Bitcoin Forum

Satoshi didnt give that sig to Gavin.
Satoshi gave Gavin a new msg signed with old Private keys
Satoshi doesn't want you to know who he is so he comes up this BS sig as "proof", he knows you'll see that the proof is meaningless and conclude that he isn't Satoshi, thats what he wants you to think! dont you see he is Satoshi!

lol nice comedy of reverse psychology to prove he satoshi.. but he isnt.

Satoshi is so smart he wants us to think he isn't Satoshi, but he is,
but we all know he isn't, but Gavin says so, but there is no proof,
so thus he must be Satoshi, because he doesn't want to prove it us.  :o

See.. Craig Wright must be Satoshi because only Satoshi is that smart.

Wow-weee Right guys?   **sounds of crickets rubbing their legs in the distance**   ::)

Maybe its just me but after watching the interview he seems like a major jerk, no one Id enjoy 5 minutes with or whose hand I would shake.

Takes away from anything he accomplished really, horrible personality it seems.

" If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry. " -  Craig Wright  2009

After deeper research into ‘proofs’ of Craig Wright being Satoshi Nakamoto - it turned out that his signature is worthless. And here’s why - http://cointelegraph.com/news/why-craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto
So why would Gavin Andersen say that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto:
1. Gavin was tricked into thinking so
2. Gavin was hacked
3. Gavin is a liar

it all looks so suspicious to me, because I don't see why satoshi would be hesitant to publish a signed message to public. if he really was satoshi, then instead of that complicated blog post he would have simply posted a signed message in the normal format with the date of yesterday (or the date of publishing the blog post)

now here is the question, what is up with Gavin?
I don't think it is 1 or 2 because he is not stupid or a newbie to be fooled or hacked this easily. besides if her was hacked we would have known already, considerable amount of time has passed already.
so there must be a plot afoot!

It's time to remember the conspiracy theories. I do not believe that Craig is Satoshi. He is no longer himself once tried to impersonate him.
What if Craig just paid and told to impersonate him? A true (real) Nakamoto remain in the shadows.

The link to this quote is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

hahah this guy is so funny lol. He doesn't need to move any coin to prove it, just sign the fcking message if he has the prive keys

Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise.

In his initial blog post (http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/), Wright noted that “Satoshi is dead... but this is only the beginning.” He also said that he would follow up with a more detailed mathematical explanation for the revelation. Now, the world will likely have to wait for “the coming days”—however long that may be—for more clues.

If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.

I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.

Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi,

Satoshi is dead.

But this is only the beginning.

David Kleiman, Craig Wright's friend more likely Satoshi Nakamoto

OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order.

The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed.

Andresen’s only attempt at an explanation for Wright’s bizarre behavior, he says, is an ambivalence about definitively revealing himself after so many years in hiding. “I think the most likely explanation is that … he really doesn’t want to take on the mantle of being the inventor of Bitcoin,” says Andresen, who notes that his own credibility is at stake, too. “Maybe he wants things to be really weird and unclear, which would be bad for me.”

That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking.

No - what Craig did was grab an existing signature used by Satoshi and pretend he had created it to sign a document by Sartre (which is fraud and even Gavin is not sure what on earth to make of that).

And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim).

Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics?

It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course).

And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would  have told Gavin it was his friend and not him).

I think it's politics manipulation where someone want people believe that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto and think his decision is the best for bitcoin future.

After deeper research into ‘proofs’ of Craig Wright being Satoshi Nakamoto - it turned out that his signature is worthless. And here’s why - http://cointelegraph.com/news/why-craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto
So why would Gavin Andersen say that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto:
1. Gavin was tricked into thinking so
2. Gavin was hacked
3. Gavin is a liar

All this politics so close to the halving, probably there's some agenda to this revelation, like market manipulation of some sort?

I also thought that, but whoever is doing this wants the price to fall before the Halving, so that they can buy cheaper coins and then sell at a much higher price when everything turns back to normal.

This timeframe allows for the price to drop and then regain it's original form before the buildup to the Halving starts. I just doubt that Gavin would be part of price manipulation, because this will hurt

his chances to make Bitcoin Classic successful. Something fishy is going on, and we need to look closer to see it.  ???

It's not market manipulation unless Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto and he moves all his bitcoin to another address which could make market panic if people think he would sell all his coins.
I think it's politics manipulation where someone want people believe that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto and think his decision is the best for bitcoin future.

But can he really move all the bitcoins in from the known satoshi's address to a different one?
I just can not have myself believing that he is indeed the real Satoshi if he won't even do that.

All this politics so close to the halving, probably there's some agenda to this revelation, like market manipulation of some sort?

i would have believe Craig is satoshi if he looks like a nerd. I don't really need his sign message all i need is to make himself look like a nerd.
maybe like this

https://i.imgur.com/wkuHghC.jpg

big reading glasses and no social life of any manner :) that i guess is enough to convince he is satoshi.

He is not satoshi.

https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170

https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md

Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key:

And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology.  ::)

Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/) in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.

The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.

What I'm expecting to happen next is that Wright is going to move some early coins (or produce a signature from some early coins) some time soon, but this is only going to fuel the speculation even more because it won't be a definitive proof from a GPG key or a genesis block.

I'm guessing the reason why Wright will be able to do this is because he found out about Bitcoin from Kleiman from the cryptography mailing lists (which we know Kleiman was a member of.) We already know that he mined coins early on so it won't be that much of a surprise when he moves coins. But as has already been pointed out by other people -- this also doesn't prove anything -- since Bitcoin was released -publicly- anyone could have mined those coins (or he could have simply purchased access to the private keys of any early block.)

If I had to speculate: I'd say that in all likelihood neither of them are Satoshi. Kleiman's work was on digital forensics which means he was focused on doing things like scrubbing memory dumps for meta-data to find files pointers and then using them to find hidden files on disk. It would have required fairly low level programming to write the tools needed to do this (so its plausible Kleiman had the skills to code something like Bitcoin but still highly unlikely given how expertly the original source code was – so I'd be surprised if the person(s?) who created Bitcoin didn't have a background in software.)

Consider that Forensics is also quite a specialized field and that a person participating in it wouldn't necessarily have needed to know anything about digital signatures to do their work. Hashcash-style proof-of-work in that regard is even more esoteric and I'd expect to see a lot more interest in general cryptography (and economics) if Kleiman was actually Satoshi. But if you look at what he replies to -- he's only really interested in forensics and talking about his own work. I think it's far more likely that the two of them were early adopters / miners who were intimately associated with Satoshi in some way (possibly they corresponded at some point via email like a lot of people at the time) but weren't actually Satoshi themselves.

My profile for Satoshi is a lot closer to the group of people currently involved in the Bitcoin-space, to be honest: people who find cryptography interesting (but aren't necessarily cryptographers) and enjoy programming (but aren't necessarily "software engineers" by trade.) This would make a lot more sense since all the pieces needed to produce Bitcoin were in place for years before it was invented: digital signatures, hash functions, and proof of work – so at the least I'd expect some kind of evidence of an interest in those areas.

Tl; dr, I think Wright was just in the right place at the right time and that Kleiman was unlikely to have had the skills, knowledge, or time to have invented something as massive as Bitcoin even being an “expert” in digital forensics. Both Wright and Kleiman strike me as men who were more interested in building up their respective careers as “experts” through academic channels and the press, rather than people who are genuinely passionate enough about economics and crypto to have invented Bitcoin in their spare time.

Remember Craig is a lawyer. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of 'is' is.

Craig has consistently claimed he was backing "the persona behind Satoshi" and was part of a group involved with Satoshi, so the above statement is consistent with that, without him actually being the man who developed the code of Bitcoin with his own fingers. The interviewer did not ask Craig "are you going to prove you are the man who wrote the code of Bitcoin?" which obviously can't be proved nor disproved by any signature since Satoshi did not sign the code of Bitcoin.

Is Satoshi after all of Blockstream?


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hs2ca/can_all_core_developers_confirm_they_havent/

You are quoting what a reporter has said, not what Craig has said. I said find a quote where Craig has claimed his is the man who wrote the code for Bitcoin. You will never find that.

Butthurt idiot. Bye.

I see you locked your thread again (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459550.msg14748758#msg14748758). You are an emotional basketcase.

Don't pretend you've forgotten when you closed the technical thread where we were debating and told me in PM that you never wanted to talk to me again.

I don't have time for your melodrama. Bye.

You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14755896#msg14755896).

Also by getting core Bitcoin devs and their tribe to claim that the proof Craig provided is not a proof, he has revealed them as being disingenuous. Very clever political game theory he has concocted.

Craig has astutely accomplished his goal, as only 42% of Bitcoiners conclude he can't be Satoshi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1281423.160). And when and if Craig signs coins from an early block of Bitcoin, the level of confusion will increase. Craig is playing a political game theory.


Refusing to believe is not the same as proving he is not. Craig is winning the political game theory. He is a clever lawyer mofo.

Reading this, quite interesting:

http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:

Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.

So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.

Thoughts pro and con?

I just came up with another theory though...we might be missing the forest for the trees. Much of what CW has said has proven sketchy, or even downright lies (claiming multiple fake phd's for instance). We do know one thing that's incontrovertible: CW was very interested in high performance computing / supercomputing. Think about that for a minute.

Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?

It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...

I think that CSW stumbled upon Bitcoin circa 2013 (late 2012 at the earliest) and started concocting a narrative to fit his long con. Stumbling upon the death of David Kleiman, a person who CSW co-wrote with, Craig saw that the pieces of Dave's life fit nicely in what's known about Satoshi. It was just a matter of creating docs to make it look like he and Dave were partners of sorts which I've demonstrated he's done.