Has Wired discovered the real Satoshi Nakamoto? (.. this time)

[repentance]

This is a really interesting question. Have any logic answer or good explanation given yet? The question is, who invited him to this conference, so this person should know that he has something to do with Bitcoin.

Plenty of people get invited to conferences on the basis of self-promotion.  Do you really think conference organisers are going to check out whether he holds the degrees he claims to have been awarded, let alone whether he works with one of the biggest privately owned super-computers (even if he does, his role may be insignificant)?

That doesn't mean he's not Satoshi.  People can start out wanting to remain anonymous and later want credit and adulation (see Silk Road), but almost everything in the Wired article is self-referential so Wright could have claimed pretty much anything he wanted to conference organisers.  Seriously, look at the scams which have been perpetrated in the Bitcoin sphere in the past on the basis of nothing more than self-promotion.  People want to believe.

[Gleb Gamow]

Anybody that thinks a egotistical, self-promoting, no-nothing loser like Craig Wright is Satoishi is an idiot. The guy is an Australian for heaven's sake. Australia? Remember? The country with the rabbit-proof fence? They are idiots. Craig Wright can't even program his VCR, forget about computers.

Or how to operate a smartphone camera to document Satoshi doing lifts and bouldering as demonstrated per uploads to Craig Wright's YouTube channel.

[Gatekeeper]

I think this is closer to the truth:

Wright believed Kleiman was either Satoshi or had a huge stash of coins from the earliest days of Bitcoin. Being the scammer type that he seems to be, when Kleiman died he thought he'd have a chance to get hold of these coins by contacting his father and scoring himself a massive windfall. Also, with Kleiman dying it allowed Wright to jump on his bandwagon and claim that they were both Satoshi, the kind of thing a narcissistic ego would do, to try and stake a claim to any bitcoins Kleiman had.

The more it unfolds, the more it seems like Wright is just a scammer,as his world collapsed as the tax authorities closed in on him and his $50m+ Australian scam from government he saw this Kleiman angle as his only chance to solve his inevitable problem. Now that it's all coming crashing down he will end up bankrupt and maybe in prison.

As a scammer would, he tried to fix one scam by pulling off another, luckily it wont ever work in a world of crypto proof, and he will get what's coming to him. I think this Satoshi claim is the last desperate chance he had as he knew the end was nigh as the authorities closed in.

There is one major flaw in your theory.  If Kleiman is indeed Satoshi and he died in 2013, how did he pen the "I am not Dorian" post?

I didn't say Kleiman was Satoshi, I said Wright seems to have believed,for whatever reason, that Kleiman was Satoshi or at least involved in the creation of it. If Kleiman worked with Wright in previous years, as someone posted above, then Wright probably thought he'd been just a sidestep away from having been involved in it also. For a scammer/narcissistic personality the frustration and disappointment at being so close to it probably grew over the years as Bitcoin got bigger. Then, when Kleiman died his greed thought now was the chance to step into Kleimans shoes, try to get hold of his coins and probably his computer and his files and be able to claim that he was Satoshi himself.  The Tulip fund was probably  invented by Wright as a way to try and lay claim to any bitcoins that Kleiman had control over, basically saying they were his but Kleiman was custodian over them.

The interesting thing for me, with what they've uncovered, is why Wright thought Kleiman had a significant amount of coins or why he seemed to think Kleiman was important. If anything, i'd say the story should focus more on Kleimans associates and not the scammer Wright. Who did Kleiman work with around that time? is there any clues or was Wright just mistaken in thinking Kleiman was either involved or just held a huge amount of coins.

[Gleb Gamow]

I think this is closer to the truth:

Wright believed Kleiman was either Satoshi or had a huge stash of coins from the earliest days of Bitcoin. Being the scammer type that he seems to be, when Kleiman died he thought he'd have a chance to get hold of these coins by contacting his father and scoring himself a massive windfall. Also, with Kleiman dying it allowed Wright to jump on his bandwagon and claim that they were both Satoshi, the kind of thing a narcissistic ego would do, to try and stake a claim to any bitcoins Kleiman had.

The more it unfolds, the more it seems like Wright is just a scammer,as his world collapsed as the tax authorities closed in on him and his $50m+ Australian scam from government he saw this Kleiman angle as his only chance to solve his inevitable problem. Now that it's all coming crashing down he will end up bankrupt and maybe in prison.

As a scammer would, he tried to fix one scam by pulling off another, luckily it wont ever work in a world of crypto proof, and he will get what's coming to him. I think this Satoshi claim is the last desperate chance he had as he knew the end was nigh as the authorities closed in.

There is one major flaw in your theory.  If Kleiman is indeed Satoshi and he died in 2013, how did he pen the "I am not Dorian" post?

I didn't say Kleiman was Satoshi, I said Wright seems to have believed,for whatever reason, that Kleiman was Satoshi or at least involved in the creation of it. If Kleiman worked with Wright in previous years, as someone posted above, then Wright probably thought he'd been just a sidestep away from having been involved in it also. For a scammer/narcissistic personality the frustration and disappointment at being so close to it probably grew over the years as Bitcoin got bigger. Then, when Kleiman died his greed thought now was the chance to step into Kleimans shoes, try to get hold of his coins and probably his computer and his files and be able to claim that he was Satoshi himself.  The Tulip fund was probably  invented by Wright as a way to try and lay claim to any bitcoins that Kleiman had control over, basically saying they were his but Kleiman was custodian over them.

The interesting thing for me, with what they've uncovered, is why Wright thought Kleiman had a significant amount of coins or why he seemed to think Kleiman was important. If anything, i'd say the story should focus more on Kleimans associates and not the scammer Wright. Who did Kleiman work with around that time? is there any clues or was Wright just mistaken in thinking Kleiman was either involved or just held a huge amount of coins.

Here's all the info on Dave Kleiman: http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460

[tyz]

Don't think so that it would be huge if Satoshi's identity would be find. it is something that makes Bitcoin special and creates a legend if the creator keeps secret. No matter who he/she/they is/are, the idea and creation of Bitcoin was genius.

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/

That would be huge if they would find him.
But this is hoax :| he is wannabe nakamoto.

[Gleb Gamow]

This is a really interesting question. Have any logic answer or good explanation given yet? The question is, who invited him to this conference, so this person should know that he has something to do with Bitcoin.

Plenty of people get invited to conferences on the basis of self-promotion.  Do you really think conference organisers are going to check out whether he holds the degrees he claims to have been awarded, let alone whether he works with one of the biggest privately owned super-computers (even if he does, his role may be insignificant)?

That doesn't mean he's not Satoshi.  People can start out wanting to remain anonymous and later want credit and adulation (see Silk Road), but almost everything in the Wired article is self-referential so Wright could have claimed pretty much anything he wanted to conference organisers.  Seriously, look at the scams which have been perpetrated in the Bitcoin sphere in the past on the basis of nothing more than self-promotion.  People want to believe.

Craig was fifth on the list of speakers: http://bitcoininvestor.com/index.php/speakers/

[onlinedragon]

Impressive story just read this and has never been so well informed about this.

[Spoetnik]

I would highly appreciate it if OP closed this thread. It's been proven that he's nothing more than a fraud. We're probably going to see a lot of similar stories in the future (we've had some in the past). It's not worth discussing it further.

Seriously ? i can't believe you would ask him to close this.
There is plenty to discuss..
And people are some what divided.

Further more all of the info on this topic got posted here first then copied to a ton of other topics littering the forum.
Get rid off all of those useless topics and leave just this one.

Lauda before they made you staff i continually questioned you activity and poor attitude in the Altcoin section.
You made a habit of coming after me and trying to argue all the time with a foul attitude.
Some times you seem normal and other time i am simply baffled by the shit you say.
And as a staff member you are dirt shit poor at it.
You act like a fucking Nazi dictator trying to jam your opinions down peoples throats.
Anyway it was obvious you did a little vanishing act.. then next time i seen you it said staff under your name.. and i laughed ROFL
(and the comment was deleted by someone too wow what a shocker)
Whos cock do you got to suck for that ?
Where did Eliot go to by the way ?
Seemed fishy how you two trolled the same topics way back.. and both vanished.

Most people who -ASK- to be put in charge on forums are retarded little douches or older moronic pricks.
Most normal people would not -WANT- to be in charge.
I did it before on a place more popular than this and had far worse trolls than you babies cry about
and it was easy to deal with and i never banned anyone or had any problems.
The mods are are often stupid and create problems when none exist.. because they want to moderate something.. anything !
My time as a Mod was boring and uneventful and i quit because kids coming up wanted to do it.
I have better things to do with my time.

Close the topic ?
What the fuck for ?
How about don't read it if it bugs you so much ?
And besides Lauda you claim we should leave Satioshi alone.. why because you assuming things because he used TOR ?
That proves sweet fuck all.. your jumping to conclusions.
Which is probably your agenda here actually.. pushing the leave him alone angle..
Because you know what Satoshi wants deep down more than all the rest of us..
Based on reading between the lines assuming things and jumping to conclusions.
The perfect set of traits to be staff  

Lauda my opinion of -YOU- is your a pushy mouthy jerk.
I have seen that in your comments now for 3 years and my various run in's...
You are snappy, cranky, mouthy, argumentative and like to Troll on people with that account or others.
Terribly original shtick around here 

EDIT:
i say that because you keep coming back to this topic saying Leave him alone or close the topic etc.
If people want to hunt Satoshi they will..

[jbreher]

he will still have to prove it

Please explain why you think he would need to prove a claim that he never made?

[Gatekeeper]

Here's all the info on Dave Kleiman: http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460

thanks for that, so here it what i think happened:

Wright and Kleiman were involved on Metzdowd, Kleiman much more so than Wright, Kleiman probably even told Wright about Bitcoin. Wright probably did nothing about it, but knew that kleiman had dabbled with it, mining from very early on and knew/thought that Kleiman amassed a huge amount of coins. Then, as the price grew, his jealousness/greed/anger grew because he hadn't done the same thing. Then when he died he thought he'd be able to fix all his anger/frustration/regret by getting hold of whatever Kleiman had.

If you look here, Kleiman posted on Metzdowd just 4 days before Satoshi and is only two below Satoshis post, so it makes sense that he was aware of it from the very start and may even have messed about with mining it from the very start.  
http://marc.info/?l=cryptography&r=1&w=2&b=200901

I would say, though, his post from a few days before would show that he wasn't SN or involved in the creating of it, he was involved in something else and, like Hal Finney, was just playing around with it right from the very start. Wright missed the opportunity and regretted it, then saw his chance to steal whatever Kleiman had when he died.

[Gleb Gamow]

I would highly appreciate it if OP closed this thread. It's been proven that he's nothing more than a fraud. We're probably going to see a lot of similar stories in the future (we've had some in the past). It's not worth discussing it further.

Should I close my thread about Leroy Fodor as well? How 'bout the BFL thread since it's obvious that they're no longer in operation. We also need to lock all of Satoshi's threads so that they don't get bumped for whatever reason. Black Arrow's thread?

I'm now curious as to what the litmus test consist of for one to become staff on this forum, wondering how close Dank came to making the cut.

[Denker]

Here's all the info on Dave Kleiman: http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460

thanks for that, so here it what i think happened:

Wright and Kleiman were involved on Metzdowd, Kleiman much more so than Wright, Kleiman probably even told Wright about Bitcoin. Wright probably did nothing about it, but knew that kleiman had dabbled with it, mining from very early on and knew/thought that Kleiman amassed a huge amount of coins. Then, as the price grew, his jealousness/greed/anger grew because he hadn't done the same thing. Then when he died he thought he'd be able to fix all his anger/frustration/regret by getting hold of whatever Kleiman had.

If you look here, Kleiman posted on Metzdowd just 4 days before Satoshi and is only two below Satoshis post, so it makes sense that he was aware of it from the very start and may even have messed about with mining it from the very start.  
http://marc.info/?l=cryptography&r=1&w=2&b=200901

I would say, though, his post from a few days before would show that he wasn't SN or involved in the creating of it, he was involved in something else and, like Hal Finney, was just playing around with it right from the very start. Wright missed the opportunity and regretted it, then saw his chance to steal whatever Kleiman had when he died.

Good to read but I doubt we will ever find out if this is how the story went.I mean Wright must had been sure, that Kleiman was holding a bigger amount of coins.
It's just two days and that Mr. Wright already annoys me!I feel sorry for the eople who have to deal with him in real life.

[jbreher]

Anybody that thinks a egotistical, self-promoting, no-nothing loser like Craig Wright is Satoishi is an idiot. The guy is an Australian for heaven's sake. Australia? Remember? The country with the rabbit-proof fence? They are idiots. Craig Wright can't even program his VCR, forget about computers.

What an utterly curious brand of jingoistic xenophobia. Based upon the above drivel, you probably would not like whom I would choose between you or Dr. Wright as the idiot.

BTW: http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11/ Have a gander at #17.

[rienelber]

Hey guys, if almost nobody believes Craig is satoshi, why the bitcoin price is still at its price (around 412 USD)? Shouldn't the price start to fall as the lie started to unravel?

[HarryKPeters]

Hey guys, if almost nobody believes Craig is satoshi, why the bitcoin price is still at its price (around 412 USD)? Shouldn't the price start to fall as the lie started to unravel?

LOL that makes no sense, just no sense at all. What you claim is that the price fall when it was at 1100 because nodbody knew the real Satoshi?
For me the real satoshi is hiding and probably for a good reason. We have to trust him on that. Let him be.

[countryfree]

The worse part here is that this guy isn't the real Satoshi, the real one should feel terrible hearing about him. But what could he do without revealing himself (or herself)? Maybe that's the ultimate goal, forcing the real Satoshi to reveal himself (or herself)!

[Gleb Gamow]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigswright



Somewhere in the UK, Craig Steven Wright is trying to secure a multi-million-dollar loan using his 500+ nodes as collateral. HAHAHA

[Gleb Gamow]

https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-performed-linguistic-analysis-between-the-writings-of-Nick-Szabo-and-all-the-posts-Satoshi-Nakamoto-has-made-on-p2p-foundation-to-expose-a-potential-positive-correlation/answer/Craig-S-Wright



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZWVu6XsO4


"Nick, you facepalm and I'll masturbate while Craig Wright's listin' his accolades. Shit, Ms Seven stopped him to ask about his Bitcoin connection. <zip!>"

[Quickseller]

Somewhere in the UK, Craig Steven Wright is trying to secure a multi-million-dollar loan using his 500+ nodes as collateral. HAHAHA

Do you have a source/link for this?

he will still have to prove it

Please explain why you think he would need to prove a claim that he never made?

In it, he seems to consider using Nakamoto’s name to wield influence with New South Wales Senator Arthur Sinodinos “Would our Japanese friend have weight coming out of retirement?” Wright asks. It includes a draft email to the senator signed “Satoshi Nakamoto.” And a leaked transcript of Wright’s meeting with attorneys and tax officials in February 2014 quotes him in a moment of exasperation: “I did my best to try and hide the fact that I’ve been running bitcoin since 2009,” Wright says.

I am not exactly sure what the context was exactly the author of the article means by "draft" however at the very least, he was considering to outright make the claim that he is satoshi (if the leaked emails/documents are to be believed), and I cannot think of anyone else who can be described as "running bitcoin since 2009" other then satoshi (also if the leaked transcripts with tax authorities are to be believed).

[chek2fire]

Come on guys how can anyone after all that false evidence still believe that this Scammer can be Satoshi? Is very clear that this guy is simple a scamer and that he create this hoax for a solution to his economical problems
I believe that and his education is fake and everything he has in his c.v.
Dave Kleimen also is not Satoshi. The last message from Satoshi here in this forum was when this guy was in hospital. The story is fake.