Bitcoin Forum

The Bitcoin community is very reluctant to believe Craig Wright's claims of being Satoshi, what do you guys think?

Article link: http://bitcoinist.net/community-wary-craig-wright/

Everyone knows the simple and clear way to establish a claim to being Satoshi is to publically publish a digital signature proving you hold the private key to the Genesis block. This wouldn't be final proof (we could argue conspiracy theories forever on that point), but it would be a clear hurdle to pass.

So a person who claims to be Satoshi and has a chance to offer such proof, and specifically fails to do so - as is the case with Wright - can only mean two things:

1. He's not Satoshi and this is a scam.
2. He is Satoshi, but there is some reason, some motive, for not wanting to convince everyone he is Satoshi, at least not all at once.

I've been pondering if #2 is viable. It's hard to see the point of such a gambit. Perhaps to avoid rocking the market too suddenly? But that doesn't strike me as a big enough justification to dribble out the evidence second-hand via Gavin and Jon's word. So I'm sticking with some form of #1 for now.

As above pretty much. If he is, then he should also be aware how sceptical everyone's going to be and there are faster and more direct ways of doing it. 

If he really is , he would proof it then disappear or do whatever he wants as he said . (I guess he said he won't speak to the media again and he don't want any money or any Nobel prize :o ) so I personally don't buy it . He could at least connect to his forum account to proof little something (even if it's hackable ).

Yeah I wonder why he wouldn't want to prove it all at once, I'm inclined to agree with #1 as well.

Especially since his blog post said he wanted to clear things up and set the record straight. This fiasco does exactly the opposite.

I said it before and i will say it again. he is not satoshi he is truing to force satoshi out.

Do you think it'll work?

So far he didn't prove anything (at least for the public at large). All he did is verbal claims to be creator of bitcoin plus
in his blog post very bulky manual about hashing,signing,verifying without using a wallet.
Not impressed at all I am.

If he proved it he wouldn't be able to disappear ever again. And we all know this much about satoshi - he values his privacy.
This way he stands a chance.
Perhaps.
Having been involutarily outed last year, the current ambiguity works, I would suggest, in his favour.

well the tx signing was a fraud, it was another transaction, from 2009, so he still need to provide a valid proof, either via signing or via moving(coins moving from second block)

No. 

I woke up early in the morning today with a call from my parents that were looking to tell me that the creator of bitcoin was found. It was all over the news and all over the world too. Even if this is a lie, be sure that many people heard about bitcoin today, the news weren't even that bad this time.

This is an interesting theory. My own 2 satoshis is that if something like this happened, the real Satoshi would hold his fire until he saw that the bitcoin community was reaching a mistaken consensus and had accepted a con artist in his place. Only then might he act. And even then Satoshi would do so in a way that would protect his own anonymity while demonstrating that false claimant was a scammer. Satoshi doesn't need to hold a press conference or appear in person to demonstrate his identity/ownership of private keys, and use those keys to send authentifiable messages denouncing the scammer.

So that right there proves his validity and integrity.
Talk no more about this fool I say. He will disappear once his 15 minutes are up.

The real Satoshi could just send a message saying he is not Craig.

This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.

Which may be the intent of whatever organization that may be trying to make this happen.

Doesn't seem credible to me but you never know.

Yeah, I think his concern would be preventing an impostor from using Satoshi's influence to control Bitcoin, rather than simply letting people know that the real Satoshi is still unknown. That lends to your theory that he would only act if the community reached that mistaken consensus about his identity.

"They" say the real Satoshi died in 2013.

If this fraud is willing to sign various message for  these  lying media mobs, brag about who he's satoshi, why wouldn't he login to his account on Bitcointalk (create a new one if needed) and sign various messages for us to verify? — if the secret is out, all he has to do is sign this opinion that I've posted,  adding “My name is Wright, and I I'm Satoshi" — as a text.

Who is Satoshi? He is supposed to be Turkish. Some say his father was German. Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Gavin tell it, anybody could have worked for Satoshi. You never knew. That was his power.

I think Craig Wright realized he could seize the moment and proclaim himself to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto because no one else was willing to do so at the time. It's quick and easy fame for him now that the whole world thinks he is legit and it will be kinda hard to disprove his claims until 'the real' Satoshi Nakamoto shows up and provides solid proof about his/her identity. I don't understand why some of the Bitcoin devs and experts haven't already volunteered to validate the evidence if we, the average joes of the Bitcoin community, don't believe a thing at all.

theres no way everyone in my country knows putin is satoshi

the evidence has been checked, and found as false evidence that does not prove craig is special (in short, craig  is NOT satoshi)

what are you missing?.. well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrights_signature_is_worthless/

here it is explained better

Find first transaction by Satoshi in 2009 :
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true

Convert inputscript from hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce

to base64
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

(thats it, you done pretty much the only thing that craig done)

this is a 7 year old signature of the transaction encrypted using the private key for: 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S 7 years ago
emphasis: the data is the transaction data(not a personal message).. that is 7 years old!! and publicly available

if he was to sign a message today! the signature, even when signed with the same private key would be completely different
emphasis: signing "my name is bob" would result in a different signature than "My Name Is Bob" even when both messages are signed with the same private key.

so if you see him display:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

he is not signing anything new. he is just literally copying and pasting a 7 year old message(tx) that was signed 7years ago

It won't happen. There would be no empathy for Dr. Wright like there was for Dorian. In fact, he would serve the interests of the "real" Satoshi well.


I'm going to stick my neck out here and go on record as saying that I believe Craig Wright could well be Satoshi - OK, is Satoshi. Not that my opinion or conjecture matters one way or the other, but there it is nonetheless. I think the Sartre reference was the start of it for me, turning down the Nobel Prize for lit. He said art isn't a competition. Most people would give their left arm to even be nominated - but he turned it down.
  Anyhow, the degree in Theology, the autodidactic (and academic) eclecticism, the London/England connection, the massive amounts of BTC shifted early on, the diffidence around going public with proof to anyone beyond Gavin Andresen, Gavins belief in his authenticity. And even the way he came across in the BBC interview - which he rather strongly avowed would be his first and last.

 Maybe I want it to be him. Maybe I don't give a shite who the real Satoshi is. Jesus, half the time I'm not even sure who the real practicaldreamer is. Just a feeling about this one, a hunch. Of course, tangible proof would be conclusive, but it might well be that all we ever have to go on is circumstantial.
Perhaps circumstantial suits Craig Wright just fine.

Interesting view on things. Why come out now though?

FYI I am actually Vladimir Putin

~CfA~

Agreed.

It won't work.

Satoshi responded to Dorian Nakamoto's trouble when Dorian, through no fault of his own, was mistaken for Satoshi.

There is no way in hell he'll respond to Wright.  Wright opened his own mouth and deserves whatever he gets.  Satoshi has no moral obligation whatsoever to come to his rescue.

The best case for Wright is if nobody believes him.  Luckily for him that's also most likely.

There's a chance the Australian government will believe him, and then gently remind him that he owes AUD$hundreds of millions in taxes.  Whereupon he'll put a lot of effort into trying to prove he's NOT Satoshi.

And if he and his family and everyone he cares about are really unlucky, the mobsters will believe him, and carry out their usual demands via kidnapping, torture, extortion, etc.  Less efficient than government, but essentially the same, really.

Well what was the point of all this fake Satoshi stuff once again? Is Craig Wright looking to bring the price up or down? What is he going to gain for himself by claiming to be the real Satoshi and can he be prosecuted for submitting misleading information? I guess free publicity for Bitcoin is not a bad thing after all as this news has been broadcasted around the world to a lot of people.

I don't know Craig Wright; I don't know what kind of person he is, what motivates him.

That said, if he expects to be believed FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS AT MOST, he could be looking to make a bit of money on a dip in price/buying opportunity while people believe the lie, followed by a recovery/selling opportunity when people figure out he was lying. 

my  vote is  (not satoshi)    fraud.

The evidence as presented does not prove that Wright is Satoshi.  It also does not prove that he is not Satoshi.  It is simply nonsense.  All it proves is that either a) Gavin was fooled, or b) Gavin believes the rest of us are idiots.  Any time you let a potential charlatan control the conversation, the danger is that you fall in line with their thought path and do not apply objective critical analysis.  The fact that Gavin met in person with Wright would tend to support that as a possibility.

It would be nice to see Gavin make some sort of comment on the series of analyses that have been made that prove Wright's offered evidence is absolutely fake.  Is there additional (real) evidence that only Gavin saw?  If so, why publicize the fake "evidence"?

Gavin's a smart guy.  Even smart guys make mistakes. If this was a mistake, it's a doozy, but the opportunity remains to come out and admit he was fooled.  The longer he waits, the more the conspiracy theorists will clamor that he's trying to use Wright to wedge in a block size increase.  I don't subscribe to that theory, yet.

So come on Gavin, real proof or retract your endorsement. Sooner rather than later please.

Given that Wright's blog post "proof" was garbage, at this point the whole thing hinges on Gaven's public assessment (anyone heard from Jon Matonis today?). And that's a lousy position for Gaven to be in. Maybe he was fooled. Maybe he is in cahoots with Wright. But without some public proof that is not dependent on us trusting a 3rd party (wasn't that the whole point of bitcoin???), Wright's claim is going to be dismissed.

I think its logical that they are thinking what the hell this guy is talking because I honestly believe he is but a lot of people do not.
There is a chance he is lying of course but we prove it no, not really.

Attention. Wright is one weird guy.

As simplistic as your answer may seem, it could simply be this in the end, greed. Knowing ahead of time this would cause the price of BTC to fall, and also knowing ahead of time exactly when the blog post and corresponding media releases would be published, one could make an argument that people in the know could take advantage of an excellent shorting opportunity. Though I think they may have expected the price to fall further than the $20 or so dollars it did, if you had access to enough capital and shorted several thousand BTC expecting even a $50 decline you would stand to make a nice profit. Crazy theory, but no more so than everything else we have seen today.