[2016-05-04] BBC: Bitcoin expert: It was a mistake to blog about 'creator'

[pawel7777]

Bitcoin expert: It was a mistake to blog about 'creator'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36202904

A leading figure in the Bitcoin community has expressed regret about a blog backing an Australian's claim to have invented the crypto-currency.

Craig Wright announced on Monday that he was behind Satoshi Nakamoto - the pseudonym used by Bitcoin's creator.

The same day, Gavin Andresen, chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, wrote he was "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt" of Dr Wright's case.

But Mr Andresen said he now thinks it was a "mistake" to have posted.

The expert had written that he had privately witnessed Dr Wright using cryptographic keys that "only Satoshi should possess".

But critics called Dr Wright's claim into doubt when it emerged that part of the evidence the entrepreneur presented in public could have been generated using a string of digits linked to a seven-year-old transaction made by Satoshi, accessible via a search engine.
...

[maydna]

for me, i don't believe that craight wright is founder of bitcoin but i can't explained why, its just my feeling.

[Kprawn]

We still waiting for a public explanation on why Gavin announced this prematurely and then subsequently and allegedly claimed he was hacked {Or was that just a over-reaction from the Core devs?}

He must have clearly thought Craig were the real deal, for him to announce this publicly. If this turns out that Gavin did not test the findings and discussed it with his peers... he could possibly have

made a huge mistake and would regret it for the rest of his life. His whole reputation and credibility is on the line with this one...  ... If this turns out to be true {and I have my doubts} then Gavin

would be a instant hero for identifying this early.

[pawel7777]

We still waiting for a public explanation on why Gavin announced this prematurely and then subsequently and allegedly claimed he was hacked {Or was that just a over-reaction from the Core devs?}
...

He pretty much explained what happened.

He got duped. Maybe he didn't put enough effort to make sure he wasn't being tricked by CSW, as he was sure that CSW would make the signature public anyway, if that was the case CSW wouldn't have any reason to pull any tricks on him.

The 'hacking concern' was made up by Core devs to revoke Gavin's commit access, apparently they refused to reinstate it even when it turned out Gavin wasn't hacked. Just taking advantage of the situation I guess.

[TraderTimm]

Here's the real deal - Gavin is a security risk.

If he can't use his own deductive powers (and a complete list of requirements for "proof" that he ignored) and get put-over by some con man, I'm sure I don't want him making decisions about Bitcoin that could affect everyone's security and usage. Removing his commit access was a prudent move, as Gavin is frankly proving to be rather gullible when it comes to stronger personalities (such as Hearn) offering their "improvements".

It isn't like we didn't know it, after his three-letter-agency visit, it became clear that the last thing Gavin had the ability to do was say "no" to someone in perceived authority.

I cast a vote of "no confidence" in Gavin, and it looks like I'm not alone...

[Snorek]

Bitcoin Foundation which Gavin is part of was from the beginning not really good at representing Bitcoin.
Nevertheless, the Foundation always had too many internal problems for it to ever become a useful pillar for the bitcoin community to rely upon.
So I won't trust in that scandalous pseudo association until I am fully proved wrong.

[Carlton Banks]

This was no mistake, Gavin is too smart and far too well accomplished in this field to make such a string of such amateurish errors. It's nothing more than a desperate publicity stunt from a disappearingly relevant/credible bad actor in the Bitcoin space. Good riddance, it's even more undignified an exit than Hearn's ragequit.