I have also read hitler's mein campf and quran , i guess my hands should be chopped off as a punishment .

You can check his qualifications for charles state university here https://alumni.csu.edu.au/benefits/verify-qualifications , craig wright 23-10-1970

Edit. If his doctorate was plagiarised after all the noise years ago i would expected that the university would have it withdrawn , i'm not sure if this can happen though , someone with knowledge on this might add something productive .

Yes , that's my opinion and it's not my intention to push it to anyone else .
My main reasoning for creating this thread are the replies on this thread , you will notice that many members don't share my or yours opinion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5483719.0
No , i can't read satoshi's mind but i have read his whitepaper and posts so i think i understand what he wanted . That's not what btc is right now . But that's a discussion for another topic .

Actually , i dislike coingeek , there are some articles that worth reading from specific authors but many things written regarding csw are way over biased . I dislike Kurt Wuckert Jr too , he's the main reason is stopped getting information from coingeek some years back .


In a couple of months we will have an outcome , i'll just wait till then to come to a conclusion . I don't like throwing heretics on fire without a fair trial . Who knows , maybe a surprise is coming .

"Μηδενα προ του τελους μακαριζε" is a famous ancient greek quote , in english it's something common to the " It ain't over till the fat lady sings " .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus_and_Fate

If i'm wrong , who cares . But imagine what happens if i'm right . So , few months so you can officially declare me as a looney , have patience and get in the line .

After your comment i agree that if an encrypted message that proves identity is hidden in a block then there's no need to have a court session .
In all the other cases how do you think that a pseudonymous user that has invented something can prove his real identity ? Because i think that i have shown above that you can't prove identity with some authentication info .
Satoshi didn't done his best to hide his identity as far as i know . If you could point me to anything that proves the opposite i'd like to see it .
He just used a pseudonymous to have privacy . As most of us here and on other forums . I disagree and to the part that humans do not need to trust each other . He created something that a transaction made on the network doesn't need to be trusted . Society is based on trust . Commerce is based on trust . If trusting was not an issue and bitcoin has solved that then we wouldn't have any need for escrow here , we wouldn't have trust ratings for each member .

 
That's very valid , thanks for pointing that out . I can think of a case ( knowledge of the new owner that satoshi is dead ) but it's a extreme one .

If you read more you will see that this is the only trial so far that has to do with the identity issue . All previous trials were about defamation ( McCormack , Hodlonaut ) or if bitcoin was created by more than one person ( Kleiman ) . Cobra's case was dismissed due to cobra wanting to remain anonymous .
"The identity case is expected to hinge on expert analysis of documents on computer memory sticks which Wright says he found in a drawer at his home last year. Wright will maintain that these will show his work leading up to the registration of www.bitcoin.org in 2008 and the minting of the first bitcoins in January 2009. (The blockchain contains the front-page headline of The Times on 3 January, 2009.)"
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news-focus/news-focus-bitcoin-identity-dispute-comes-to-court/5118638.article

So yes , this is the only case so far that has to do specifically with identity . 

I don't want to be true that satoshi is csw , i want to see if this is a reality or not , based on a decision of someone who understands evidence . For example , even if only 1 document proves that csw is satoshi judge will declare him as satoshi , while community will dispute that and stick to the point that the others are forgeries . Why so ? Because we are not judges or lawyers .
This case can be won very easy if he provide that 1 evidence . Will he ? Grab your popcorn like me and wait . In a few months we will know who's right or wrong .

I'm glad that there are people like you that think this way . Unfortunately so far i didn't find someone with that view , that's the reason i wrote it . I'd be delighted to have more people with your view , maybe i should add a poll .

That's something we assume , we are not he/she/they , so we can't know what's their intention . But , in case he/she/they decide to come forward proof of identity will have to follow a specific route , and that's through courts , at least that's my opinion . Twitter poll can't be a deciding factor .

That's exactly the reason we have to understand that identity is a very complex issue that isn't provable just by one factor . Especially the case of satoshi is one of the hardest because lots of strong evidence should be presented . For example , a message that in the genesis or later block that if it's decoded shows the real identity . Let's not forget that bitcoin is a timestamping machine . I don't believe that satoshi didn't use it that way . Will he ever come forward ? Time will show .

I think that i know much about bitcoin to understand what's it's purpose and how it works , but i'm always open to learning new things . My interactions with blackhatcoiner made me to read a lot about LN of which i had mostly based an opinion from others . If i give the impression that i'm ignorant about bitcoin kindly point me on my mistakes or provide links that can help me .

Totally agree

You are starting to lose me here . What's the other proof that has to do with identity . Any examples ?
As you said above , signing is just a part of authority . Authority changes so authority can't be identity by itself . Having authority today doesn't mean you will have it tomorrow . So , something that is a way to prove something today doesn't mean it will be available tomorrow . If satoshi gave access of the address that interacted with finney to someone else after those transactions does that mean the new owner is satoshi ? I agree that proof of authority signifies only at that point of time a proof of idenity . Not later .
What's your definition of identity , so i can know that we can move on common ground ?

I agree , but we have to understand that satoshi is a pseudonymous and not the identity of a certain person . Satoshi's identity is unknown . Do you think we can agree on that ?

If you want i'd like to leave that part outside of conversation , it's not that i don't want to talk about it ( we can do it in another thread if you want ) , my main focus here is to provide some info about how i think identity is proven and if i'm mistaken to change my view on it .


I don't think a civilised society can work without knowing specific info about it's citizens . Hell , if that's not the case let's have no laws or anything and move to complete anarchy , as anything that has to do with proofs that someone is a criminal is against that's individual privacy . So , maybe we should find a sweet spot about how much privacy we can have and from whom we can be private ?
Crypto has become the heaven for every small or big scammer , huge ones still use mostly the traditional banking system . The good part here is there is the technology to have a fair KYC based on zero knowledge proofs which will strengthen our privacy , and tracking of stolen funds so we can make sure that they will never go the hands of criminals . Blockchain was created to have everything auditable . What we should do as citizens is to force banks and states to use blockchain so any of their actions can be auditable .
If you are seeking something else you might want to revive any of the old cypherpunks failed projects . Chaum has re entered the space with xx network , a new solution for his ecash based on blockchain , you might want to take a look .
 

There is a huge misconception in the community that proof of identity is the same as authentication . Currently , most many members here consider that anyone can come forward as satoshi by posting a message in here , or sending an email from satoshi's old email , or by providing a signed message from an early bitcoin address .
Many have pointed in the past that Charlie Lee , the creator of litecoin , posted a signed message to prove his identity so satoshi should do the same . What Charlie and most people don't get is that he had a known identity as the creator of litecoin since 2013 (https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2013/07/23/litecoin-founder-charles-lee-on-the-origins-and-potential-of-the-worlds-second-largest-cryptocurrency/)  long before the signed message in 2016 (https://imgur.com/p5JL3pE ) which proved nothing more than that he was in the possession of that address keys at that point . As my english are not good to get into the details of this extremely complex topic i will borrow directly from this website  https://alicebiometrics.com/en/what-is-proof-of-identity/

Disclaimer : Some people will start saying that i'm a big blocker and i believe CSW is satoshi , and that's the reason i'm doing this so i have to make things clear .
I'm pro bigger blocks than btc's 1 MB ( i don't recognise segwit as bitcoin ) , i think that bch and bsv are closer to what bitcoin was meant to be . I'm not 100% certain that CSW is satoshi ( people in here have a problem understanding what 95% certainty means ) , he might be a good candidate but that doesn't mean that i take anything he says as granted . I seek truth and i want a bitcoin as imagined by satoshi and early devs to succeed .


"Proof of identity is a crucial process in today’s digital world, where online transactions and interaction are becoming more common. In an environment where trust is vital, being able to verify people’s identities remotely has become essential. In this article, we’ll explain what proof of identity is, how it differs from authentication, and provide some relevant proof of identity examples.

The importance of proof of identity

Identity proof plays a fundamental role in the user and customer verification process. It is the first line of defense against fraud and illegal activities online. In addition, it helps ensure the security of online transactions, protecting both companies and users. Without proper proof of identity, the risks of phishing and fraudulent transactions would increase significantly.
What is proof of identity?

Proof of identity is the process by which the authenticity of a person’s identity is verified. In the digital context, this is achieved through the collection and verification of information and documents that support the identity of the user. This includes personal data, such as name, date of birth, address and other relevant details.

The proof of identity is based on the comparison between the information provided by the user and the information available from different reliable sources. This may include government databases, public records, and other verifiable data sources.

How is proof of identity different from authentication?

It is important to note that proof of identity and authentication are different concepts. While proof of identity focuses on verifying the authenticity of a person’s identity, authentication focuses on verifying that a user is who they say they are.

Authentication is generally carried out after proof of identity, as an additional step to guarantee the security of a transaction or access to certain services. There are different authentication factors, such as passwords, fingerprints, facial recognition or biometric codes.

Proof of identity, on the other hand, encompasses a broader process that includes information gathering and document verification, while authentication focuses more on establishing authorization to perform a specific action.

Examples of proofs of identity

There are different methods that are used to carry out proof of identity in the digital world. Some of the more common examples include:
1. Document verification
This method involves collecting and verifying legal identity documents, such as passports or driver’s licenses. These documents often contain personal information and photographs, which makes it easy to compare with the information provided by the user.
2. Biometric verification
Biometric verification uses a person’s unique characteristics, such as fingerprints, facial or iris recognition, to verify that person’s identity. This biometric data can be compared with previous records or trusted databases to confirm the identity of the user.
3. Verification of government databases
Many countries have government databases that contain the personal information of citizens. These databases can be used to verify a person’s identity by comparing the information provided with information on file with the government.
4. Verification of personal information
This method involves validating the personal information provided by the user through different data sources, such as public records, identity verification services and social networks. By comparing and verifying information, it is possible to confirm a person’s identity.

In summary, proof of identity is a fundamental process in the current digital context. Verifying the identity of users is essential to ensure the security of online transactions and protect companies and users from fraud and illegal activities. Through methods such as document verification, biometric verification, government database verification, and personal information verification, it is possible to carry out an efficient proof of identity."

Let the games begin .

I don't believe with certainty , don't twist my words . Certainty has a specific meaning . I'm not 100% certain , but if you decide to spend time and don't get your opinion from what others offer you you will see that things are as others say . In other words get outside of your echo chamber . May i ask what will you say in the extreme case he proves in court that he is satoshi ? Will you leave this community as it's against your bias and never use bitcoin again ?   

I don't ignore anything contrary to you and most in here , on the opposite i take those into consideration and i want to see if there are other reasons that those seem like something obvious . Do you disagree that we should have courts to solve cases like this or should we look at what twitter majority says to come to a conclusion ?

What you don't understand is that this is his only trial so far that has to do with identity . It's his last chance to prove what he says for years in his way . If he doesn't provide the necessary info i'm on your side . if he provides it you will be on my side or will you try to find excuses to still stand on your opinion ?

I would call it an appeal to sanity but i guess it's hard for you to understand . Read the circumstances that you can't call something an appeal to authority , it's not "one size fits all" .
Ostracised and considered by many ? The many that now start to understand that the 1 MB limit should be raised ? The many that are closing their channels on LN ? The many that face high fees and cry like babies that bad miners are selfish evil entities ? The LN devs that say that unfortunately L2's cannot work ?
Well guess what , these problems were mentioned years ago , but your "authority" claim back then that things will be fine . Aren't 8 years enough to understand that you have been tricked ? 

Back in 2016 i thought it might be him based on the body language after breakdown . I had already watched the bitcoin belle panel and bitcoin doco documentary which intrigued me . Later i started researching with others and found that he was not as incompetent as the majority said . The things that added to my opinion that he possibly is was his series about how bitcoin works , whitepaper , small world networks , philosophy and more . This guy is definitely a polymath and a really sharp mind . People in here will laugh with this but it's common for those that just stick to others opinions because they are too lazy to do some proof of work (sick ) .
At this point i'm 95% certain that he is satoshi or was one of the architects behind the pseudonym . The last 5% will be either a significant proof like a receipt of bitcoin.org purchase or something significant like what he mentioned in the trial that there is a steganographic message in the whitepaper which only satoshi could know . A public signing message will be insignificant after that and probably people will understand why he chose to do it this way .
Of course there is the case that none of this happens and i'm just wrong , but that doesn't mean that the process is wrong .

Your assumption is that he has no other ways to prove who he is and that satoshi is anonymous while it's just a pseudonym .  And based on that assumption you think that he should do what most people want which is to sign . By doing that he's admitting that what most think is the right thing to do . He choose to do it the hard way , and if he can't he will be discredited and possibly go to jail .
Joseph Vaughn-Perling said in one of his interviews back in 2016 :
"The world can learn much from what he has done and how. He is showing what cryptography does and does not do. It is a lesson that the world needs to learn before mass adoption can occur."
"People do not understand what cryptography does and does not do. People do not understand pseudonymous. Having a key means you have a key. It does not mean you had it previously, or that you will have it in the future."

You should read and listen about what Ian Grigg has said about identity and the problems with PGP keys . You have a false impression of how identity works .

I disagree , not everyone can be satoshi . I can't be , as i don't have the technical skills . You too even with more skills . Probably 99.9 % of the community doesn't have the skills . Don't fall to the childish motos of maxi's like we are all satoshi or wagmi . That's for 5yo's .

Edit. I think i missread your last quote , did i ? My english suck . I totally agree .

I'll stick to Mike Hearn's opinion in his response to Greg :

Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else. And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be used. It's not something I "fixated" on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj before he left!


Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "small device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity, you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices, that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus rules for that reason".

But your attempt to convert Bitcoin into that altcoin by exploiting a temporary hack is desperate, and deeply upsetting to many people. Not many quit their jobs and created companies to build products only for today's tiny user base."

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009726.html

So , good luck defending Greg's coin . Goodbye and have a nice day .

The only scam that currently exists is btc . Ot promotes as bitcoin while has nothing to do with it . Segwit , RBF , LN and more has nothing to do with bitcoin . It's the classic misunderstanding that ethereum classic is the fork . Lopp is proud that 0.06% of current's btc code is from the original satoshi code , i guess you are proud too .

Just look at how many people are crying about high fees and the inequality segwit brought after years of it's implementation . You even see maxis start discussing about a hard fork . It will be fun to see that happening after close to 10 years of blocksize wars and i'd like on what side you will stand . But as i said , you don't give a dime about bitcoin , the most important thing for you is to lure people into your pegged para-btc network .


I definitely don't promote they way i get how promotion works , i support both bch and bsv because they are closer to the vision satoshi had about bitcoin . Btc is just an altcoin that has nothing to do with the original and changes in code proves it . How you treat so far btc supporters back what i say .
I'm not the one that stayed on the network that has the original ticker and still think that btc is bitcoin . I went to the network that works according to how i think bitcoin should work , how bitcoin was meant to be , as an electronic cash system . You just stay in btc and complain because you think that bitcoin is just a ticker . We can both have our opinions . Time will prove who's wrong and who's right . Seems that both of us are not young so i hope we will have the time to see the result .

I don't think that Charles Sturt University was also a part of the conspiracy to let a guy who can't even code hello world be a lecturer of them on a class about supercomputers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybvQ1YwcF-0&list=PLGB2uErtks4o-fJdoe1ZX3HXl_A69Sbsv

I agree , but mining isn't based on rapspis to work . To find an optimised solution in an NP-hard problem computational power is needed . Do you think your rapspi will be able to handle a massive amount of paths and liquidity if/when LN is implemented ? And it's not me that says it won't work , it's their devs . But still people in here claim that it will work . Should i listen to the devs or members in here ? Except if doomad is a pseudonym of some LN dev , in that case i'd like to hear his opinion . If not then what he says is pure bull crap.


https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-August/003203.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html
https://njump.me/nevent1qqsv5jyfh9gp2qnhruevrph39s2mspzfw3e9mx5avg0wenltrdjnnhgpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q3yamnwvaz7tm0venxx6rpd9hzuur4vgq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmnyqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfnsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsq3yamnwvaz7tmnv9k8g6tkddsjummjvupzp3wd64ehu3l4gfkfm63yxqfpztkk97a8k5683p5pvphhnadtj6p2xgpax5

Edit . LN is even more centralised than mining . Have a look at how much liquidity and channels belong to the top 10 . All small players are leaving it because they know it's an unfair fight against big players , contrary to how mining works .

Your definition of centralisation ? The problem is that you think that your node plays a significant role in the network . Well , guess what , it doesn't . Ordinals etc shows exactly that . Luke et al understand that only pool level matters , seems that you didn't get that yet . Decentralisation doesn't come from number of nodes , but from economic terms . If you try to understand how network originally worked you will come to a eureka moment at some point . Ofcourse , after 8 years of LN "development" you still can't understand that it can't work in a massive scale , so i don't expect that to happen in this life .  
 
You are great at labeling people , not a strange thing for a cult member . Any real arguments ? Even LN devs stand with my position that LN doesn't work .
Good luck with your LN trying to solve an NP hard problem .

I hope that people in here see that you have nothing to add to the discussion other than personal insults . But that's what bitcointalk has become , a place to earn money by writing rubbish about others and becoming a "respected" member by providing nothing . People like you and your cult have forced many really respected members to leave this place and never come back . Seems that me , franky and some others are too stubborn to let you poison the newbies with nonsense . Our common is that we love bitcoin even if we disagree on parts while you love anything other than it .  

 

 

Don't forget LN , that's the trojan horse they're expecting to gain profits from . That's why all the funding from corporations to devs is headed towards the development of L2's leaving L1 out . The good thing is that they're too ignorant to understand that L2's are an impossible solution and are just burning money .

@OP i think that you too biased to listen what he says . That's why you and others laughing with what he says . That's the reason most of the community thinks he's an incompetent liar . He might be a liar but he's not incompetent . As i said in an earlier post he is one of the people with the deeper knowledge about bitcoin . But no one wants  to hear what he says . Try to be unbiased and you will understand that he has right in many spots .
As you know his opponents ( AVP , Lopp etc ) were saying that he doesn't even have diplomas . Does he give you that impression ? Do you think he is/was a forensics expert? Do you think he lies about his contribution of CHFI book written in 2007 ? Did the lawyer question his diplomas ? Has he debunk the blacknet project that AVP says is imaginary ?
What i mean is that the guy is not someone incompetent as presented by his enemies . He is a knowledgeable guy in many fields . Is he a liar ? Well , that's what courts are for .

I agree that some times he moves in muddy waters , but that doesn't necessarily means he's lying . My knowledge is limited and that's why i wait for the outcome of the trial . There are some points though that he questions the expertise of the experts . Like how do you explain the part that copa lawyer says that whitepaper was written in open office and calls him a liar when he says it was written in latex while if you do a search for the term "transactions" in the online pdf version the word is highlighted also in pictures ? From what i know you can't do that with an image . That means copa's expert has made a mistake that whitepaper isn't written in latex . And if an expert has made such a serious error doesn't that question his expertise ? If you have any other explanation for this kindly let me know . Maybe i get it wrong .

@LeezHamilton You can send an email to have live access through a unique link , broadcasting isn't allowed , you will find the necessary info here https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crypto-open-patient-alliance-v-dr-craig-steven-wright-and-dr-wright-v-various/

Another thing i'd like to point is that meta/facebook was a part of copa . Did that sound right for you ? Was zuck/facebook interested for the good of bitcoin ? Jack/ex twitter too ? These two guys are the real form of "big brother" of the internet and suddenly decided to "help" bitcoin , hooray . At least zuck decided to move back 1 year before his platinum membership expires and leave copa . Strange coincidence .

Anyone can claim , but only one in each case can prove it . That's the point we are now , proving in court . Either he is or he goes to jail for perjury and other things . Isn't that great ?


The laws of mathematics say that when you have 4 aces there are 1 in 165 million chances to lose . But you know , s**ts happen some times .
Being pro bsv doesn't mean i follow craig blindly . In fact i was pro increasing blocksize before craig ( same as Back , Lopp and others ) . So , don't try to find things when there aren't any . Don't embarrass yourself please .

Does he owe something to the community to do it the way community wants if he is satoshi ?


Not ownership , but possession . There is a huge difference in between .
If i steal your keys am i the owner of your coins ? Or am i a thief who illegally posses your coins ? And more importantly , if i steal your keys am i you ?
 
 
Well , from what i see in the court things might not be as how Arthur Van Pelt wants to be . We will see if judge decides these are forged . I guess he will know better than you and me .  
Nonsense , i laughed on that part . Are you living in the real world or at some fantasy island ? That's not how you prove identity .

And a question to the community , if somehow a miracle happens for craig and judge says that he is satoshi , what will be your reaction ?

Edit . I have to mention that i think he should sign from an early block , just do it after proving his identity the legal way and not the other way .