us imagine what a world would be like without performance, where we all always express exactly what we are feeling and thinking, which is part of what we are. At the very least, it would be chaotic. I, like many, prefer to call it unbearable. Thus, perhaps we are always performing, for even if we idealized being always transparent, that would not be possible. How would we convey, at the same time, two lines of thought that confront each other, composing a conflict or dilemma we experience at a given moment? How would we fully convey two emotions that coexist? Containment, the imposition of limits, allows us to act in an adaptable manner, to recognize ourselves and others, and to avoid being overwhelmed. Does this mean that it is possible to be whatever I want? That I can do whatever I want? No. The selection of representations also has limits; they can be social, ethical, economic, or biological impositions. Different representations imply different characters, but they do not mean different actors. What Representations Are We Willing to Interpret, and Why? What is relevant may be to consider how this character interacts with our own narrative, whether it is a source of exhaustion, or if we identify with it so much that we come to believe we are it and only it, forgetting that no narrative can sustain itself with just one character. Do I fear appearing different from the character I maintain on social media? Are there drawbacks to sustaining this character in light of the daily activities that life demands? Do I forgo other possibilities for myself because of it? If this character were to step out of the scene, how would it be? What is the impact of this character on the lives of others? How does it affect others? Does it come closer to or further away from what I desire to be or think I am? Perhaps the new question is: in service of what or which narratives are our supposedly virtual characters? "(...) time is a powerful force. It transforms our preferences. It reshapes our values. It alters our personalities. We seem to appreciate this fact, but only in retrospect. (...) It's as if, for most of us, the present is a magic time. (...) It's the moment at which we finally become ourselves. Human beings are works in progress that mistakenly think they're finished. The person you are right now is as transient, as fleeting and as temporary as all the people you've ever been. The one constant in our life is change."  - Daniel Gilbert [2] References: [1] Zuckerberg em David Kirkpatrick The Facebook Effect (2010). [2] Daniel Gilbert — The Psychology of Your Future Self. Photo by Barthelemy de Mazenod on Unsplash This text began as a defense of the characters that inhabit us, our own fictions, and their expressions in virtuality. However, as usual, I succumbed to a nearly endless diatribe, raising arguments to dismantle possible ideas. In the end, the defense of performance turned into a rejection of essence, such as authenticity. In other texts, I mentioned the need to consider the amplifying potential of the Internet and the social context in which the development of technologies occurs when reflecting on digital habits. In this sense, virtuality amplifies the calls of our time. Amid the calls to become our best selves, to establish our personal brand, to explore all possibilities, and to express our opinions on almost everything, there is the call to express ourselves authentically and in a way that represents our own essence, showing ourselves as we truly are. After all, this would represent integrity . express ourselves authentically and in a way that represents our own essence, showing ourselves as we truly are. After all, this would represent integrity Obviously, this call is expressed in the use of technology. In Zuckerberg's words: “You have one identity…The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly…Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” [1] “You have one identity…The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly…Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” [1] Curiously, criticisms of social media make use of similar arguments, supported by the idea of the impossibility of multiple and concurrent ways of being. Like when they mention that there is no real in the virtual, that we are merely characters in constant performance. I believe that these comments and arguments have roots in two points: assuming that there is an authenticity outside the network and an accessible essence; and believing that knowing more, learning more, is always beneficial. In this text, I limit myself to exploring the first point. The notion of essence can be seen as a way of dealing with the lack of guarantees of existence, with the anxiety of the uncertain and the indeterminacy to which we are, in many ways, subjected. To think that there is an essence to be achieved, accessed, capable of alleviating our anxiety and giving meaning to our existence, can be comforting. However, it can also be a source of discomfort and serve the discourses of self-improvement and the instrumentalization of care. Not presupposing an essence requires us to accept and deal with ambivalence and contradiction, both in ourselves and in others. We must be capable of recognizing the nuances and complexity that come with being human. In order to do this, accepting that we will select what we choose to represent may be an option, and this is, to some extent, a performance. Authenticity in this context is interpreted as synonymous with self-expression free from performance, which would bring us closer to an essence. However, what is being referred to as performance may serve a function of containment of limitation. Let us imagine what a world would be like without performance, where we all always express exactly what we are feeling and thinking, which is part of what we are. At the very least, it would be chaotic. I, like many, prefer to call it unbearable. Thus, perhaps we are always performing, for even if we idealized being always transparent, that would not be possible. How would we convey, at the same time, two lines of thought that confront each other, composing a conflict or dilemma we experience at a given moment? How would we fully convey two emotions that coexist? Containment, the imposition of limits, allows us to act in an adaptable manner, to recognize ourselves and others, and to avoid being overwhelmed. Does this mean that it is possible to be whatever I want? That I can do whatever I want? No. The selection of representations also has limits; they can be social, ethical, economic, or biological impositions. Different representations imply different characters, but they do not mean different actors. What Representations Are We Willing to Interpret, and Why? What is relevant may be to consider how this character interacts with our own narrative, whether it is a source of exhaustion, or if we identify with it so much that we come to believe we are it and only it, forgetting that no narrative can sustain itself with just one character. to consider how this character interacts with our own narrative, whether it is a source of exhaustion, or if we identify with it so much that we come to believe we are it and only it, forgetting that no narrative can sustain itself with just one character. Do I fear appearing different from the character I maintain on social media? Are there drawbacks to sustaining this character in light of the daily activities that life demands? Do I forgo other possibilities for myself because of it? If this character were to step out of the scene, how would it be? What is the impact of this character on the lives of others? How does it affect others? Does it come closer to or further away from what I desire to be or think I am? Perhaps the new question is: in service of what or which narratives are our supposedly virtual characters? Perhaps the new question is: in service of what or which narratives are our supposedly virtual characters? "(...) time is a powerful force. It transforms our preferences. It reshapes our values. It alters our personalities. We seem to appreciate this fact, but only in retrospect. (...) It's as if, for most of us, the present is a magic time. (...) It's the moment at which we finally become ourselves. Human beings are works in progress that mistakenly think they're finished. The person you are right now is as transient, as fleeting and as temporary as all the people you've ever been. The one constant in our life is change."  - Daniel Gilbert [2] "(...) time is a powerful force. It transforms our preferences. It reshapes our values. It alters our personalities. We seem to appreciate this fact, but only in retrospect. (...) It's as if, for most of us, the present is a magic time. (...) It's the moment at which we finally become ourselves. Human beings are works in progress that mistakenly think they're finished. The person you are right now is as transient, as fleeting and as temporary as all the people you've ever been. The one constant in our life is change."  - Daniel Gilbert [ 2 ] 2 References: [1] Zuckerberg em David Kirkpatrick The Facebook Effect (2010). Zuckerberg em David Kirkpatrick The Facebook Effect The Facebook Effect (2010). [2] Daniel Gilbert — The Psychology of Your Future Self. Daniel Gilbert — The Psychology of Your Future Self. Photo by Barthelemy de Mazenod on Unsplash Photo by Barthelemy de Mazenod on Unsplash Barthelemy de Mazenod Unsplash

Why Not Be Authentic on Social Media?

لماذا لا نكون أصليين على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي؟

¿Por qué no ser auténtico en las redes sociales?

Zašto ne biti autentičan na društvenim mrežama?

Ինչու՞ իրական չլինել սոցիալական լրատվամիջոցներում:

ソーシャル メディアで本物らしくないのはなぜですか?

ហេតុអ្វីមិនពិតប្រាកដនៅលើប្រព័ន្ធផ្សព្វផ្សាយសង្គម?

Эмне үчүн социалдык медиада чыныгы болбошу керек?

Mengapa Tidak Menjadi Tulen di Media Sosial?

Ubona gute ubaye umunyakuri ku mbuga nkoranyambaga?

Ha Yini U Nga Ri Wa Ntiyiso Eka Social Media?

Nega ijtimoiy tarmoqlarda haqiqiy bo'lmaslik kerak?

为什么不在社交媒体上表现真实？

The startup ecosystem is often portrayed as a vibrant landscape of innovation and opportunity, yet beneath the surface lies a complex web of misleading tactics that can undermine both startups and venture capitalists (VCs). As the industry evolves, it’s crucial to confront the theatrical and populistic attitudes that dominate pitch presentations and investment decisions. This article aims to shed light on these dynamics, fostering a more authentic relationship between startups and VCs. 🎭Theatrical Presentations: Style Over Substance Pitch competitions have become synonymous with startup funding, but they often resemble theatrical performances more than genuine business evaluations. Founders are pressured to deliver captivating narratives, focusing on storytelling rather than the viability of their business models. This emphasis on performance can lead to: Crowd InfluenceJust as populism sways public opinion, an audience's enthusiasm can unduly influence VCs to invest based on perceived popularity rather than critical assessment. This bandwagon effect can result in funding decisions that prioritize hype over substance. Judging CriteriaMany competitions reward presentation skills over rigorous financial analysis. This skewed focus can mislead investors into backing startups needing sustainable business practices or a clear path to profitability. 💰The Financial Focus of VCs While VCs play a crucial role in funding innovation, their approach often prioritizes financial returns over the purpose of startups. This can manifest in several ways: High Return ExpectationsVCs typically seek substantial returns, overshadowing a startup's original mission. The pressure to scale rapidly may lead to unsustainable growth strategies that compromise long-term viability. Power Law DynamicsThe venture capital model operates under a power law, where a few successful investments generate the most returns. This encourages VCs to spread their bets across many startups, leading to a mindset where individual missions are secondary to overall portfolio performance. 🧨The Risk of Overvaluation and Misaligned Interests The excitement generated during pitch events can lead to inflated valuations for startups that lack solid foundations. VCs may be swayed by the energy in the room rather than conducting thorough due diligence, resulting in: OvervaluationStartups may receive funding based on charisma rather than sound business practices, perpetuating investment cycles in companies that fail to deliver on their promises. Dilution of VisionAs VCs influence startups, there is a risk that founders will alter their original missions to align with investor expectations. This dilution can alienate key stakeholders and disrupt the startup’s core purpose. 📣A Call for Authenticity and Collaboration To disrupt the current landscape, both startups and VCs must embrace authenticity and collaboration: Emphasize SubstanceStartups should prioritize clear communication about their business models and market strategies over theatrical presentations. Investors must look beyond charisma and focus on the fundamentals driving long-term success. Align InterestsFounders and VCs should work together to ensure that investment strategies align with the startup’s mission. Open dialogue about expectations can help bridge the gap between financial goals and entrepreneurial vision. Foster Meaningful ConnectionsInstead of merely networking for funding opportunities, both parties should engage in deeper conversations about business strategy and growth potential. Building relationships based on trust and shared values can lead to more informed investment decisions. Conclusion The startup investment landscape is ripe for disruption. By confronting misleading tactics rooted in theatricality and populism, we can foster a more authentic relationship between startups and venture capitalists. Emphasizing substance over style, aligning interests, and encouraging meaningful dialogue will pave the way for sustainable growth and innovation in the industry. It’s time for both sides to move beyond performance-driven narratives and focus on what truly matters: building successful businesses grounded in purpose and integrity. The startup ecosystem is often portrayed as a vibrant landscape of innovation and opportunity, yet beneath the surface lies a complex web of misleading tactics that can undermine both startups and venture capitalists (VCs). As the industry evolves, it’s crucial to confront the theatrical and populistic attitudes that dominate pitch presentations and investment decisions. This article aims to shed light on these dynamics, fostering a more authentic relationship between startups and VCs. 🎭Theatrical Presentations: Style Over Substance Pitch competitions have become synonymous with startup funding, but they often resemble theatrical performances more than genuine business evaluations. Founders are pressured to deliver captivating narratives, focusing on storytelling rather than the viability of their business models. This emphasis on performance can lead to: Crowd InfluenceJust as populism sways public opinion, an audience's enthusiasm can unduly influence VCs to invest based on perceived popularity rather than critical assessment. This bandwagon effect can result in funding decisions that prioritize hype over substance. Crowd Influence Just as populism sways public opinion, an audience's enthusiasm can unduly influence VCs to invest based on perceived popularity rather than critical assessment. This bandwagon effect can result in funding decisions that prioritize hype over substance. Judging CriteriaMany competitions reward presentation skills over rigorous financial analysis. This skewed focus can mislead investors into backing startups needing sustainable business practices or a clear path to profitability. Judging Criteria Many competitions reward presentation skills over rigorous financial analysis. This skewed focus can mislead investors into backing startups needing sustainable business practices or a clear path to profitability. 💰The Financial Focus of VCs While VCs play a crucial role in funding innovation, their approach often prioritizes financial returns over the purpose of startups. This can manifest in several ways: High Return ExpectationsVCs typically seek substantial returns, overshadowing a startup's original mission. The pressure to scale rapidly may lead to unsustainable growth strategies that compromise long-term viability. High Return Expectations VCs typically seek substantial returns, overshadowing a startup's original mission. The pressure to scale rapidly may lead to unsustainable growth strategies that compromise long-term viability. Power Law DynamicsThe venture capital model operates under a power law, where a few successful investments generate the most returns. This encourages VCs to spread their bets across many startups, leading to a mindset where individual missions are secondary to overall portfolio performance. Power Law Dynamics The venture capital model operates under a power law, where a few successful investments generate the most returns. This encourages VCs to spread their bets across many startups, leading to a mindset where individual missions are secondary to overall portfolio performance. 🧨The Risk of Overvaluation and Misaligned Interests The excitement generated during pitch events can lead to inflated valuations for startups that lack solid foundations. VCs may be swayed by the energy in the room rather than conducting thorough due diligence, resulting in: OvervaluationStartups may receive funding based on charisma rather than sound business practices, perpetuating investment cycles in companies that fail to deliver on their promises. Overvaluation Startups may receive funding based on charisma rather than sound business practices, perpetuating investment cycles in companies that fail to deliver on their promises. Dilution of VisionAs VCs influence startups, there is a risk that founders will alter their original missions to align with investor expectations. This dilution can alienate key stakeholders and disrupt the startup’s core purpose. Dilution of Vision As VCs influence startups, there is a risk that founders will alter their original missions to align with investor expectations. This dilution can alienate key stakeholders and disrupt the startup’s core purpose. 📣A Call for Authenticity and Collaboration To disrupt the current landscape, both startups and VCs must embrace authenticity and collaboration: Emphasize SubstanceStartups should prioritize clear communication about their business models and market strategies over theatrical presentations. Investors must look beyond charisma and focus on the fundamentals driving long-term success. Emphasize Substance Startups should prioritize clear communication about their business models and market strategies over theatrical presentations. Investors must look beyond charisma and focus on the fundamentals driving long-term success. Align InterestsFounders and VCs should work together to ensure that investment strategies align with the startup’s mission. Open dialogue about expectations can help bridge the gap between financial goals and entrepreneurial vision. Align Interests Founders and VCs should work together to ensure that investment strategies align with the startup’s mission. Open dialogue about expectations can help bridge the gap between financial goals and entrepreneurial vision. Foster Meaningful ConnectionsInstead of merely networking for funding opportunities, both parties should engage in deeper conversations about business strategy and growth potential. Building relationships based on trust and shared values can lead to more informed investment decisions. Foster Meaningful Connections Instead of merely networking for funding opportunities, both parties should engage in deeper conversations about business strategy and growth potential. Building relationships based on trust and shared values can lead to more informed investment decisions. Conclusion The startup investment landscape is ripe for disruption. By confronting misleading tactics rooted in theatricality and populism, we can foster a more authentic relationship between startups and venture capitalists. Emphasizing substance over style, aligning interests, and encouraging meaningful dialogue will pave the way for sustainable growth and innovation in the industry. It’s time for both sides to move beyond performance-driven narratives and focus on what truly matters: building successful businesses grounded in purpose and integrity.

Confronting Misleading Tactics in Startup Investments: Calling for Authenticity

How to Implement Multi-Device Authentication System with FastAPI, Redis, and JWT

በFastAPI፣ Redis እና JWT የብዝሃ-መሣሪያ ማረጋገጫ ስርዓትን እንዴት መተግበር እንደሚቻል

Sådan implementeres Multi-Device Authentication System med FastAPI, Redis og JWT

Cómo implementar un sistema de autenticación multidispositivo con FastAPI, Redis y JWT

FastAPI, Redis और JWT के साथ मल्टी-डिवाइस प्रमाणीकरण प्रणाली को कैसे लागू करें

Ki jan yo aplike sistèm otantifikasyon milti-aparèy ak FastAPI, Redis, ak JWT

Ինչպես իրականացնել բազմաբնույթ սարքի նույնականացման համակարգը FastAPI-ի, Redis-ի և JWT-ի միջոցով

כיצד ליישם מערכת אימות מרובת מכשירים עם FastAPI, Redis ו-JWT

FastAPI、Redis、JWT を使用したマルチデバイス認証システムの実装方法

FastAPI, Redis және JWT көмегімен көп құрылғының аутентификация жүйесін қалай енгізу керек

Como implementar um sistema de autenticação multidispositivo com FastAPI, Redis e JWT

Cum să implementați sistemul de autentificare multi-dispozitiv cu FastAPI, Redis și JWT

Ndlela yo Tirhisa Sisiteme ya Vuhlayiseki bya Switirhisiwa swo Tala hi FastAPI, Redis, na JWT

How to Secure User Authentication in React With Clerk

Today, I want to share a simple tutorial on how to set up authentication in your Next.js project using Firebase. This guide will walk you through the process step-by-step, ensuring you can quickly implement a secure authentication system. https://youtu.be/qb2Ug9Yoatg?si=UqTUEOsFibmtDf1m&embedable=true Step 1: Set Up Firebase Account Create a Firebase Project Start by visiting the https://console.firebase.google.com/. You’ll need to create a Google account if you don’t already have one.
Once logged in, click “Add Project” to create a new Firebase project.
Follow the on-screen instructions to complete the project setup. This will serve as the backend for your authentication system. Enable Authentication In the Firebase Console, navigate to the left sidebar, click on “Build,” and then select “Authentication.”
Click on “Get Started” to initialize the authentication module.
You’ll see a list of sign-in methods. For this tutorial, we’ll enable Google and Email/Password authentication. Toggle the switch to enable each method.
For Google sign-in, you’ll need to provide a support email, typically your Firebase Google email.
Once you’ve configured your sign-in methods, click “Save” to apply the changes. Set Up Your Application Head over to “Project Settings” in the Firebase Console.
Scroll to the “Your Apps” section and click “Web App.”
Name your web app. If you plan to use Firebase Hosting, check the corresponding box.
Select your project and click “Register App.” This will generate SDK settings that you’ll need for your Next.js project.
Make sure to save these SDK settings securely, as they contain sensitive information. Step 2: Set Up Your Next.js Project Create a Next.js Application if you don’t have one yet (Optional) Open your terminal and create a new Next.js application by running the appropriate command (e.g., npx create-next-app).
Navigate into your project directory and install the Firebase package using the command: npm install firebase. This will allow you to integrate Firebase services into your app. Configure Firebase Open your preferred IDE, such as Visual Studio Code.
Create a new file named firebase.js in your project. This file will hold your Firebase configuration.
Copy the configuration data from the Firebase Console and paste it into firebase.js. This data includes your API key, project ID, and other essential settings.
For security reasons, consider using environment variables to store these configurations instead of hardcoding them. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/firebase.js Create Authentication Context Set up an AuthContext to manage the authentication state across your application.


This context will store information about the current user and provide functions for signing in and out.


Using context, you can avoid manually passing authentication props through every component. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/context/AuthContext.js Wrap Your Application In your layout.js file, wrap your entire Next.js application with the AuthProvider component.
This step ensures that the authentication context is available throughout your app, making it easy for any component to access the authentication state and functions.
Don’t forget to import the necessary components at the top of your script. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/layout.js Step 3: Create a Login Component Build the Login Component Create a login component that uses the useAuth hook to access the sign-in function from the authentication context.
This component will allow users to sign in with Google, providing a seamless authentication experience.
Ensure the component is user-friendly and clearly indicates the sign-in options available. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/Login.js Protect Your Pages Open page.js and import your login component and context.
Modify the code to protect your content, ensuring that only signed-in users can access certain pages or features. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/page.js If you want to see the code of the entire project, please visit https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app Conclusion That’s it! You’ve successfully set up authentication in your Next.js application using Firebase. If you like this tutorial, please click like and share. You can follow me on YouTube, join my Telegram, or support me on Patreon. Thanks! :) Cheers! Today, I want to share a simple tutorial on how to set up authentication in your Next.js project using Firebase. This guide will walk you through the process step-by-step, ensuring you can quickly implement a secure authentication system. https://youtu.be/qb2Ug9Yoatg?si=UqTUEOsFibmtDf1m&embedable=true https://youtu.be/qb2Ug9Yoatg?si=UqTUEOsFibmtDf1m&embedable=true Step 1: Set Up Firebase Account Create a Firebase Project Create a Firebase Project Start by visiting the https://console.firebase.google.com/. You’ll need to create a Google account if you don’t already have one. Once logged in, click “Add Project” to create a new Firebase project. Follow the on-screen instructions to complete the project setup. This will serve as the backend for your authentication system. Start by visiting the https://console.firebase.google.com/. You’ll need to create a Google account if you don’t already have one. https://console.firebase.google.com/. https://console.firebase.google.com/. Once logged in, click “Add Project” to create a new Firebase project. Follow the on-screen instructions to complete the project setup. This will serve as the backend for your authentication system. Enable Authentication Enable Authentication In the Firebase Console, navigate to the left sidebar, click on “Build,” and then select “Authentication.” Click on “Get Started” to initialize the authentication module. You’ll see a list of sign-in methods. For this tutorial, we’ll enable Google and Email/Password authentication. Toggle the switch to enable each method. For Google sign-in, you’ll need to provide a support email, typically your Firebase Google email. Once you’ve configured your sign-in methods, click “Save” to apply the changes. In the Firebase Console, navigate to the left sidebar, click on “Build,” and then select “Authentication.” Click on “Get Started” to initialize the authentication module. You’ll see a list of sign-in methods. For this tutorial, we’ll enable Google and Email/Password authentication. Toggle the switch to enable each method. For Google sign-in, you’ll need to provide a support email, typically your Firebase Google email. Once you’ve configured your sign-in methods, click “Save” to apply the changes. Set Up Your Application Set Up Your Application Head over to “Project Settings” in the Firebase Console. Scroll to the “Your Apps” section and click “Web App.” Name your web app. If you plan to use Firebase Hosting, check the corresponding box. Select your project and click “Register App.” This will generate SDK settings that you’ll need for your Next.js project. Make sure to save these SDK settings securely, as they contain sensitive information. Head over to “Project Settings” in the Firebase Console. Scroll to the “Your Apps” section and click “Web App.” Name your web app. If you plan to use Firebase Hosting, check the corresponding box. Select your project and click “Register App.” This will generate SDK settings that you’ll need for your Next.js project. Make sure to save these SDK settings securely, as they contain sensitive information. Step 2: Set Up Your Next.js Project Create a Next.js Application if you don’t have one yet (Optional) Create a Next.js Application if you don’t have one yet Open your terminal and create a new Next.js application by running the appropriate command (e.g., npx create-next-app). Navigate into your project directory and install the Firebase package using the command: npm install firebase. This will allow you to integrate Firebase services into your app. Open your terminal and create a new Next.js application by running the appropriate command (e.g., npx create-next-app ). npx create-next-app Navigate into your project directory and install the Firebase package using the command: npm install firebase . This will allow you to integrate Firebase services into your app. npm install firebase Configure Firebase Configure Firebase Open your preferred IDE, such as Visual Studio Code. Create a new file named firebase.js in your project. This file will hold your Firebase configuration. Copy the configuration data from the Firebase Console and paste it into firebase.js. This data includes your API key, project ID, and other essential settings. For security reasons, consider using environment variables to store these configurations instead of hardcoding them. Open your preferred IDE, such as Visual Studio Code. Create a new file named firebase.js in your project. This file will hold your Firebase configuration. firebase.js Copy the configuration data from the Firebase Console and paste it into firebase.js . This data includes your API key, project ID, and other essential settings. firebase.js For security reasons, consider using environment variables to store these configurations instead of hardcoding them. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/firebase.js Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/firebase.js https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/firebase.js Create Authentication Context Create Authentication Context Set up an AuthContext to manage the authentication state across your application. This context will store information about the current user and provide functions for signing in and out. Using context, you can avoid manually passing authentication props through every component. Set up an AuthContext to manage the authentication state across your application. Set up an AuthContext to manage the authentication state across your application. This context will store information about the current user and provide functions for signing in and out. This context will store information about the current user and provide functions for signing in and out. Using context, you can avoid manually passing authentication props through every component. Using context, you can avoid manually passing authentication props through every component. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/context/AuthContext.js Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/context/AuthContext.js https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/context/AuthContext.js Wrap Your Application Wrap Your Application In your layout.js file, wrap your entire Next.js application with the AuthProvider component. This step ensures that the authentication context is available throughout your app, making it easy for any component to access the authentication state and functions. Don’t forget to import the necessary components at the top of your script. In your layout.js file, wrap your entire Next.js application with the AuthProvider component. layout.js AuthProvider This step ensures that the authentication context is available throughout your app, making it easy for any component to access the authentication state and functions. Don’t forget to import the necessary components at the top of your script. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/layout.js Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/layout.js https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/layout.js Step 3: Create a Login Component Build the Login Component Build the Login Component Create a login component that uses the useAuth hook to access the sign-in function from the authentication context. This component will allow users to sign in with Google, providing a seamless authentication experience. Ensure the component is user-friendly and clearly indicates the sign-in options available. Create a login component that uses the useAuth hook to access the sign-in function from the authentication context. useAuth This component will allow users to sign in with Google, providing a seamless authentication experience. Ensure the component is user-friendly and clearly indicates the sign-in options available. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/Login.js Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/Login.js https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/Login.js Protect Your Pages Protect Your Pages Open page.js and import your login component and context. Modify the code to protect your content, ensuring that only signed-in users can access certain pages or features. Open page.js and import your login component and context. page.js Modify the code to protect your content, ensuring that only signed-in users can access certain pages or features. Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/page.js Source code: https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/page.js https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app/blob/fa15aa8d6544937aa480a4308a8676a3310ed0b2/src/app/page.js If you want to see the code of the entire project, please visit https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app https://github.com/proflead/auth-next-js-app Conclusion That’s it! You’ve successfully set up authentication in your Next.js application using Firebase. If you like this tutorial, please click like and share. You can follow me on YouTube , join my Telegram , or support me on Patreon . Thanks! :) YouTube YouTube Telegram Telegram Patreon Patreon Cheers!

Next.js Authentication Made Easy with Firebase

Crypto PR agencies Are Shilling Tokens - How Authentic Projects Could Use PR Instead

ক্রিপ্টো পিআর এজেন্সিগুলি শিলিং টোকেন দিচ্ছে - এর পরিবর্তে কীভাবে প্রামাণিক প্রকল্পগুলি পিআর ব্যবহার করতে পারে

Krypto-PR-Agenturen werben mit Token – Wie authentische Projekte stattdessen PR nutzen könnten

Las agencias de relaciones públicas de criptomonedas están promocionando tokens: cómo los proyectos auténticos podrían usar las relaciones públicas en su lugar

Les agences de relations publiques cryptographiques sont des jetons de shilling – Comment les projets authentiques pourraient utiliser les relations publiques à la place

क्रिप्टो पीआर एजेंसियां टोकन बेच रही हैं - कैसे प्रामाणिक परियोजनाएं पीआर का उपयोग कर सकती हैं

暗号通貨PR代理店はトークンを宣伝している - 本物のプロジェクトは代わりにPRを活用できる

암호화폐 홍보 기관은 토큰을 팔고 있습니다. 진정한 프로젝트가 대신 홍보를 활용할 수 있는 방법

Agências de RP de criptomoedas estão vendendo tokens - Como projetos autênticos podem usar RP em vez disso

Криптовалютные PR-агентства торгуют токенами — как настоящие проекты могли бы использовать PR вместо этого

Kripto PR ajansları Token'ları Satıyor - Gerçek Projeler PR'ı Nasıl Kullanabilir?

Các công ty quan hệ công chúng tiền điện tử đang kiếm lợi từ các mã thông báo - Các dự án xác thực có thể sử dụng quan hệ công chúng như thế nào

加密公关机构正在推销代币——真实项目如何利用公关手段

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 26 of 42. 24. Timecoin ODT Whitepaper (Reliance Document) {ID_000254} 446. The document purports to be a precursor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated in the period 6 May 2008 to 12 December 2008 in its metadata, and Dr Wright states its approximate date to be 6 May 2008 in his Chain of Custody information. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 447. The document has been backdated. Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM2 60-64]]. 448. {ID_000254} has apparently been converted from the Bitcoin White Paper (which is a PDF) into a more easily editable format and has then undergone further conversions via intermediate documents [PM2 [60-64]]. Font configurations and the absence of diagrams are consistent with this conclusion [PM2 [17-28]]. No such intermediate document has been disclosed. 449. Diagrams have been omitted from this document as a result of the conversion process from PDF. The inclusion of the object replacement character ￼ within the document [a point where a diagram would be expected to appear is consistent with {ID_000254} being created by a process of conversion of a different document. [PM2 [28]]. 450. Where diagrams are absent, the document nevertheless preserves margin indentations from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF, but which do not match the content of the document. [PM2 [29-37]]. 451. The document irregularly contains words throughout in which hyphens ought to appear but are missing. This is not consistent with ordinary dictation or typing error but is as an artefact of conversion from PDF and backdating. [PM2 [38-44]]. 452. A conversion of the Bitcoin White Paper PDF to editable form would result in corruption of formulae. In each case where those formulae would have appeared corrupted, they have been deleted from {ID_000254}, leaving behind white space. [PM2 [45-48]]. 453. The document contains irregular line breaks consistent with conversion from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF into editable form and backdating. [PM2 [49-51]]. 454. The document contains text that matches the corrected text of the Bitcoin White Paper (2009 version) [PM2 [12]]. It does not match the October 2008 or November 2008 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, even though this document purports to be earlier than both of them. 455. The document has been disclosed with irregular metadata listed in relation to its Created and Last Accessed external metadata properties. [PM2 [6-11]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 456. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact. Further, the document uses the same software (OpenOffice Writer) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto. 457. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 458. The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details. 459. The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright1 [87], Wright4 [52]]. 460. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon the presence of the word “Timecoin” in documents he has disclosed as being precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and thus forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Moreover, on the basis of his narrative, this is a detail which would have been known to him and to few, if any, others. [Wright1 [26], Wright4 [6.c.x.]]. 461. The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim. 462. Dr Wright claims, in his chain of custody information, that only he drafted this document. 463. Dr Wright has stated in these proceedings that this was a draft of a document under the name TimeCoin which later became bitcoin. [Exhibit CSW-5] 464. Dr Wright has not disclosed the apparent intermediate document from which this document was created. [PM2 [63]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 465. Dr Wright sought to explain away a number of the anomalous findings by saying that both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper were originally created in LATEX and that the commands in the original code accounted for such features as (a) the notes being in a font which was the same as would later be used for tables in the White Paper; (b) the OBJ character; (c) indentation in empty lines corresponding to the size of flowcharts later featuring in the Bitcoin White Paper; and (d) irregularities in hyphenation. See {CSW/2/26} to {CSW/2/28}; {Day3/139:21} to {Day3/152:8}. 466. Dr Wright sought to explain away the content of the document matching the March 2009 version of the Bitcoin White Paper rather than the earlier released versions by claiming that he does not “write things linearly”. He claimed to have used text in this early document, edited it out again in the August and October 2008 versions of the White Paper and then added it back in again for the March 2009 version. See {CSW/2/28} to {CSW/2/29}; {Day3/153:9} to {Day3/154:10}. 467. Dr Wright sought to explain away the irregular metadata by saying that his use of “Xcopy and related tools” somehow accounted for it: {CSW/2/28}. 468. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 468.1. The Bitcoin White Paper was not originally created in LATEX, as convincingly established by the expert evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch, in the joint statement). There is equally no basis for saying that this document was originally created in LATEX. Furthermore, no LAT EX.tex file has been provided to support Dr Wright’s account in relation to the creation of this document. 468.2. The use of LATEX to create the document would not account for the presence of the OBJ (object replacement) character, which on the expert evidence is purely and simply an artefact of conversion from PDF: see PM2 [26-28] {H/17/8}. 468.3. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for Dr Wright having predicted in a precursor document precisely the size required for diagrams and having applied coding to mark out indentations for the diagrams in what would be empty space in the document. 468.4. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for there being irregular hyphenation in precisely the points where line breaks appear in the text of the Bitcoin White Paper. Dr Wright could only weakly account for this as him doing “unusual things” and deliberately including irregular hyphenation {Day3/10:11}. This explanation was nonsensical. Further, it assumed that his deliberate inclusion of irregular hyphenation just happened by coincidence to fall in the places where line breaks existed in the Bitcoin White Paper. 468.5. Dr Wright’s explanation for the irregular metadata was at odds with the independent expert evidence. It also assumed that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. 468.6. Dr Wright’s explanation for the content of the document including changes which were made to the Bitcoin White Paper between its 2008 and 2009 versions is inherently unlikely. It also assumes that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with all the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. (d) Conclusion 469. The explanations gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing confirm his reliance on both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper being based on earlier LATEX files and his allegation that the diagrams were created with LATEX. I find those explanations to be false, in view of my more general finding that the Bitcoin White Paper was not produced in LATEX. Other explanations (the indentations, the supposed ‘steganographic watermarking’ and formatting irregularities) are just a desperate attempt to explain away Dr Wright’s failure to be able to reproduce the Bitcoin White Paper in LATEX. The ‘non-linear’ working explanation (see [468.6] above) is ridiculous, in the light of all the other evidence which clearly indicates that this document was forged by Dr Wright. I so conclude. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 26 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 26 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 24. Timecoin ODT Whitepaper (Reliance Document) {ID_000254} 446. The document purports to be a precursor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated in the period 6 May 2008 to 12 December 2008 in its metadata, and Dr Wright states its approximate date to be 6 May 2008 in his Chain of Custody information. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 447. The document has been backdated. Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM2 60-64]]. 448. {ID_000254} has apparently been converted from the Bitcoin White Paper (which is a PDF) into a more easily editable format and has then undergone further conversions via intermediate documents [PM2 [60-64]]. Font configurations and the absence of diagrams are consistent with this conclusion [PM2 [17-28]]. No such intermediate document has been disclosed. 449. Diagrams have been omitted from this document as a result of the conversion process from PDF. The inclusion of the object replacement character ￼ within the document [a point where a diagram would be expected to appear is consistent with {ID_000254} being created by a process of conversion of a different document. [PM2 [28]]. 450. Where diagrams are absent, the document nevertheless preserves margin indentations from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF, but which do not match the content of the document. [PM2 [29-37]]. 451. The document irregularly contains words throughout in which hyphens ought to appear but are missing. This is not consistent with ordinary dictation or typing error but is as an artefact of conversion from PDF and backdating. [PM2 [38-44]]. 452. A conversion of the Bitcoin White Paper PDF to editable form would result in corruption of formulae. In each case where those formulae would have appeared corrupted, they have been deleted from {ID_000254}, leaving behind white space. [PM2 [45-48]]. 453. The document contains irregular line breaks consistent with conversion from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF into editable form and backdating. [PM2 [49-51]]. 454. The document contains text that matches the corrected text of the Bitcoin White Paper (2009 version) [PM2 [12]]. It does not match the October 2008 or November 2008 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, even though this document purports to be earlier than both of them. 455. The document has been disclosed with irregular metadata listed in relation to its Created and Last Accessed external metadata properties. [PM2 [6-11]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 456. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact. Further, the document uses the same software (OpenOffice Writer) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto. 457. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 458. The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details. 459. The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright1 [87], Wright4 [52]]. 460. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon the presence of the word “Timecoin” in documents he has disclosed as being precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and thus forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Moreover, on the basis of his narrative, this is a detail which would have been known to him and to few, if any, others. [Wright1 [26], Wright4 [6.c.x.]]. 461. The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim. 462. Dr Wright claims, in his chain of custody information, that only he drafted this document. 463. Dr Wright has stated in these proceedings that this was a draft of a document under the name TimeCoin which later became bitcoin. [Exhibit CSW-5] 464. Dr Wright has not disclosed the apparent intermediate document from which this document was created. [PM2 [63]]. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 465. Dr Wright sought to explain away a number of the anomalous findings by saying that both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper were originally created in LATEX and that the commands in the original code accounted for such features as (a) the notes being in a font which was the same as would later be used for tables in the White Paper; (b) the OBJ character; (c) indentation in empty lines corresponding to the size of flowcharts later featuring in the Bitcoin White Paper; and (d) irregularities in hyphenation. See {CSW/2/26} to {CSW/2/28}; {Day3/139:21} to {Day3/152:8}. 466. Dr Wright sought to explain away the content of the document matching the March 2009 version of the Bitcoin White Paper rather than the earlier released versions by claiming that he does not “write things linearly”. He claimed to have used text in this early document, edited it out again in the August and October 2008 versions of the White Paper and then added it back in again for the March 2009 version. See {CSW/2/28} to {CSW/2/29}; {Day3/153:9} to {Day3/154:10}. 467. Dr Wright sought to explain away the irregular metadata by saying that his use of “Xcopy and related tools” somehow accounted for it: {CSW/2/28}. 468. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 468.1. The Bitcoin White Paper was not originally created in LATEX, as convincingly established by the expert evidence of Mr Rosendahl (which was agreed by Dr Wright’s expert, Mr Lynch, in the joint statement). There is equally no basis for saying that this document was originally created in LATEX. Furthermore, no LAT EX.tex file has been provided to support Dr Wright’s account in relation to the creation of this document. 468.2. The use of LATEX to create the document would not account for the presence of the OBJ (object replacement) character, which on the expert evidence is purely and simply an artefact of conversion from PDF: see PM2 [26-28] {H/17/8}. 468.3. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for Dr Wright having predicted in a precursor document precisely the size required for diagrams and having applied coding to mark out indentations for the diagrams in what would be empty space in the document. 468.4. Neither would the use of LATEX to create the document account for there being irregular hyphenation in precisely the points where line breaks appear in the text of the Bitcoin White Paper. Dr Wright could only weakly account for this as him doing “unusual things” and deliberately including irregular hyphenation {Day3/10:11}. This explanation was nonsensical. Further, it assumed that his deliberate inclusion of irregular hyphenation just happened by coincidence to fall in the places where line breaks existed in the Bitcoin White Paper. 468.5. Dr Wright’s explanation for the irregular metadata was at odds with the independent expert evidence. It also assumed that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. 468.6. Dr Wright’s explanation for the content of the document including changes which were made to the Bitcoin White Paper between its 2008 and 2009 versions is inherently unlikely. It also assumes that this irregularity happened by coincidence to co-exist with all the other irregularities, when in fact all suggest backdating. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 469. The explanations gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing confirm his reliance on both this document and the Bitcoin White Paper being based on earlier LATEX files and his allegation that the diagrams were created with LATEX. I find those explanations to be false, in view of my more general finding that the Bitcoin White Paper was not produced in LATEX. Other explanations (the indentations, the supposed ‘steganographic watermarking’ and formatting irregularities) are just a desperate attempt to explain away Dr Wright’s failure to be able to reproduce the Bitcoin White Paper in LATEX. The ‘non-linear’ working explanation (see [468.6] above) is ridiculous, in the light of all the other evidence which clearly indicates that this document was forged by Dr Wright. I so conclude. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Wright's Timecoin ODT Document

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 42. 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 21 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Craig Wright’s Tominaga Nakamoto Document

Stories, News & Mentions about AUTHENTIC

Authentic’s Stories on HackerNoon

Authentic's News & Mentions