Bitcoin Forum

Craig is not satoshi

I remember seeing this conference back in the day (well, it was not a long ago) and the guy didn't impress me at all. I still think Szabo has way more chances at being Satoshi. Also you are not making anyone a favor by continuing with the Dr. Craig Wright (Satoshi Nakamoto) thing. You could say, "rumored to be" and not (Satoshi Nakamoto) because that's just bullshit.

Also invented time travel -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1282144.0

"(Part B) Dr. Wright says people are looking at Bitcoin too small (Bitcoin is more than money). In Machine Code, there are none of these limitations. We have a rather rich instruction set in Bitcoin. It's just not well defined. Ethereum is out there developing a new stack because they think we can't loop. But you can in Bitcoin. You have to use a separate control stack. It's not like other control codes where you only have a single stack. It can all be done in the Bitcoin protocol."

This part is interesting, this is the first time I heard about that bitcoin is turing-complete, unlike other guys claimed. If he indeed can demonstrate the implementation in multiple stack, then no doubt he is the most knowledgeable one in bitcoin architecture

Now now - calm down there - lets not jump to the possible conclusion that "he is the most knowledgeable one in bitcoin architecture" because g-d forbid then someone might jump to the conclusion that he actually IS Satoshi.  And then you've got some on here that might start drooling and talking to themselves as their minds implode.

And of course, if he IS running a scam just to get publicity, it's so obvious that he'd go over the top with obvious outlandish claims he could never hope to backup - thereby sealing his future fate as being uncovered as a fake.   I mean - that is the normal modus operendi of scam artists????  Yes?  Intentionally choose a course that has a 100% chance of ending in "You're busted"?

PS.... to OP, this is an excellent summary reference.  Thank you.

And his view about fiat currency and property rights aligns very well with the spirit of bitcoin

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

Proof?

Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Opinions are like buttholes, we all have one.

Wow. So we now know who the inventor of Bitcoin is. This is great. I have always wondered who the real Satoshi was and now we know. And nice summary, by the way.

Did you not just see the evidence that he provided? Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin, deal with it.

Do we have a mathematical proof? Until he provides mathematical proof that he is satoshi, he is a bum.

no he is not, he did not proves anything about signing a msg, he is a confirmed impostor

why people believe everything so easily is beyond me

I am giving below a previous my post which analyze such kind of definition given by Dr. Wright (alias Satoshi Nakamoto). I am curious to learn his opinion about my thoughts and interpretations, but not being me Gavin Andresen with who he had privileged partnership, this my hope can be archived. Who know if I will be ably to sleep tonight after this disillusion. Below the my previous post (only it is replaced the name of the previous poster with the name of Dr. Wright):

But lets go to the facts. According to Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp :

1. A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade.

2. Any good exchanged during commerce, which includes goods traded on a commodity exchange.

So, according to Dr. Wright, we have a basic good that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. It is clear that bitcoin is a commodity because all the things bought with it are of the same type of it. All the computer bought at Dell with bitcoin, all the xBox bought at Microsoft with bitcoin and all the other things bought at internet with bitcoin (porn, movies, gambling etc.) are at the same type with bitcoin. Have its qualities (so with all of those can be bought everything), are an invention of a peer to peer technology and are all within internet (so don't exist out of it). More convincing arguments than the above Dr. Right cannot find.

Then, always according to Dr. Right, commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. Sure, Dr. Right learn to all us that bitcoin is used widely to produce all the above things bought by it. So bitcoin is used as input in the production of computers, xBox, in the producing of porn, movies, gambling etc. Who of us have not tasted a very good porn make and played from bitcoin itself. Another undeniable argumentation made by Dr. Right.

For me are enough those arguments to not go further. Who want to go forward can continue with the other arguments made from this brave, sure and deep cognitive of bitcoin.

Maybe needed to do ever one definition which fulfill the above argumentation of Dr. Right and without which can be created some doubt about everything written above. What is the meaning of good.

According to Wikipedia https://en.hwikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics) (https://en.hwikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics)):

In economics, a good is a material that satisfies human wants and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (also called goods) and services, which are non-physical.

Then always according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property :

Tangible property in law is, literally, anything which can be touched, and includes both real property and personal property (or movable property), and stands in distinction to intangible property.

The big Dr. Right tell in this case only one important thing which is a devastating argument in support of its inspiring theory: bitcoin is a good (commodities) which is a tangible property: so which can be touched (as it is written in the above definitions). Who of us have not touched with his hands the beautiful coin (commodity) named BITCOIN.

Craig Wright is correct. You are not.

Craig is not the author. He had the wrong signature. You can find proof by Gavin

We have another Craig Wright here. Very determined and sure in those which told. Very short in argumentation. Sign of superiority. So no need to give other interpretations about the meaning of the only one sentence bring by him to argues its having right. It is enough to give those. Everyone who read is capable to understand all.

Good. Pleasure to have read your post. But you must be more crafty in doing posts and in arguing your thoughts and those of Dr. Wright (alias Satoshi Nakamoto, presented as such without the request of no one). Otherwise cannot be credible.

According to your source must be told even that what is written after your supposed crushing sentence. Even me will try to be very short (like you) in this post. If I will be able. Because not anyone is so smart like you to give a book full with intensive and very deep thoughts within only one sentence.

FIRST

According to Wikipedia (your source):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity)

In economics, a commodity is a substantially fungible marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. Economic commodities comprise goods and services.

So it is a little different about what has given who need war and make fear. Then at the same page are given more explanations about such concept (a few down). I am giving below all the paragraph (not for the needed for war - who make fear because he don't need such explanations; it is very prepared about such matter and have no need for those) in order that everyone make its interpretations with his mind and only after reading EVERYTHING has to do with the matter in discussion given by the war needed.

Types of commodity

The term commodity is specifically used for an economic good or service when the demand for it has no qualitative differentiation across a market. In other words, a commodity good or service has full or partial but substantial fungibility; that is, the market treats its instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them. As the saying goes, "From the taste of wheat, it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist." Petroleum and copper are other examples of such commodities, their supply and demand being a part of one universal market. Items such as stereo systems, on the other hand, have many aspects of product differentiation, such as the brand, the user interface and the perceived quality. The demand for one type of stereo may be much larger than demand for another.

In contrast, one of the characteristics of a commodity good is that its price is determined as a function of its market as a whole. Well-established physical commodities have actively traded spot and derivative markets. Generally, these are basic resources and agricultural products such as iron ore, sugar, rice. Soft commodities are goods that are grown, while hard commodities are ones that are extracted through mining.

There is another important class of energy commodities which includes electricity, gas, coal and oil. Electricity has the particular characteristic that it is usually uneconomical to store; hence, electricity must be consumed as soon as it is produced.

All the other explanations given below this paragraph are various interpretations of it or development of it but NOT SOMETHING THAT CHANGE IT. Everything important of the above paragraph is treated in my previous one rejected with only sentence with very few words by the who need war and make fear.

But lets leave me. As everyone can see with his eyes, this paragraph taken from the source of the above poster (the one who need war and make fear), is full of interpretations and facts given exactly for and about bitcoin. Especially the part with copper (the main material used in the alloy who create the touchable commodity (good) named bitcoin). End here with this point.

SECOND

Even in this case is not important or needed to give the second point in correlation with the discussion we are having there (because is enough only the part of the words given after the words of the the One who need war and make fear), I must tell only for being correct with myself and to someone who maybe don't know this fact, that Wikipedia cannot be never source more credible than a dictionary of the field in which is discussed. My source is "Investopedia" which is a source much more specialized in the field we are discussing than Wikipedia. So even if Wikipedia may have something that can oppose to my words cannot be credible. It is way away as a financial source compared to Investopedia. Normally such things happens because in economics there are various schools of thoughts and it is not rare that to many situations or concepts can be different (even not less) from one another. But it is not the case in this discussion. As everyone can see there is nothing different in both sources. There was only a small trickery of the who need war and make fear.

So dear poster who need war and make fear what have to tell about the above written by me? Please reject me again only with one sentence with not more than 2-3 words. Otherwise will be not more yourself.  ;)

so many proof all this days. Do your research and you can easy find out the proof that you want. Fake crypto keys, fake blog posts, fake supercomputer, fake education. This guy is completly fake.

Three of his Masters degrees were confirmed by one of the universities.

How many Masters degrees do you have?

Your level of contempt for someone who has done nothing to you is akin to this group of monkeys I saw on YouTube viciously murdering one of their brethren.

To have a master is not a proof to be Satoshi. This guy is completly fake the evidence says that.
Now if you want to believe that this scammer is Satoshi do whatever you want. I dont think anyone care :P

He claimed to have at least one PhD from Charles Sturt University, but that university denied ever awarding him a PhD. If he hasn't got any PhDs he's not entitled to call himself a doctor. He's being prosecuted by the Australian tax office, and his super computer doesn't exist according to the company he claims helped make it.


http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/12/11/2147499/doubts-grow-over-craig-s-wrights-connection-to-satoshi-nakamoto/

*Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Opinions are like buttholes, we all have one*     >.> wtf


*Your level of contempt for someone who has done nothing to you is akin to this group of monkeys I saw on YouTube viciously murdering one of their brethren.*


Oh thank god it's really TPTB

I have not been able to confirm that he claimed PhDs from CSU. I read he also studied in London. I heard on video he claimed 3 masters degrees and maybe 2 doctorates but he also said, "I forget exactly what I have".

He has 3 more Masters degrees than most of you do.

And he apparently was mining Bitcoin. I can't see where he has claimed to be Satoshi. It is true that miners run Bitcoin. If he was mining back in 2009 and had spent the $1 million he claims on mining equipment, then he was likely literally running Bitcoin. And he may have a lot of mined BTC.

Why do you hate him for mining Bitcoin?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/who-is-craig-wright-and-how-likely-is-it-that-hes-behind-bitcoin

To be an early miner not mean that you are and Satoshi. Many ppl do mining this days.
This Craig was a cook in 92' and after 20 years he forget how many master and degrees he has.. oκ The story seems legit..   ;D

Sorry TPTB. This time will be me extremely short. More than you. Read this article and will find the answer about your level of knowledge about Dr. Wright (to not forget alias Satoshi Nakamoto declaring this without asked by no one):

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/ (http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/)

Oh, so Satoshi thinks it's a commodity. Interesting.

I don't really agree but Satoshi said it.

It's kinda disappointing if indeed there is a role of government on Bitcoin

An economic commodity only requires it be a fungible good. It is doesn't require it be a tangible good.

Do you wish to argue Bitcoin is not a fungible good?

You do realise that the guy does not have a PhD and has been therefore falsely calling himself a "doctor"?

Also his master degrees are actually not very valuable at all (it is not such a secret that you can easily buy degrees at secondary universities in Australia).

It is pretty clear that this guy is basically a conman and the personality of Satoshi (from the posts he made) does not seem to match that at all.

Learn to read. No where in that article does Wright claim to be Satoshi.

He appears to be professional Bitcoin miner.

He did appear to encourage people think he was closely associated with Satoshi by using keys and email addresses that were similar enough that the most people wouldn't notice the difference, but he never appears to claim that. Obviously he is not stupid enough to believe no one would notice the differences. Think it out.

My guess is he was using these methods to gain funding to mine with.

Is that a crime?

That might be an efficient way to raise money for mining. Give the impression you are running a research and development operation (i.e. obtaining a supercomputer), while using the raised funds to mine BTC.


Every person is free to judge the value of any certificate. Afaik, that doesn't make it a crime.

Some people have certificates and act like dunces or assholes. I could really careless. All I care is what did he do to us that gives us the contempt to judge and attack this man?

He hasn't done a damn thing to harm me. What did he do to you CIYAM? Are you a control freak that puts your nose up every anus for no reason? I thought we are a libertarian community?


No it is not clear. He may be a clever marketer.

Where is your proof he broke the law?

Where is the victim? Victimless crimes are a perfect example of white people who own Volvos and want to fuck with everyone else's life so their sidewalks won't have cracks.

Do you expect everyone to run their life the way you would? Without a crime against a victim, I have no reason to hate the man. I don't want to make the world a perfect hell.

I don't believe currency has to be a commodity at all. Did tallysticks serve any purpose other than as a currency? Was colonial script a commodity? What about greenbacks?

You are trying to fit something into a mold that doesn't exist. Just because money has typically been a commodity does not mean it has to be.

I'm saying separate currency from commodity in general.

You saying a commodity does not have to be tangible is essentially an oxymoron.

Yes it is (at least in Australia and I mean to put the letters PhD after your name when you don't actually have one not the term "doctor" as a title which is only a crime if you are pretending to be a medical doctor which of course doesn't require a PhD in the first place) - I also suggest you stop with the ad-hominims on everyone that is simply pointing out the obvious (that the guy is a fraud).

I'm a bit new to all this, I saw lots of thing about this guy and as far as I saw he never claimed to be Satoshi.
But what are you talking about when saying he had the wrong signature? I don't understand!

Study the definition of the word fungible.

Currencies of exchange are fungible, otherwise they don't function very well.

One of the properties of money is fungible (so as to be an efficient unit-of-exchange).

The phrase "economic commodity" does not mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean raw materials.

It's an oxymoron by the very definition of commodity.

So let it be proven then. I have not yet seen a conviction.

I have written nothing against your person. Quote me to prove otherwise. You can not find a single ad-hominem statement against you.

I am saying that people (not just you) who think they are the judge and jury, are violating due process.

Obvious without due process. Is that the kind of fucked up world you want to live in?

Additionally I personally think victimless crimes are part of the apparatus that we want to destroy in the Libertarian world.

I don't understand why you feel both compelled and entitled to attack someone on issues which have not been proven with full evidence discovery process.

You can not prove he has broken the law. You have not done discovery on his entire educational background. And you also haven't proven that he definitively claimed he has 2 doctorates. Even in the conference video, he qualified that statement with, "I am not sure what I have".

He may be a conman, but we don't yet have irrefutable proof. And we need some victims to come forth.

In economics, the definition for commodity is not the same as the general definition for commodity.

You are a n00b non-economist, thus you use the wrong definition. That is not Wright's error. It is yours.

Well the ATO are pretty sure that he didn't *have* what he claimed to as they don't just randomly raid homes in search of evidence against someone they think has defrauded them of 45M AUD.

Seriously - I am not saying whether or not he is guilty of anything (it is up to the legal system to decide that) but his attitude and actions are completely at odds with the Satoshi that used to post on this forum (and much more aligned with the sort of things you'd expect from a conman).

It is strange as to why you are defending this guy so badly - perhaps he is the marketing guy you are wanting for your new coin? (if so you might want to reconsider that strategy) ;)

I can't make judgements about the ATO because I am not privy to all the findings in the case.

I already stated numerous times that I can't find any where he claimed to be Satoshi.

You are judging a man for something he hasn't even claimed.

I have already realized what is really going on pyschologically. The Bitcoin supporters view Satoshi as an idol or a God. And they will react irrationally to slay any personality that is counter to their ideals of that idol.

This is precisely the pattern of MOB religion which causes ISIS to cut off the limbs of girls and the Christian Crusades.

Humans never seem to learn...



Is it strange that I fight for libertarian ideals consistently because I am not a fake (min)anarchist.

The last part made me chuckle. My marketing plan doesn't depend on any person nor aggrandizing my own reputation. It depends only what the users want and will do about what they want.

I never said that "he said he was Satoshi" so please don't put words into my mouth (a bad habit that you seem to have for someone who supposedly cares so much for accurate details).

The stuff about his qualifications came from the Perth university in question so it is a fact that he had false qualifications in his LinkedIn profile (the university stated as much).

About whether or not he is a conman - sure I'll accept that as an "opinion" (you can call it a judgement if you like although I am willing to change my mind if evidence to the contrary appears).

Ok, prove it. Find literature to support what you are saying and post it.

I don't feel compelled to your homework for you. You are entitled to remain as ignorant as you wish.

The opening sentence at Wikipedia is a guide. You can research deeper if you wish. Or you can continue to spout nonsense and those who have done some research in economics will continue to tell you are wrong.

You might start on the origins of money and why raw materials were originally used for fungible exchange. The conflation began there.

Edit: Nick Szabo can help you:

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html

And Mises:

https://mises.org/library/origin-money-and-its-value

Figured as much. Until you do you are full of shit. All you are is one personal attack after another.

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

It's not commodity money. It just isn't. Just because you are twisting the definition of commodity to suit your purposes doesn't make it so. I'm sorry.

Szabo and Mises disagree. Perhaps you've never read them. Which should be evidence to you of your ignorance of the subject matter.

It is always like that with Dunning-Kruger fools. They tell the expert that the expert is full of shit because the expert is too busy to do the schooling for the person who is too lazy to do it for themselves.

Sigh. Go read the damn links I provided you.

Ha, ha. The Big warrior is back. With its ignorance and the security of the ignorant. At the beginning I guessed that was a crafty but seems that is an poor person. Who cannot understand what is written. And making the crafty. Or I'm wrong. Who knows. ???  The Big warrior who need war and make fear is to deep to be understood. Anyhow Warrior, your above brilliant twenty words excellent two sentences has an answer since my first post (which, as I see is totally incomprehensible for you).

Short explanation (without references):

The being "tangible" is an essential quality of the being "good". And not directly connected with  the being an "economic commodity". But being the economic commodity or good or services (and nothing else) and being bitcoin classified as a "good" within the economic commodities (because of you and Dr. Wright) mean that an "economic commodity" FOR SURE (as a "good") must be tangible. I hope that you and Dr. Wright don't classify bitcoin as a service. If so I have no words and explanations to do.

This kind of reasoning is called logic dear need for war who make fear. Do you know you what is this? As a conclusion (always using the logic as above made) your game of words given as scientific answer must go and must do to your friends with whom make war games with Xbox.

Long explanation (with references) is given to my first post. Read it again need for war who make fear (if capable to understand and if will be able to understand what does it mean logic). Or better I'm giving again only the part which interests this discussion here:

According to Wikipedia https://en.hwikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics):

In economics, a good is a material that satisfies human wants and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (also called goods) and services, which are non-physical.

Then always according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property :

Tangible property in law is, literally, anything which can be touched, and includes both real property and personal property (or movable property), and stands in distinction to intangible property.

Dear Warrior who need war and make fear, concentrate your sharp attention at the words in bold and with colors if you will find yourself unable to understand all the sentences. And then answer to this my question: In which day of the week you have touched a bitcoin?

You can find all the long explanation in my first post made in this thread. I hope that you will not made more such "intelligent" and "provocative" posts (telling me to prove things that everyone know that are true like the bought of everyday bread with bitcoin at the bakery because bitcoin is a fungible good) because are in vain with me. I have seen very many warriors like you in my life. And even you make me fear i will be able to vanish my big fear and confront you.  :o  :o

Let me pose this question. What purpose does a bitcoin have other than money? Can use a bitcoin for anything else....not talking blockchain now?

in this video he is only bragging. Besides I don't see him saying something significant, just plain old shit

The guy is clearly a Wacko conman. I guess this was all a marketing staging. The guy needs someone to finance his company so he went out playing Satoshi...

Relevant:
http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/09/20/united-states-bitcoin-regulated-by-cftc-irs-fincen-sec-and-what-next/ (http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/09/20/united-states-bitcoin-regulated-by-cftc-irs-fincen-sec-and-what-next/)

"While CFTC calls bitcoin a commodity, other departments like Internal Revenue Services (IRS), Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) are not far behind. Each of the different organizations classifies bitcoin as property, money and currency respectively. This kind of classification can throw anyone off balance, mostly by wondering how one thing can be everything the financial world could have ever thought of, especially when it is supposed to be decentralized, secure and transparent."

This guy is not satoshi he is just a braggart trying to get attention to himself well he might find himself in trouble with doing this. ::)

I agree with the guys saying that it is easy to proof he is him by signing or providing math evidence. To try to convince people he is Satoshi giving other (more complicated) proof, makes not much sense.

You gotta change the title of this thread. There's nothing factual about it. Craig Wright is not the confirmed inventor of Bitcoin (nor Satoshi Nakamoto).

He's suspected of it, but even the writer of the WIRED article didn't truly believe that this guy is Satoshi. There's so much after the fact (post dated) blog post edits and such that support manipulation of the truth.

I hope people are reading all the facts about this and keeping a fair mind about it.

Satoshi probably doesn't exist. I can't believe Bitcoin was invented by one guy, Satoshi is probably a team, not just one person. I don't see it possible otherwise, unless he's a fucking genius.

But what I don't understand is that you're all talking about a "mathematical proof". What kind of proof are you expecting?

Perhaps when he named this computer "tulip," he spelled it two-lip, meaning double-speak.

 ;D

Watching this video made me cringe and stopped watching after like 4 minutes... It's just pretty obvious to me he is trying to make him self seem more prominent than what he probably really is.  He may have been a very early adopter and knew a lot about the code and probably worked with Satoshi him self, but in no way I think that he is single handedly "Satoshi". At best, he was probably on the core dev team that was labeled a single entity as "Satoshi". If this is the case, he has probably pissed off the rest of his team because he's essentially taking all the credit... and what could they do in this case? Just come out, and say yeah "We are all Satoshi".. which apparently there was some sketchy email that was sent around apparently to some email list saying exactly just that.

what? he should have a proof that he is satoshi not us that he isn't

the burden of proof is on the accuser..., until he sign the msg of the first or second transaction(first block) he can not be seen as a satoshi

Exactly this! A poor guy that just tried to shed some light on himself, nothing else! But you cannot fool millions of people for God's sake!

It's clear to me now. It's not a coincidence that this happened after this lecture. He planned to auto leak those "document/evidence" after this to get notoriety, he has tons of problems with tax so being satoshi would bring him fame and millionaire deals for interviews.