Bitcoin Forum

Or just a real good liar??


It looks like he presented some very convincing evidence, but it seems some still had doubts. Below are some excerpts from a CNBC article that came about a year ago, when Craig went public and made his claims.


"To prove his claim, Wright digitally signed a message using the cryptographic keys that were associated with the creator and was backed up by experts."


"These are the blocks used to send 10 bitcoins to Hal Finney in January [2009] as the first bitcoin transaction," Wright told the BBC."


"Jon Matonis, co-founder of the nonprofit Bitcoin Foundation, said he believed Wright's claims after seeing the same demonstration."


"During the London proof sessions, I had the opportunity to review the relevant data along three distinct lines: cryptographic, social and technical. Based on what I witnessed, it is my firm belief that Craig Steven Wright satisfies all three categories," Matonis wrote in a blog post on Monday."

"The social evidence, including his unique personality, early emails that I received, and early drafts of the Bitcoin white paper, points to Craig as the creator. I also received satisfactory explanations to my questions about registering the bitcoin.org domain and the various time-of-day postings to the BitcoinTalk forum. Additionally, Craig's technical working knowledge of public key cryptography, Bitcoin's addressing system, and proof-of-work consensus in a distributed peer-to-peer environment is very strong."



What do you guys think???

nope he is not

nope the evidence was not convincing

it was a signature that links to a known satoshi address

Take the signature being “verified” as proof in the blog post:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

Convert to hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce

Find it in Satoshi's 2009 transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?format=hex
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe - Input Scripts

the thing is.
ANYONE in the last 8 years can copy it, its public information.
so although it does say that it validates to a satoshi known address. does not mean that craig wright is satoshi

---

as for the 'social' evidence
emails posts and communications have been logged publicly so its easy to read, rehearse and revise them until you memorise them
i would have questioned anyone that did know the finer details of things said 6 years earlier. because they know too much for someone that might have said things on a whim to remember so clearly without 'preparing'/rehearsing.

after all if you registered a domain 6 years ago.. would you know off the top of your head the exact time/date you registered it. without preparing by checking out the info

So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.

Oh yeah, he tried to trick everyone.  All he needed to do to prove that he was Satoshi is to sign a message proving that either:

A: he owned the satoshi forum account (he can sign a message with an address associated with the account)
B: he mined the Genesis block, or "block zero".  This was a block mined basically before Bitcoin was released and therefore was definitely mined by satoshi.

reason being is
without ever having any PRIVATE keys. he simply copied a load of early PUBLIC KEYS which he knew would not move funds because they were the satoshi stash that had not moved in the couple years before he copied them.

he got a friend to set up a trust. and notorise the PUBLIC keys as the "proof" of collateral (first fraud)
he then insured that trust (second fraud) for a large valuation to 'legitimise' the trust.

then he used that trust to get MILLIONS from the australian government (third fraud)
then he used the new valuation of the trust + australian tax grants to grab further investments (fourth fraud(and now playing a shell / ponzi game))

..
in 2015 the auzzie government smelled a rat and chased him. he fled the country and ended up in england.
he thought he can save himself by trying to convince media that he was satoshi to then use media stories as 'proof of identity' (fifth fraud) to hope it would make the auzzie government to back down..
it failed because within hours of showing:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

people recognised it was old public accessible data

now he is trying to create and apply for patents to try making new collateral to fill the void of old collateral(fraud1-2)
hoping it will be enough to sell the new collateral to cover all the legal costs and debt/civil fines and reimbursments he will have to pay the aussie government if ever extradited back to australia

..
now you should be upto date with all the drama

Only an idiot would think you can outwit public key cryptography. The irony is, that he was a cryptographer, no?

I guess M.Wright has a twisted mind. But Satoshi Nakamoto probably has a twisted mind, too. So Craig Wright certainly fits. He has the right age and the right background. I'd be happy if he could prove he is what he claims to be. If I were Satoshi Nakamoto, I would plan for my identity to be revealed after my death.

+1.

Everyone should read Franky's post here.
Satoshi N. was in my opinion David K. who died in 2013.

Is it kinda weird, that death spurned a big surge in price that month?

No one knew that David K.'s death meant the destruction of supply of bitcoin because his death meant destruction of the private keys....right?

...I mean wouldn't htat mean almost 1million in less supply of bitcoin?

How did David K. die, and what were his special skills?

His special skills are that he once wrote a visual basic registry editing tool (which somehow qualifies him to create Bitcoin...) and that he's dead so that he can continually humiliate himself and people that believe he created Bitcoin, unlike Wright.

satoshi was not david K

david K was all about investigating and ID/forensics checking and finding things.. the opposite of satoshi

the david K thing was that craig wright wanted to have a backdoor by saying david created the trust and had the keys initially(both lies). so worse comes to worse craig wright could play the victim card and blame a dead guy by saying craig was fooled into believing he partnered with a fraud.
(truly sickened me when i was reviewing craig wrights story behind the story(reading the narrative behind the words))

To tell you the truth if anyone comes up with any damn amount of proof no one is going to accept them and there have being person attacks against Craig Wright and no one wants to believe unless and until he signs a message from the address he is holding his old coins,i do really consider that Craig Wright has being an early developer but i am not sure whether he is the sole person behind it but he is an intelligent guy and sure he knows what he is talking about.

I agree with Franky1's write-up on Craig not being Satoshi (shock! :-)

I'm not so quick to dismiss David K as Satoshi. It would explain a lot of things about Craig's weird claims and behavior, and I'd want a much more in depth refutation than Franky1's quick assessment here. I wouldn't rate the odds of David K being Satoshi very high (maybe no more than 20%), but that's higher than any other candidate I have in mind. (Nick Szabo is #2 on my list of candidates, but he's directly denied it which carries weight with me.)

I usually disagree with everything franky1 posts but this shit is spot on. Good summery  :)

It is very difficult to prove a negative, and to my knowledge, the hypothesis that Wright is Satoshi has not been disproven.

With the above being said, the evidence that connects Wright to being Satoshi is dishonest/invalid and does not prove there is a connection. Further, Wright at one point said he was going to provide proof that he is Satoshi in the (then) near future, but failed to do so. As a result of the above, I think it is most probably a fact that Wright is in fact not Satoshi.

Since Craig Wright failed miserably trying to proof, that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, I would say he is not.

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

I believe that there is no anybody named Satoshi Nakamoto presented in this digital world all rumors about him are only profitable for whales. I will keep all my bitcoins until it hits at least 2,500$ or more then I will sell it.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

that thing about the death reminds me two things ... one is a epic book written by Schneier and friends ...



and the second was a cool remembrance by Whitfield Diffie about Finney and Vanstone ... jump video to about 41 minutes

RSA Conference 2015.
https://youtu.be/9RtZrNPP26w?t=41m26s

Happy Easter to all and rest in pieces ( I think I found a mathematical proof for 'one way function' )

Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto ?
_____________________________________________________________________________

Nope, but he has been confirmed to be a creepy Easter bunny.

http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/bunny-terror-2.jpg

Scared the daylights out of the kids.  :P


Happy Easter!   :D


 8)

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Lets say Craig was in court and needed to prove without a doubt, he was Satoshi Nakamoto to avoid a sentence. If he tried to prove it with the same fake setup (that convinced Gavin Andresen) he would end up in jail.
If he simply signed the PGP key, that is publicily asociated to Satoshi or if he signed a message with an early Bitcoin block or he would move some Bitcoins from one of these early Satoshi blocks, people would believe he is SN. It would take just a minute and the value to proof his statement is very very high.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

What you say is true, however Wright has not been in this situation.

To play devil's advocate, it is possible that someone was able to uncover that Wright was Satoshi, confronted Wright (and attempted to gain access to Wright's private keys), and in order to throw the attacker off his trail, he created this multi-year elaborate scheme that would supposedly prove that he is Satoshi, with the intention of having the story quickly unravel under scrutiny. 

I just meant that Craig Wright had every reason to want to prove he was Satoshi. He even convinced the former lead dev that he was (which I never really understood, but whatever). If he was so highly motivated to prove himself and was the real deal it wouldn't have been very difficult to do. To me that proves he's not Satoshi. You're right though, your logic is sound, it really means it's highly unlikely that he could be Satoshi.

who was it john nash and finney....supposedly helped make bitcoin...if wright is the 3rd guy in this cabal as he claims...he has said there is a trust of all the btc
that is being held till jan 1st 2020.....I guess we will know then..my fear is he is so pissed at everyone in the btc commnity ..that he will flush the works.tank btc and price
just to take the money and watch it burn...he often stated he was an anrchist....satoshi I mean....what a fine joke that would be :)

just saying only give the odds at 1 out of 20...but...that is my btc boogieman idea that keeps me awake nites.

Nobody is interested to prove that Wright is NOT Satoshi, but it was Craig who stated the he is. As long as he doesn't prove HIS statement, people will take him as he is: a liar.

He also settled with help from 'rich folks' that think he is satoshi ..with the australian tax authorities which is how this all became uncovered (i think) thus it is either a long
con...or the btc commnity and press and such..just pissed off someone who could flust ..what is it 1/2 billion dollars as a sale to the btc universe..watch it burn and walk
away still with millions of dollars....

sheesh..scared myself again



Yep I agree....just saying if he is satoshi...he strikes me as a guy who holds a grudge...thus jan 1st 2020....could be real frigging interesting (like a heart attack) kinda day imho :(

Don't get me wrong, it is my belief that Wright is a fraud and a liar, and more importantly that Wright is not Satoshi.

It is just that I cannot authoritatively say that Wright is not Satoshi [as a fact] (I can only say that I believe that Wright is not Satoshi).

Don't have a heart attack. That's sure to ruin the rest of your day. You don't have anything to worry about for 2020. Craig Wright is a liar and a manipulator. There is no trust (that was a silly story anyway) and I can make you sleep easy tonight because I'm Satoshi. LOL    Speaking of sleep, I've got to hit the rack before the drugs wear off. Goodnight all.

I got your theorem and I agree, but it is only a theoretic problem. In real life nothing changes when somebody just says "I am Satoshi Nakamoto" without presenting a proof. Craigs statement was supported by a plot, which makes it worth a story, but
lets say I was Satoshi Nakamoto. Would i need to make a statement before presenting a proof? I mean, wouldn't I simply move some Bitcoins from a known block and sign a message with that Block and post that on Bitcointalk using my account and my PGP key? Imagine what impact this would have in real life? This forum would be full of "The real Satoshi is back" postings and the market would drive nuts.
I assume, that Satoshi knows, that he doesn't need to say "I am Satoshi Nakamoto" to prove anything.

This makes me 100% certain that Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto.

He didn't really provide any conclusive evidence. If he wanted to actually prove that he could have done it in various ways, for example signing a message from an old address known to belong to satoshi, or simply logging into the forum here.

And no, instead he goes around all these easy solutions to find who's actually satoshi, and does something that does not conclude with him being the one and only satoshi.

And I really doubt satoshi would ever reveal himself. If he wanted to he could have done so a long time ago.

He is hardly the inventor of Bitcoin. There is no concrete evidence on this matter, only the assumptions of the researchers.

Did not. This is not could not.

Wright also did not fix the claim that he faked his academic qualifications. We have verified at least 8 (likely more but we cannot get a response) post grad degrees including a PhD and a professional doctorate.

Wright has several IDs at each uni. At Charles Sturt he has the following student IDs as well as a staff account:
      11293457A
      11293457B

That is a little strange, but they are all the same person. So Wright is allowing (actively promoting) the lies that he has no academic quals...

Next, the tax claim is spurios.
Wright does not owe the tax office. He also did not recieve the money. More, the sale would have been a taxible supply linked to the return. IF the tax ppl had accepted wright's claims, wright would have paid tax. that 54 mill was an offset. there is 35% tax on business is aus, so a gain of 300 mill would be offset. That is 105m tax - 54 m offset or 51m to be paid to the gov. With wright NOT believed, he pays ZERO tax.

This arguement, Wright invented patents to make the fraud seem real... Really? He invented a 300 million USD company to cover up a fraud? If he could do that, why the fraud in the first place?

No, the reality for the tax is (as we see it):
1. Wright wants the tax ppl to thik he is not involved and a fake. This has allowed him to avoid having to sell BTC or pay tax. IF wright has those BTC and the tax ppl treat it as currency, australian law means that he needs to mark to market on an annual basis [1]. That means he has to pay tax EVEN if he does not sell. There are no claims on wright UNLESS he is Satoshi. Company debts do not flow through even if he has some. Wright CAN walk (and did) away from those companies. IT IS ONLY if wright is Satoshi that he needs to pay tax!

Next:
1. Core are biased. They cannot have a Satoshi who supports large blocks.

2. That computer was real, but it was involved witnh a company that does gambling online... The US gov indicted a few of the people who ran the servers last year. They are on trial.

None of this proves nor disproves wright is or is not satoshi, but that some have a reason for him not to be, wright has a reason to let people think he is not and wright is not fixing the lies that are said abpout him.

wright could EASILY send a copy of his transcripts. We have verified 6 masters degress and two doctorates. He has poist grad quals  in law, finance, computer science, game theory, coding, management, info sec, maths and statistics/probability theory.

if wright REALLY wanted to prove he was Satoshi... why would he NOT just debunk the claims that his degrees are fake?

Wright has a tax thing. He wants the tax ppl to think he is NOT.




Some of the degrees we have verified wright holds:
 - Masters in Statistics (dissertation on Levene's theory)
 - Masters Science (Information Management)
 - Masters Science (Information Engineering)
 - Masters Network and Systems Engineering
 - Masters Information Systems Security
 - Masters Law (International Commercial Law)
 - PhD (Computer Science, Game theory, Behavioral Economics)

The others are not related in any way we can see.

[1] http://www.ifrsbox.com/ias21-foreign-exchange-rates/

BS. As with the post before. Blockstream are interested in NOT having a Satoshi.

Wright himself is NOT interested in playing satoshi...

It seems that there are MANY ppl wanting to prove wright is not satoishi and wright has helped fuel this.

seems that any 'expert' making money from bitcoin or even blockchain and even alt coins (esp alt coins) would not want to have wright or any other come back as satoshi.

Senario...
You are a 'expert'. Satoshi returns... You are no longer the expert.


actually, that is not correct. we have hit a wall, but there is a trust. wright is using Baker and McKenzie [1]. they are a wall though and we cannot find more. there is a trust
do you think 300 million USD would not be in a trust... given wright's view of tax ppl, would that money go to himself?
there is a REAL trust it is just that it is beyond what we can dig into

BM are also good with stuff wright gets into [2]

[1] http://www.bakermckenzie.com/
[2] http://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2017/04/dawn-raid

flawed arguemnt
wright would NOT want to prove.

wright's tax claim is not that he was satoshi. you clearly did not read the transcripts.
the tax ppl WANT wright to be satoshi as they can get him.

wright can just shut up and then it is up to others to prove.

Of course he is not Satoshi. I don't get it why people still give this guy a platform for speaking out his bs to the public.
That man is a con artist, a hoax, a scammer you name it!
Satoshi kept quite since 2011, gave us an open source technology and suddenly that aussie guy comes around the corner, claimes to be him and wants to patent a shitload of what we are using since years? That's ridiculous!

you cannot patent the blockchain or bitcoin... so what he has is something different.

blockstream have patents.
21 have patents...
Adam back has patents...

so you are speaking out your ass.

wright does  not want anything other than for us to think he is a lair. This is not proof he is and it is not proof he is not, but he is helping the fraud lair side and NOT trying to clear it up.

the guy just made a 300 million deal and that is a shit load. Even if he was not or is not, that can BUY a fukload of miners

start thinking for fuksake!

Stop what wright is or ios not and start trying to think whatr he may be doing!

Since he rather obviously showed he is not, he probably is Satoshi, but his secret is now safe as no one will believe he is

No, it's just a false assumption. There are no reliable facts about the fact that this person is the creator of bitcoin, this is a fraudster.

What there is is LOTS of invested people who do not want wright to be...

Ones who manipluate the truth and lie to hide anything that supports wright.

That is not proof either way, but it means that there are a lot of people with a reason to attack wright....

He could have easily avoided beeing attacked by simply NOT stating he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

He was being attacked well before that.

If you are already being attacked - what better way that to fail publically. As a strategy, it does not mean he is or is not. It just means that nobody will believe anythinhg.

If you have a 300 million USD company... do you want people digging and looking into you?

it is also a good tax strategy. He left Au with zero tax owing... The tax people think it is fakle, write it off... wright wins on all fronts.

seems your account was created purely to reply about wright drama..

anyway
hotwire was about tax refund

demorgan was about "credit" for advanced R&D for certain industries where the industry gets 45% of their research spending.

for instance. the difference is, like UK law
a tax refund is where you pay X tax..  but you can claim certain things off your tax like having to obtain, replace and wash work uniform and get a refund at the end of the year. this is a tax rebate

separately
no matter what tax you pay. or your bills or expenses.. you can get tax "credit" just for having a kid

the hotwire was a rebate - couple million
the demorgan was a credit - 54million

Seems you did not read.

Hotwire was the gst claim. It was also a deduction that only existed IF wright had BTC. It was also a move of 31000 BTC from Australia into Sg.


And here it is a rebate - you only get that money after tax.

I may not like wright, but I worked at the co.s long enough to see what was going on.

Wright also did not file the tax as is claimed, it was a senior partner at KPMG.

I still think the ruse was wright moving it all OS so there is no tax. Wrigth had planned a move BEFORE the raid. The raid was AFTER he left and they were too late. The tax ppl wanted to get him but just misswed when they figured it out

People involved with the tax filing

Andrew Sommer, Partner  
Nicholas Mavrakis, Partner - Clayton Utz  

Van Bergen, Partner
Carl Gunther, Partner - KPMG

Michael Garcia, Partnet - EY


there are others I did not get to see names from

but these are all partner level ppl at top law and accounting firms

wright did not just scam this... wright let it fail so he could move OS with NO Tax... Why is this hard for ppl to see!

a 300 mill USD sale is a big tax bill... Wright has NO tax... Wright did build something and he now gets away not paying a cent!

craig recieved legal documents of demands from AU gov about going court/repaying, with deadlines and dates and such.. well well BEFORE the raid
craig then emailed gizmodo to spark the rumours of him being satoshi before the raid because he knew that not dealing with the legal actions would result in a raid

it was not a one day he was not in trouble and then suddenly a unprovoked raid where suddenly the raid was the only contact craig had from aussie government.
craig was in trouble for months before the raid. he knew it

the government dont just snd the cops in without making demands for court/repayment first.
they do a raid when the courts/repayment demands are ignored and the raid is last resort.. not first option

he planned his escape and all the drama of trying to find ways to get out of having to repay aussie gov

The story turned to be a big fake after Craig Wright failed to show us a verified message from a very early address that could be identified as one belonging to Satoshi. I guess we will never hear of him again, as he know he would be more ashamed as he currently is if he tried the same drama again without that signed message.

Not Craig Wright again, can you guys let this meme die already? I would like to move on into more interesting topic, such as, another topic about how to scale bitcoin, we haven't had enough of these lately.

Wright recieved NOTHING.

The companies did...

Guess what. wright and companies are not the same. Wright can walk away from a tax bill - are you that stuck on a meme that is flawed?

Wright STILL owns multiple properties in Aust
If there was something on HIM, he would just sell and get nothing left

Wrigth in the UK and the Aust passport he has means that they COULD get him. There is no fled, they can grab him if they want to - they just cant.,

The New Yorker mentioned me in a article about Craig Wright  ;D

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/bizarre-saga-craig-wright-latest-inventor-bitcoin

16th paragraph, they called me vulgar but pithy  :D

Real Satoshi must have thousands of way to prove that he is Satoshi.Not unlike Craig who is dying to prove it but failed miserably.

Again. You fail to see that wright has to pay tax IF he is shown to be -
1. Not a fraud, or
2. Satoshi,
...


He is KNOWN to have been mining in Mar - May 2009. That was in an Aust court case.

Wright, satoshi or not was mining in 2009 and that means he holds a lot of control later and he DOES NOT want to pay tax.

Legend!  :)

lol
finance = CIVIL

the aussie government thing has not yet got to the point of criminal yet, to invoke extradition

and they are not chasing him so they never will

the case was never wright, they did not like wright and it was all the companies

So, there is noting.

AND Civil means they COULD take propoerties and wright is not selling so it seems...

He stiil owns multiple p[roperties whether he is in Aust or NOT

and wright was before the gaar pannel and he won... so what to thast. He has left and it is not a fraud if he said it and they rejected

and as for deported, they can revoke a passport - they do not need criminal for that

They could bankrupt him if it was him and not a co he owned... so, you say all this and it is all crap

So :P

I didn't even hear about this guy until you made the post. If he was truly "the" Bitcoin guy, I'm sure the community would be well aware of it by now.

LOL
you been asleep for a couple years.

As for the tax ppl going after wright
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=8rlesi9jh_4

Wright PAID it all out and moved the assets over seas.

As all look at him as a fraud, there he moves it noce and clean.

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchTab=search&searchText=demorgan&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=8rlesi9jh_45

He moved the assets and closed it all.

So, what Tax thing. No tax thing for wright, as you all run around saying wright is a fraud he moved it all!

wright settled hotwire - the tax ppl closed and accepted the agreement. Check the docs from the links. Hotwire was taken out of the dispute CLEANLY by wright
ATO is paid off. So what are they doing. They cannot go after him as they accepted the deal!

And again, you are too sold on him not even being an early miner to see he did this.

Wright was in the courts in 2009 as he claimed Bitcoin as a tax expense and they called it a hobby

by 2012 he won as it had value.

2013 it rises a shitload so he moved it all overseas...

that is the reality

you know what the worst part about argument about "... is or is not Satoshi Nakamoti" is

the worst part is that, this discussion is so dumb and at the same time it has a very simple solution.
step one of proving someone is Satoshi is if that someone signs a message (a cryptography proof). it is very simple that it makes me laugh even thinking about people who are still talking about it.

IF the person WANTS to prove - urgh

Prove and pay taxes.

It is not proving, satoshi never wanted to prove - it is getting evoidence on a satoshi that does not want to be that is difficult

The MSM spoke about this guy quite a lot recently, but I don't think Nakamoto ever wanted his identity to be revealed.

If he's the real creator, he should have some old BTC plans and prove the way he created it or so. He probably only wants to get his 'BTC Creator' status just for the money he wants to earn from it..

wright HAS money

he has more than blockstream and miners now

There were some ideas that he shouldn't use the Bitcoin he has from initial mining (I think it was around 1 million BTC.
Also if he ever wanted to convert that, he'd have to do it in small amounts (less than 1% a time in order to not negatively effect the market).

WRIGHT HAS MONEY!
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/company-behind-bitcoin-creator-sold-to-private-investors.html

He does not need to convert anytiem soon.

he has more than blockstream - satoshi or not - he was a miner in early 09 and he has 100s of millions USD at his disposal!

Thiink!

what better way to hide than private equity.
a company owned by a fund owned by a fund owned by a gorup of trusts...

It should be, but wasn't Gavin Andresen tricked somehow when Craig Wright met him.  IIRC Wright brought in a "brand new" computer, and supposedly signed something with Satoshi's key. Gavin said he was convinced, then later said he was no longer so sure CW was Satoshi. So it wasn't so simple for Gavin for reasons one can speculate on  ;)

No Gavin did not say he was unsure, he said we should leave wright alone - not the same.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/either-or-ignore


And from the things I read, gavin said he setup the computer
and it was gavin's usb stick - not wrights

again - wright HAS money

Wright has degrees - he has money and he wants us to ignoire him!

Thanks, I hadn't seen this link yet...
It is good for delocalisation and there would be less of a way to stop it with it being controlled by multiple trusts.

I think you missed out this old story, he was unable to prove himself as satoshi because he is not the real satoshi by any means. He is just a big lier...

AND WHY WOULD HE
He has money

and Betcoin.AG - that is Antigua - the same place as Wright AND his buddy Ayre...
Seems you want to have a story ....

or are you just against wright...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322261.msg14049607#msg14049607

seems either way you have an axe to grind?




exactly.
wright has things in seychelles, panama, kenya, isle of mann, malta, uk, signapore...

so... it all looks nice and clean... but who has the trust and who is really behind it.

and these are the guys wright had running the computers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-09/the-new-money-laundering-sting-come-to-the-u-s-get-arrested
https://www.highsecured.com/

The Burden of proof is on Wright since he is the one that came forward to make the claim that he was Satoshi Nakamoto. As others have mentioned in this thread, Craig could have easily proved that he was Satoshi, either by signing Satoshi's public key, or he could have moved some of his bitcoins. He has not done so. So I conclude that he is a liar, and an idiot. I say an idiot, because with his knowledge, how could he not realize that the evidence he presented, would be looked at by computer experts, and then be debunked?

Furthermore, he chose to submit his evidence to journalists, who he knew were not that technically sophisticated. I just don't get what he was trying to do, honestly.

NOT HIS MONEY

its money from the shell games that all started from lies

its all about fake valuations that then used to get VC funding then he moves on and re-valuates another shell based on the last two shells.

and so on..

once the shells crack open and realise there is no pearl inside you realise its a shell game of ponzi's and fraud and he will have many investors and governments wanting their chunks of the pie back

Not to mention this sell to a "private" equity group of his tech/patents to an investment guy on an island?

So sad to see smart people get taken for a ride because of their belief in BTC.

These things never end well.

So you say... but it is not VC

and money was NOT recieved from the tax ppl

and there are staff ....

There is a one Satoshi Nakamoto which tells he is not the real Satoshi.
No ones believe him


There is finaly a "real" Satoshi! which tells Im Satoshi
No ones believe him


http://bitcoinpricelive.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/0.jpg

THIS ^^^ is what it seems like to me. Wright was playing some game and the tax man cometh so he came up with some crazy story to lure in more investors and forestall ending up in the clinker. Allegedly of course  :P

i have a serious question to gauge your mindset..

are you the kind of person that gets a mortgage and thinks the house is yours free and clear?
or are you the person that knows the bank owns the house and as long as you repay the mortgage you are allowed to live in and maintain the house.

the tax ppl did NOT chase wright directly. It was fees and requirements on the co.s

Wright paid the tax office out - so they are not after him... So that theory fails.

DeMorgan - quietly moved offshore and closed in Aust
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=7otcu5zk9_4

Proof on the gov site - wright closed it - no debt all legit. The ATO are not after it now.

hotwire - paid and reinstated in full.
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=164068348&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=7otcu5zk9_49

keep saying your crap that the tax ppl are after wright - they are not. Wright paid it all out and moved overseas.

the tax in antigua is near zero and then does the deal.

all legal and he escapes BECAUSE they think initiallity it was a fraud!

So - NO prison. Not a bit as there is NOTHING for the tax ppl to get him on - UNLESS he is really satoshi and they know he was an early miner.

wright STARTED a company to mine bitcoin and other shite in MAy 2009!
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchTab=search&searchText=integyrs&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=7otcu5zk9_67

This was in the courts - wright ended up winning - but then he had already moved bitcoin OS.

The documents are online for the win - so ignore the facts as this is what he wants. Why actually check when there are shills and trolls wanting to ensure that wrights story that it is nothing are all around.

neither. false choice- it is not either one.

you have rights to the house and can redeem ownership if you do what you agree in the mortage contract


and you generally do not "GET a mortgage" you have less than you need to buy a p;lace and do a deal to buy it over time. So, you do not generally own it, you are saving to own it.

i learnt that one way early on - then with ex's (multiple) one tries to stay away from owning.