Bitcoin Forum

Checkmate Mr Wright.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxslii7

This is pretty much it. You can fool Wired, but you ain't fooling the G.
This guy just got exposed as a ridiculous ego-maniac with an elaborate hoax. He pretty much fits the persona of smart enough to pull such a hoax, ego big enough to want all the attention to go through all those lengths to get the hoax going, yet not smart enough to be Satoshi.

Can someone offer a non-reddit explanation on this PGP backdating evidence?

Thx

This guy delivers a reasonable analogy:


Like let's say you compress a file with a version of 7zip that hasn't even been released yet, yet you claim you used this version back in the time when it didn't even exist. He was using software that doesn't match the date of existence of said software... that would be a simple explanation. But this is even worse since are talking PGP keys.

Dude was a fucking scammer trying to build a bitcoin bank, its sad that people could think this was real.

Craig = Satoshi.  You can't fake most of the facts, and most of those facts fit.  AND the amount of innacurate information, exageration and FUD being propogated is growing so exponentially it is ridiculous.  This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense and drama because "Satoshi" was more fun to believe in as a purely idealistic vision - than to look at through the lens of reality.

Sort of like the whole Jesus concept.  If Jesus really were to come back, today, the first thing religion would do is beat the crap out of him and nail him up to another cross all the while screaming hysterically that he was an fraud.

LOL - same thing going on here.... Seems tech weenies are still just a step evolved above the apes, even with all your loft idealistic talk.  Your "Tech Jesus" has returned, and you scream to crucify him :)  Flippin monkeys.  Just when you think there is actual evolution occurring.  ROFL

LOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria :)

What's the story though?  Reddit is somewhat disjointed on details.

What is the evidence provided by Wright that it supposedly fake? Where does it come from? Why is it provided at all?  I thought he was trying to hide?
How is it clear that he is trying to show that he is Nakamoto?

How is Maxwell not wrong?

It all seems a bit odd...

Look at Nick Szabo's reaction when she asked, "Who are you...?" and they pan the camera over to her... I think he smelled the bullshit way in advance or he knows more than what

he is revealing. I still think Nick is one of a group of people making up the Satoshi Nakamoto team... how ironic that Craig Wright ends up in that panel. I guess we will never know.

I just hope we will know before this person die, I would want him/her to receive all the accolades they deserve.  ;D

Your wrong, in crypto world you have to sign tx/message to prove ownership. He dont deliver this proof of course, you should question why and whether anybody else could claim the same as he did then.

I know

The only person knew and invited Craig was that bitch. Even the organizer does not know Craig.

So the only explanation is she's in this hoax. Probably a group of them. Such a disgrace

LOL dumb ass noob comes here to school us.

Thanks for your wonderful insight....

Easy.  Don't get mad bro.

"Leaked" email....Hello?

But what if Satoshi paid him to be Satoshi?  You guys ever think of that?

No i think you're Satoshi and hiding behind a fcking troll acct. Make alot more sense

If anything, that proves it is him. Specifically, the argument is this:

"PGP key.. its metadata contains cipher-suites which were not widely used until later software."

Craig was building PGP from source himself at the time. It would have included any new/experimental versions of the cipher suites. At the time, he was working with encryption. Go check his Usenet posts.

Exactly what Satoshi is doing by paying Craig to be Satoshi.

I like the part where you actually click on the link, address the evidence presented by Greg Maxwell against Wired's supposed Craigh Wright = Satoshi evidence and address it in a meaningful way, proving Greg is wrong.

wut?

See what Satoshi did there?

That would be the effect of reverse psychology.  Brilliant!  Satoshi is the master of smoke and mirrors.

Craig didn't just claim he was Satoshi.  He has NOT publically claimed to be Satoshi.  It is "discovery" of old posts/emails etc in which he privately admitted it to others in the very early days.  But he NEVER said he was Satoshi in the video, or in any recent communication, and has NEVER done so publically.  The media and the hyped out spreading disinformation trying to paint Craig as a glory seeker have done that.

What is apparent is that the EVIDENCE and the FACTS we have so far are leading to the conclusion Craig = Satoshi.  And it is being compiled without his involvement.   The other thing that is perfectly apparent is that IF the evidence and facts uncovered so far is correct, then every bit of it also points to the fact that he desires privacy, and is pissed that his "gift given freely" somehow creates a thought process in the general monkey population that he is somehow now indebted to you for having given you a gift, and that you have earned the right to destroy his privacy and life.  F%^$ing Selfish Losers.

And yes, he should have known that monkeys will be monkeys true to their nature.  Selfish little prigs.  And yet he grew a bannana tree for you, even though he knew you would just whine for more.

And with all that said.... in ALL worlds, he does NOT have to verify a damn thing to you.

Quick question.  Are you racist?  ;D

Lol, not so sure about the mirrors on this one ;)


Any chance of a bit more info on that? Hadn't bothered looking at this after the presses previous Satoshi screwups but it's starting to get interesting.

I have more legitimate right to be angry than absolutely anyone posting on this forum, except for Craig himself, who I am not, although my situation is similar in parallel way.  I know that it should not make me angry that people act like people do.... but it is frustrating sometimes that there really is no helping most of this species in the end.  You will do what you will do, and you will end as you must.

As a followup, the argument that the preferred hashes "weren't added" to GNUGPG until after 2009 is meaningless. Read RFC 4880:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-9

That is the RFC from November 2007. Now look at section 9.4, the preferred hashes. Hash algorithms 1 through 11 are in there. They are not experimental, they are standard hashes.

GNUPGP was just one of a number of OpenPGP implementations. PGP itself dates back to 1991. OpenPGP to 1997. Looking at the preferred hash list is meaningless.

Start by searching for "Craig Wright AES" in Google Groups (old Usenets posts)

Cheers, not about to jump to any conclusions on it but FUD free facts are much appreciated.

Yes I was watching the video for the same reason.
I looked at Szabo to see his reaction.He showed a very light smile and then covered his mouth with his hands.It was kind of bizarre.
And how got this Craig Wright invited?
In the video it is just said Michele Seven knows him from twitter and invited him.
But who has known this guy before?
This is so weird.
But it would be crazy if he really holds seveal hundred thousands of bitcoins, which ATO might be going for now.

ATO was investigating/working with Craig in parralel.  #1 - because of the bitcoin phenomena, as a gov't they have the responsibility to set the correct precedent.  Craig was starting up a huge bank.  Doing it properly also - sort of like Circle in the U.S. (by that I mean that Dynarius Bnk was being set up according to proper rules/regs.)

If you read one of the referenced transcripts, you will see that as the discussion/decision regarding the "Nature of Bitcoin" decision was evolving - you will see that teh very real possibility that one outcome would be that a REFUND from Gov't to Craig/Dynarius was a real possibility.  You will also see that they not only supported the advancement of the bank, they wee working very hard to get through the mandatory process of setting a firm foundation/definition of how to treat bitcoin - so that they could free up Craig to continue the project as quickly as possible. (READ the transcript - it is all there)

But unless I missed something, at no time was there a realization by ATO that Craig was actually Satoshi.  They were dealing with Huge amounts of Bitcoin, but they were looking at it as investment, trying to figure out what it meant to transfer say 30,000 Bitcoins from Wallet 1 to Wallet 2, and if that defined a change in ownership, how that applied to tax, cross border transactions etc.

WHEN the Craig = Satoshi news broke, they realized that the guy they had been working with was MUCH bigger (in potential amount of bitcoins) than they had previously been aware of.

Craig has now already pretty much concluded his "negotiations" with ATO to a degree that his future activity with the previously undisclosed bitcoins is now covered/protected by the conclusion of previous negotiation.

But of course it is never as simple as one thinks when dealing with Governments, and now Craig is based in London, with moves to Iceland.  Could be ATO is simply "making a show", or it could be they are feeling hoodwinked.

Craig does have a law degree :)

The "Satoshi stash" is probably now protected legally, and available to openly be used to supply all the necessary reserves for his new Bitcoin bank.  Just a thought :)

It seems that this Craig guy had problems with taxes so he may have done this to get some fame, now he will do some interviews in the best paid mainstream media, become rich, pay back the taxes and then retire. Good move.

Again, more uninformed, misleading nonsense.   If a person were patient and intelligent enough to review most of the evidence that is surfacing, before rushing to speak, they might find that....

The "tax problem" is actually pretty specific with Craig's pre-planned(?) attempts to take a small portion of the "Satoshi Stash" and introduce it into the financial network in a way that allowed him to best leverage its use with the most minimal tax/loss scenario, and to influence long term tax treatment.  He did so in a way that allowed him to set a precedent, without unveiling the true scope and size of the actual "satoshi stash" that was the ultimate prize of financial integration.

Again, more evidence of a brilliance of planning and manipulation worthy of Satoshi.

From reddit:


I agree, the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove this guy is Satoshi Nakamoto, you would need to take a leap of faith to do so, which is not an option.

greg maxwell is also an idiot, sooo

These evidences are more than enough to prove that Craig Wright is either a fraud, or a puppet of the big bankers. However, there is a chance that he might be holding hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins. BTC was going at $1 = BTC1,300 in 2010 (New Liberty Standard exchange rate). He might have bought quite a few of them at that time.

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

I doubt Satoshi would use a key in an experimental OpenPGP implementation he had written himself to link his key to the Bitcoin project.

Any good programmer knows software needs testing by a community before it's got any bugs ironed out. All programmers are likely to miss some bugs, which is why beta testing by a community is important.

Why would Satoshi use his own untested beta software for something vitally important when he could use the same reliable software used by everyone else?

FINALLY!  An honest insight into all the frenzy surrounding this.  The word "Bank" simply drives the unrealistic, immature, idealistic branch of the bitcoin community into choking spasms.  LOL

The second that Craig's (=Satoshi's) support for REALISTIC financial evolution of bitcoin into the mainstream became public knowledge, the idealistic dreamers were destined by their own nature to self destruct in hysterical hand wringing and to sink into non productive Hyper-FUD.  ROFLMAO

Ad this is evidenced in a louder and Louder and LOUDER screech of "there is evidence that Craig is a fraud."

AND YET NO EVIDENCE EXISTS, unless you count the hundreds of "OMG - he is a fraud." or "OMG, Newsweek got it wrong a long time ago, so everything will be wrong forever!"

PLEASE,  I BESEECH THEE!  Show the evidence. I dare you :)

Please stop talking about this lunatic  ::)

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used satoshin@vistomail.com (only satoshi@vistomail.com and satoshin@gmx.com), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

And I am very disappointed in you, although that was always a pretty low bar for me to begin with. 

I won't waste to many words except to say that everything you just typed is not "anti-Proof".  You've taken a small sampling of the overwhelming facts, and in the end reduced it to a question mark.... "Why would Satoshi blah blah blah ???????" 

Bottom line is that you don't know how he thinks, or why he might have done what he did, or what possible long term options he may have been considering.  So in the end you are simply another equal voice in the crowd - yet with a recognizable name - with nothing but your desire to not believe.

+1 it's like we're in the twilight zone.

I have learned that at these forums the most provocative, intriguing, and conspiratorial possibility is always the correct assumption. No homework or facts required. It's always aliens or a secret cabal of mysterious players.
This type of thinking should give Satoshi years of cover.  ;)

 

 

That's not true. Just like in maths, you only need 1 case that doesn't match the facts to prove that your theory is incorrect.

A massive mistake like this is enough to prove he is doing this for all kinds of reasons, except for being satoshi..

A massive mistake like what???  Are you suggesting that the Reddit supposition by GMaxwell is definitive "Non-proof"?   Or are you referencing something else?  A) that is not conclusive, and B) it is based on a single small portion of the "Evidence" - that being a text of a purported message from Craig.  Even if GMaxwells argument = fact - it only proves that a single small part of evidence offered is false.

I have 5 cards in my hand.  4 are Aces.  The 5th card is a 2 of clubs.  Now, if I just lied about the 2 of clubs, and it is actually a 5 of diamonds, that doesn't prove that I don't still have the 4 Aces.

C'mon Ken.  You're better than that.

Both parties have got good arguments. Then again all those "email evidence" is nothing because anyone can Photoshop email evidence, it has been done a thousand times before in the past, this is why math is all that matters at the end of the day.

Looks like you just don't want to beleive it is not him because you finally thought you could give satoshi a face and name.
Let him post with his orignial key, and we will all shut up right away and I will also admit my mistake to you.

Until then, he is not satoshi to me.

Could you tell me at which part this exactly is? I don't want to waste my time on "Dr. Craig Idiot". I smelled bullshit the second that I've read the news about this. People like this should be put on the shame list for all eternity.

AndreasMAntonopoulos:
That would be interesting.  ::)

Craig Wright could have been impersonating satoshi for almost 2 years, in order to con private investors. 

"Only you know I'm the creator of Bitcoin, don't tell anyone.  I have a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, but I can't use them until 2020.  That's why I need all your money for this Bitcoin Bank.  You can trust me, I'm already a billionaire."

That would explain why he created fake evidence in 2013 but kept it secret.  This public exposure could have come from his over-excited investors, or maybe he's throwing his net a little wider to see how much more he can get before it falls apart.

Am I the only one to have noticed how hard keepdoing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=546082) keeps pushing everyone to accept that Wright is Satoshi? I smell hidden (not particularly) agenda ::)

Yes :)  Yes I do :)

Yes.

The razor appears strong here.

All other clowns with their "proof" on ignore list.

This is certainly possible. The data so far indicates one of the follow is true.

1) Craig Wright is Satoshi

or
 
2) This is a conspiracy involving multiple individuals in different countries trying to convince us that he is.

or

3) This one of the longest cons ever and Craig Wright started laying the groundwork to convince people he was Satoshi back in 2013.

Personally based on the information presented in the wired and gizmodo article #1 seems possible lots of compelling circumstantial evidence there. However #3 is also possible especially if you can establish a definite profit motive for setting up such a fraud in 2013.    

Edit: Some evidence that there may have been a financial motive involved can be found here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1281650.0
Data provided by Gmaxwell and backdated keys also point towards #3

Same mistake as the CBS scam with Dan Rather peddling documents allegedly from the 70s "proooving" Dubya was a draft dodger, but were typed in MS Word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

tl;dr anachronism

Or 4) he is seeing stuff. He might have lost his mind somewhere during his life and actually believes he is satoshi..
It probably happened in 2013 when he started laying the foundations to prove his claim.

LOL only if his name is changed to keepsucking, it would be perfect

The skeptics have been clear majority in the forum
poll  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1281423.80)right from the start, and on Reddit too.

People love drama. But I'm disappointed that
Gwern, whom I've always held in high regard, fell
for this.

You guys don't understand the motive?


Step 1:  Convince a few rich people that you're satoshi  (you're not satoshi, but you lie)
Step 2:  Convince them that your million bitcoins are locked up until 2020  (you don't have a million bitcoins, but you lie)
Step 3:  They give you millions of dollars to "build a Bitcoin Bank"  (you're not building a Bitcoin Bank, but you lie)
Step 4:  You have millions of dollars  (You never have to work again, and you can buy anything you want)

Are you saying that criminals don't want money, because other criminals also want money?

like lets face it, most people wold'nt have the computing skills to understand if he was scamming or not, they reliy on experienced people to break it down for them.

Good job gmaxwell!

But even without this, I see no reason why anyone would trust Wright to be Satoshi.
Craig Wright is a rich guy. For all I care, he could've easily paid for the Wired article in the first place. Money can do a lot of things.

I'm tired of this total fantasy that there is some hidden element always trying to kill the "rich guy with the bitcoins". There are hundreds of billionaires walking around. You run into billionaires in the NYC subway system. Sure they "might be targets" to some extent, but the idea that someone would not try to scam millions of dollars because "the evil criminal masterminds and lizard people are coming for me" is absurd.

More (and mere) paranoia.

No one else, that I have read so far, is mentioning:

Dr. C. Wright can be verified as being an expert on computer security.  S. Nakamoto has maintained his anonymity for about 6 years now.
It is therefore provable that both Dr. C. Wright and S. Nakamoto know how to practice excellent operational security.

So, I am left wondering: How the hell did this "world's foremost computer security expert" get hacked?

I believe that such a person would only experience a "leak" or "get hacked" if he wanted this to happen.

Smell male bovine excrement?

Motherboard.vice.com agrees with Gmaxwell's discovery that the PGP key is probably backdated, and that Wright is a fraud. Has there been a statement from Wright yet commenting on the PGP key? He'll find it difficult to remain silent much longer with the world's media all over him.

People keep writing here that his computer got hacked, however, I can not read this in the wired-story. They mention that documents, e-mails and so on was leaked. This doesn't necessarily mean that any computer was hacked.

Normally, someone with an agenda leaks documents to the media. And normally, the journalist should know who leakes the material and otherwise discard it for they will not be sure what the answer to the question cui bono is.

Nathaniel Popper mentioned that the documents were offerd to him, too. So maybe he could shed some light on this.

Unfortunately, I must confess: When I first read the story in wired, it looked pretty convincing. But this is how journalism works: You have to write a story which is easily readable.

But we know that the material was offered to several media. Such a fact puts journalists under pressure to publish the story before anybody else will be able to do so.

Still the main question remains: Cui bono...

Hate to be this Craig Wright fellow at this point in time.. Seem the entire community has his eyes on him at the moment.
I'm about 99% sure from what I've seen from the "evidence" brought fourth by this seemingly endless wave of news is that this dude doesn't have the right background nor knowledge to be able to code up something so fancy as bitcoin. Personally hope the real satoshi stays hidden forever.

Fair enough, you do have a point. It seems I must admit to going to the "hacked" phrasing after reading it posted by others, without referring back to the source document, the Weird article.

However, I do also understand why others have used the word "hack" as the trove of emails and documents, in my opinion, would not likely be in the posession of a single third-party person.

ie, business documents, emails, tax/loan/whatever documents. I understand that a person may have friends and business associates, but how does one of the world's most sought-efter enigmas, who has maintained seemingly perfect opsec for YEARS, place all that SENSITIVE material into the hands of another person, especially given that this Dr. C.W guy has a law degree, so he doesn't even need "a lawyer" to sort through his business contracts.

If you say so satoshi. 

what up with his house being raided today by the tax authorities in Australia.....?  there is definitely something strange going on..... :-\

Unrelated to Bitcoin, apparently the guy has a dozen of "scampanies" (scam+companies) and loads of bankruptcy processes.
Also he got Goxxed... I don't think that someone with the BTC amount of Satoshi would bother with Karpeles' rig.
At (at least) one of those "scampanies", BTC was being used for collateral.

Why would he do that? Why this elaborate ruse? Satoshi was safe and sound - no one ever tracked him, he could remain that forever. Why now reach to Wright, pay him for creating this spectacle?
I don't think he is so bored. It has no sense.

Damn you Reverse Psychology!

Do you have evidence from this?

I think you missed where the bank is no more with Craig Wright offering up TWO explanations for its demise, one being he couldn't raise enough capital to see it to fruition.

Which Jesus ?
It's a known fact that there was many Jesus's
The Romans kept killing all of them one after another and they kept pulling another guy out
claiming this time we got Jesus ..again and again.
Not only that but the Egyptians had already made public records claiming the same thing 300+ years before Christ.
ALL OF IT !
The whole baby in a manjor scene to God to the arc of covenant.. ALL of it stolen from Egyptians !
There is soooo much that blows the religion out of the water.
Take the statements in the bible about camels.. well people went and check and there was no camels.

People are liars an ididiots and gullible.. and always have an agenda / selfish ulterior motive LOL

Tech Jesus ?
Naw i figure it was some dood who did stuff on the web or maybe multiple guys.
The kids in awe over their deity probably never accomplished anything on the web ever.
A lot of people have probably come here that are as famous as Satoshi.
And all of them put their pants on one leg at a time i imagine.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kqhau

There are a lot of people, who go to jail for something someone else did, because the person who did the crime, had  money to pay. People sell their kidney for money, why would they not go to jail for someone else?

The only thing they can charge him with, could be tax evasion on capital gains, and that would not stand up in court, because he did not receive any monetary reward from those coins yet. He should have declared the commodity, but what value does he use as a reference?

I think, he did this for the fame and it is a complete hoax. ^hmf^

Isn't the point of Bitcoin that you can be your own bank. Why would satoshi go run off and build a bitcoin bank.

Thanks to gmaxwell, the nail was put into the coffin rather early with this one. Not sure which one I like more yet, Dorian's Choo Choos, or the Tulip Trust in the Seychelles.  :D

There is nothing proving any key was backdated. Starting in 2005/2006, it became clear that SHA1 was weak and that alternatives should be used.

Any argument about it is pointless as the Australian authorities will certainly be determining whether Wright has access to over 1 million bitcoins and whether the contract that "transfers them back to him" in 2020 is legitimate.

Craig White from March 2006, the Security Basics mailing list:

http://seclists.org/basics/2006/Mar/296

"From: Craig Wright [mailto:cwright () bdosyd com au]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:56 PM

...

True, but the argument was not one as to which is the better method.
There are several secure hashing algorithms."

and an individual responds to Craig directly with

"However, there have been numerous news items in the last 18 months about the feasibility of engineering hash collisions with several popular algorithms; hashing must be assumed to provide weaker verification of its property than might have been previously assumed.
(For now, I've recommended that folks using tools that don't yet do SHA-256 or better should use *both* MD5 and SHA-1 -- I don't think anyone has yet described an engineered collision that works with both.)"

and Mr. Wright replies to that.  There are quite a few others, of course, as Mr. Wright is and was quite a prolific writer in 2006 with regards to the topic of public/private keys..

"Web of trust models such as PGP can result in a signature, but the issue of non-repudiation is not fulfilled in that the issuer can not be held to account separately (as it is a self signed certificate). In situations where the parties have had prior dealings, it may be possible to verify the owner of the public key, for example, at a personal meeting, parties may exchange public keys on floppy disks (eg key signing parties). However, if the parties are unknown to each other, and perhaps in different jurisdictions, the requisite level of....

Regards
Craig"

Want to read more? You don't have to take my word for it. Head over to Google Groups (Usenet Archive)

https://groups.google.com/

and search for:

"Wednesday, March 22, 2006" "craig wright"

Search for "Craig" in the output and start from there.

Maybe the Seclist and Google's archive of Usenet has been hacked and backdated? :)

Lol I knew that when I heard it on the news, this guy would be a fraud.
No way the real sathosi would come out like this. I don't think it will ever be known who it really or who they really are.

Supposing you were right, You don't find it odd that he generated
first one key with the exact same hash preference that GnuPG used
at the time, and then, on the very next day, happened to change
his preferences to the exact same order that was introduced later
into the GnuPG codebase as default?

I'd say that was a remarkably prescient feat, or perhaps GnuPG
developers simply adopted his approach, him being a genius whiz and all.

I had not looked at the GnuPG source when I wrote that comment. I knew he was building from source. When I looked at the source back in time and the spec, it was clear the hashes were not experimental, they were part of the standard hashes. If you want to see the hashes Mr. Wright generated himself, under his own name, they are littered around the web with date stamps that can't be modified.

I am taking the information in context. I have seen his blog post referencing bitcoin from Jan 2009. It has no evidence of being backdated as I am looking at the version stored in the web archives when the page was crawled in prior years. His blog post from Jan 2009 specifically references the beta of bitcoin "going live tomorrow" and "Some good coders on this. The paper rocks.".

The archive of the "bitcoin launch" post has been removed from the normal places on the web as attempts have been made to delete it.

But a little work digs them up with dates.

The "bitcoin launch" post dates from Jan 2009. It was subsequently modified/removed in 2015. Mr. Wright did not state he was even involved in that project in the post. It just shows that he knew of bitcoin before it launched.

The post was crawled in 2014 and there is evidence of it being there in 2013. If you want to see them yourself, go ahead. Here is the archived post from "2 Jun 2014 02:28:10 UTC"

http://archive.is/oe1fh

If you don't believe that is the date (as the dates presented in the top are a bit confusing), this should clear it up:

http://archive.is/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2009_01_04_archive.html

The post is near the bottom with the version archived from 2 June 2014 and the version that was updated in 3 Oct 2015 where he removed the "bitcoin launch" section.

Additionally, look at this page and search for "bitcoin"

https://archive.is/offset=2060/gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au

You will find:

original 17 Oct 2013 08:55:10 from
http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/bitcoin.html


which says a page was found by the crawler on his blog with a publish date of Jan 2009 and with the page name of "bitcoin.html". That link was archived by the crawler on 17 Oct 2013

Now, in 2013, did Mr. Wright go create a page called bitcoin.html and add it to his Jan 2009 blog entries? The number of entries did not change.

If the "bitcoin launch" page existed in Jan 2009, would you still say he faked it? Or would you say "it still doesn't say he was involved in the creation of it".

That blog has now been completely removed.

It wasn't even _in_ the software until a year later; by "the software" I mean the actual commit that introduced that selection. Building from source wouldn't have done it, because it wasn't in the source.

Someone can customize their pref hashes; sure; but managing to predict the exact selection and order that the software would use later?  While also, later that day, building another key that was bog standard for the time (1024 bit DSA, normal flags) and making that one public.  Come on.  The forged blog posts should have been enough.

To start with, I see no reason why someone wouldn't generate PGP keys with two different pieces of software. Especially if one was run under Windows and one under a variant of Linux. The "entropy" post made my Mr. Wright that contained a PGP key talks about "/dev/random" and such showing he was working on a Unix (Linux) variant.

However, there is an argument I find more compelling that things have been backdated.

And that is the blog post from 2008.

Specifically, this one:

https://archive.is/HWfzH

which was grabbed by the crawler in March 2014.

It contains a PGP key with this up front:

"Version: SKS 1.1.4
Comment: Hostname: pgp.mit.edu"

The article stating there may have been backdating states that the key was not in the blog post in 2013 because there was a Google Reader cache version found that showed it was likely modified in 2013. I can't find a Google Reader cache version like that as the Google Reader product was discontinued by Google and the archive they have doesn't appear to have much as far as the web goes.

But ignoring that, the key says "Version: SKS 1.1.4".

That shouldn't have been there until 2012. Specifically:

https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2012-10/msg00010.html

The crawler grabbed it March 2014 so the key would have had to been edited in earlier than March 2014. And I agree that is a sign that posts were modified after the original publish date.

As Mr. Wright and his partner have/had a long background in computer forensics, this will be one tangled and extremely messy pile of spaghetti either way.

My personal belief is that it is him, along with his partner, and the rest of the developers. And I believe the launch post was an unedited post. And I believe the bitcoin community will rally around trying to discredit him as the founder at any cost. But I will also take the facts as they come out. And they will, one way or the other.

So he wanted his five minutes of widespread reputation but as soon as the story went public he got raided by the australian police. It seems clear that this guy is not Satoshi but I'm wondering why all this making by Wired and gizmodo? I don't think this is only to sell more copies or to get more traffic.
I'm really curious about what will happen to this poor new "oswald", if you know what I mean.

You can see the Crypto mailing list archive with the bitcoin 0.1 announcement here:

http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/date.html#15029

You can also see a post from Dave Kleiman some days later:

[heise online UK] Secure deletion: a single overwrite will do it   Dave Kleiman

So, as a member of the mailing list, he was certainly at least aware of bitcoin at its launch.

Mr. Wright was a partner with Mr. Kleiman on the paper they were discussing at the time.

Specifically, the Crypto group post Kleiman was responding to stated (among other things):

"Craig Wright, a forensics expert, claims to have put this legend finally to rest. He and his colleagues ran.."

So, Mr. Wright, undoubtedly, was also at least aware of bitcoin at its launch date.

The original version of bitcoin was developed under Windows. Mr. Kleiman was named a MVP for Windows - Security in 2007 and wrote a number of books on Windows development and security. The Satoshi key referenced by the article was generated under Windows, according to
the description. Mr. Wrights posts mostly deal with Linux.

Oh, cut me a break, welcome to IGNORE list. Jesus, some people on this forum are just mentally insane. There can't be another explanation for this level of denial and paranoia.

Quoted from one of my threads:


I think it's clear where his loyalties lay.

For all future sleuths attempting to dox a fraudulent Satoshi: just ask them to move a half million btc around from their original stash as proof. If they can't, they're full of shit.

That will be quite difficult for Satoshi himself as most of his alleged  coins are spread around a ton of wallets right? The best and only sure way is by signing a message with the original key.

Bullshit, when I was mining I had maybe 50 wallets going at once. They certainly could do it. In fact, I think anyone that keeps all their btc in one wallet on one computer is as big an idiot as one that keeps all his fiat in one bank.

I've no doubts Craig is an old bitcoiner, older than myself, but not Satoshi.

they should fight with szabo on a rign and make strem by streamium

So Satoshi knew SHA1 was weak, so he generated 2 keys. He used the weak key publicly, and didn't use the strong key. How does that make any sense to you?

https://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/5310155/il_570xN.241907430.jpg

Both keys were stored in a lockbox locked via a skeleton key hidden under a rock near Satoshi's front door of his home.

I think you're Craig wright ;D

Stop defending the lying piece of shit, we all know he's lying. Sure, he has some compelling evidence, but deeper research into that evidence shows that it's fake.

You... Calling us tech weenies? Nice work, Jr member


Wait... What?

Ha-ha, you just got GG'd.

Usually people take great pains to sync up their PGP keys across all their machines if they plan on actually using them. Otherwise if they received an encrypted file what should they do? Take the file to each computer and keep running gpg until they got to one that decrypted properly? Lol.

Besides, even if 2 keys were owned by the same person using the same friendly name for both is pretty retarded.

Thank you for the sleuthing. Maxwell has demonstrated on occasions that he doesn't do thorough enough analysis to question his own biases and lashes out at others.

Theymos how about the possibility (and almost a certainty) that Satoshi isn't one person and that this Craig Wright is asserting his role. He mentions working in a group on research and also mentions having other "beta coders" involved.

I haven't researched the case enough to form an opinion on the likelihood he is a scammer or other motive.

Readers make sure you read my prior post as well. I posted twice just now.

She and Craig tweeted back and forth prior to the conference.

Honestly I think there was really only one motive for Craig to try a stunt like this... He was probably feeling insignificant in the tech world and was reading up that the real "Satoshi" was up for the Nobel Peace Prize and other awards.  Scientist, Doctors, or pretty much any academic minded person dreams of winning something like this, that's a fact.  I think his ego got the best of him and felt like he deserved something like this, along with the prize money that came along with it. 

It's hard to fathom what was really going through his mind, but I feel like this is the only legit motive for someone to try something like this, not to mention getting mentioned and talked about by everyone in the tech world.  He craves some kind of attention.

i think it was because of a girl ;-)
maybe he bragged a little too much and instead of confessing he believed he can convince the world

I offer a theory. I am not claiming this theory is correct or even likely. Take it as one example of why circumstantial assumptions are not the same as irrefutable mathematical proofs.


Did Wright ever claim he is Satoshi? My vague recollection of what I have perused thus far is he wrote something akin to his level of involvement would be coming out soon. And that he had represented to others that he was deeply involved with Bitcoin. But did he actually claim to be Satoshi? I haven't seen such a quote implicating that he made such an explicit claim.

So given the above assumption, why is everyone analyzing whether the man is Satoshi and blaming him for claiming that he is?

Let me assume (without having studied deeply all the background evidence) that he has represented to others that he has a special involvement with Bitcoin. And that he is even doctoring signatures to make it look like he was involved since 2009. If his motive was not to prove to the public he is Satoshi but rather to convince to some investors or Australian investment board that he had deep involvement with Bitcoin (leaving the question of whether he is Satoshi or not an intentional enigma), then he may not have cared about getting every last detail correct on the back-dated PGP public keys. He may have been doing the minimum level of publicity to assert this position to those who he had such a motive to convince. Thus a back-dated public key doesn't necessarily indicate he intended to deceive the Bitcoin community-at large or even that he has no bonafide deep connections.

One plausible possibility is that he was somehow connected to the real Satoshi and somehow that relationship soured or changed in such a way that he now has to fabricate data in order to protect the investments and/or commitments he had formed. For example, what if Kleiman was Satoshi (or was the liason to Satoshi) and Kleiman unexpectedly died in 2013 (of an antibiotic resistant staph infection) so Wright has to meet his ongoing commitments somehow.

In other words, I doubt very much that Satoshi was one person. Bitcoin was likely created by some highly secretive group. Maybe that group had some subcontractors. Maybe Kleiman was connected. Maybe Wright rode the coattails of Kleiman. Kleiman dies, Wright tries to rewrite history to maintain the continuity.

My plea is please be more objective and less brash at jumping to conclusions. Reality is sometimes not as binary (black and white). Rationality and reason should prevail if we are to be a sane community.

Again I am not asserting this theory is likely. I too have strong intuitions that Wright is caught up in some level of deception or gaming the system.


The real "Satoshi" (or multiple people) may be dead. If it was a highly secretive plot then it is plausible if not also probable the creators have conveniently died of "natural causes" to preserve the secrecy. It is virtually implausible that the national security agencies don't know who the real Satoshi is/was. Delve a little bit into the impossibility that a government level power was not involved in planting the military-grade nano-thermite that toppled the WTC towers on 9/11. Be realistic. And in that case of 9/11, the discovery phase of evidence has been extensive and is beyond-any-reasonable-doubt. And is nearly irrefutable, but still not a mathematical proof.

As I remember the accounts we associate with Satoshi stopped communicating after the publicity started for Bitcoin. And afair (from reading his post) he stated the publicity was one of the issues. This doesn't indicate a fear of the NSA, but rather a fear of the public sector. Normally a person afraid of harassment from sovereign powers wants publicity in order to gain more security. That is one of the small tidbits of circumstantial evidence that lead me to believe that Satoshi was connected to the secret and powerful groups behind the curtain of governmental level power. I wish Satoshi was a Libertarian phenomenon. I have contemplated scenarios where the truth is a mix of both, e.g. a group of researchers outsmarts their handlers. The latter point was inspired by Eric Raymond's blog (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3335) about how the researchers outsmarted the government in order to create the internet. In other words, you build a system that you know is flawed and will end up handing the power to the government because it can't scale without being controlled by the professional miners and exchanges which can be easily located and regulated. But you outsmart your handlers by realizing that you will launch a paradigm that will be improved by the community and in a grassroots manner it will subvert the government while the government is lost in complacency thinking they have Bitcoin regulation under control. Or an alternative scenario (and the one I favor) is a powerful group wants to destroy the nation-state Central banking and the nation-state currencies and finance systems to accelerate the move to a one-world reserve currency and the netizens using electronic currency. This powerful group might think they benefit from such a transition and also given that electronic currency is more traceable than physical cash (well at least so far that seems to be the case but I had a new relevation recently that maybe Zerocash is the only technology that can liberate from that reality that IP addresses can be correlated to human identities). Another possibility is Bitcoin was created by some developer (or developers) from Bittorrent realm as they would have had the requisite P2P network and decentralization experience (and libertarian ideals motivation), but based on my interaction with them (https://web.archive.org/web/20130401040049/http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?id=28) about decentralized tit-for-tat economics back in 2008, I think that is less likely.

I favor the scenario where Wright is either just another person gaming and trying to make money in the Bitcoin ecosystem, or at best he is a pawn of the people who are really behind the creation of Bitcoin. Or perhaps Satoshi was a lone brilliant engineer, but I place the odds of that at very near to 0. Even the smartest people can't work and develop without collaboration. To execute what Satoshi did as a loner, would be amazing nearly beyond belief.

Craig is no one else but a poor soul looking for some self promotion if you ask me! Nothing more!

He's an early adopter that thought he could get away with being Satoshi. I mean why is it even a question "why would he do it?" isn't it clear? Being satoshi is like the ultimate street creed in the technology/hacker world, you would get royal treatment everywhere. Sure you would have a lot of haters specially on the banking industry and whatnot, but that doesn't outdo the massive positive output you would get in your area which is technology.

So he did it in the past.

Does Gavin know about this?

Interesting approach, but could he really assume, it would be so easy to convince Gavin in this fully insecure environment? Wouldn't he expect some real Bitcoin legend developers can demand a cryptographic proof in a controlled environment instead?
I am not a security expert, but I think I would have sent a "Sign a message with the 2008 PGP key or gtfo" message to Craig when he was trying to get me as a witness.

Considering it was plastered all over the news and BTC related forums/websites much as it is "Wright" now (get it :)) I think it is safe to assume that yes Gavin did know about the previous incident.

No offense, but what is more surprising with your member status is how you were unaware of his (Craig Wright's) previous hoax attempt.