Bitcoin Forum

This whole craig wright bs is retarded. I dont care if gavin "believes" or "vouches" to this guys claims.
But if Craig cant prove to all of us publicly w/ a signature that we can verify ourselves.... then he isnt fucking satoshi.

Its meaningless if someone says "yeah he showed me in private proof of him signing" ... LOL!
Its the same thing as someone saying "I can sign it myself, trust me its mine."

In short, nothing to see here in this media uproar over this Craig Wright bs ... until he proves it publicly!!!!!!

Move along folks.

One interesting implication of this fiasco: If Wright provides no further evidence, he claim will certainly be rejected as inadequate by the bitcoin community (and eventually everyone else), as it ought to be based on what we've seen so far. And that means that Jon and Gavin will have severely damaged their own reputations. Who will trust them after this?

I know Gavin in particular has faced a lot of criticism for his approach to resolving the blocksize debate. As a non-techie, I've always figured he should be accorded a lot of respect for his early role in bitcoin development, even when I disagreed with his politics in the blocksize debate. But I think he and Jon will find terribly few friends after this if Wrights claim remains in the present state.

Are those the only "experts" who are saying Craig Wright is Satoshi?

Without a signature,which should be obvious to him to begin with,he holds no weight in this claim.
Its interesting to see how quickly the media has grabbed on to the story and shows how little they understand bitcoin and its use.

I do not believe either that Wright is Satoshi. But why isn't the real Satoshi denying on P2PFoundation that Wright is not him/her as it happend when the Dorian Nakamoto thing was released by Newsweek?

Thjs pretty much encapsulates my thoughts as well.
A couple extra comments though:
1) The simplicity and finality of signing something with the key he purports to have means that Craig either does not have the key, or has the key but does not wish to 100% prove his identity.  In the latter case, he'd be better off just stating that rather than attempting to fool people as he has done. I suspect the former is the truth - he does not have the key.
2) I find it astonishing that gavin is willing to finalize his reputation crash and burn in the way we are seeing. The user knowledge required to successfully execute a message signature verification is not rocket science. I'm prepared to believe he has no cryptography background, but this little? Craig must have been a VERY fast talker to have managed to avoid that simple requirement. :)