Gmaxwell proves Craig Wright is a fraud

[keepdoing]

Craig = Satoshi.  You can't fake most of the facts, and most of those facts fit.  AND the amount of innacurate information, exageration and FUD being propogated is growing so exponentially it is ridiculous.  This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense and drama because "Satoshi" was more fun to believe in as a purely idealistic vision - than to look at through the lens of reality.

Sort of like the whole Jesus concept.  If Jesus really were to come back, today, the first thing religion would do is beat the crap out of him and nail him up to another cross all the while screaming hysterically that he was an fraud.

LOL - same thing going on here.... Seems tech weenies are still just a step evolved above the apes, even with all your loft idealistic talk.  Your "Tech Jesus" has returned, and you scream to crucify him  Flippin monkeys.  Just when you think there is actual evolution occurring.  ROFL

LOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria

Your wrong, in crypto world you have to sign tx/message to prove ownership. He dont deliver this proof of course, you should question why and whether anybody else could claim the same as he did then.

Craig didn't just claim he was Satoshi.  He has NOT publically claimed to be Satoshi.  It is "discovery" of old posts/emails etc in which he privately admitted it to others in the very early days.  But he NEVER said he was Satoshi in the video, or in any recent communication, and has NEVER done so publically.  The media and the hyped out spreading disinformation trying to paint Craig as a glory seeker have done that.

What is apparent is that the EVIDENCE and the FACTS we have so far are leading to the conclusion Craig = Satoshi.  And it is being compiled without his involvement.   The other thing that is perfectly apparent is that IF the evidence and facts uncovered so far is correct, then every bit of it also points to the fact that he desires privacy, and is pissed that his "gift given freely" somehow creates a thought process in the general monkey population that he is somehow now indebted to you for having given you a gift, and that you have earned the right to destroy his privacy and life.  F%^$ing Selfish Losers.

And yes, he should have known that monkeys will be monkeys true to their nature.  Selfish little prigs.  And yet he grew a bannana tree for you, even though he knew you would just whine for more.

And with all that said.... in ALL worlds, he does NOT have to verify a damn thing to you.

[1714061063]

1714061063

[tokeweed]

Craig = Satoshi.  You can't fake most of the facts, and most of those facts fit.  AND the amount of innacurate information, exageration and FUD being propogated is growing so exponentially it is ridiculous.  This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense and drama because "Satoshi" was more fun to believe in as a purely idealistic vision - than to look at through the lens of reality.

Sort of like the whole Jesus concept.  If Jesus really were to come back, today, the first thing religion would do is beat the crap out of him and nail him up to another cross all the while screaming hysterically that he was an fraud.

LOL - same thing going on here.... Seems tech weenies are still just a step evolved above the apes, even with all your loft idealistic talk.  Your "Tech Jesus" has returned, and you scream to crucify him  Flippin monkeys.  Just when you think there is actual evolution occurring.  ROFL

LOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria

Your wrong, in crypto world you have to sign tx/message to prove ownership. He dont deliver this proof of course, you should question why and whether anybody else could claim the same as he did then.

Craig didn't just claim he was Satoshi.  He has NOT publically claimed to be Satoshi.  It is "discovery" of old posts/emails etc in which he privately admitted it to others in the very early days.  But he NEVER said he was Satoshi in the video, or in any recent communication, and has NEVER done so publically.  The media and the hyped out spreading disinformation trying to paint Craig as a glory seeker have done that.

What is apparent is that the EVIDENCE and the FACTS we have so far are leading to the conclusion Craig = Satoshi.  And it is being compiled without his involvement.   The other thing that is perfectly apparent is that IF the evidence and facts uncovered so far is correct, then every bit of it also points to the fact that he desires privacy, and is pissed that his "gift given freely" somehow creates a thought process in the general monkey population that he is somehow now indebted to you for having given you a gift, and that you have earned the right to destroy his privacy and life.  F%^$ing Selfish Losers.

And yes, he should have known that monkeys will be monkeys true to their nature.  Selfish little prigs.  And yet he grew a bannana tree for you, even though he knew you would just whine for more.

And with all that said.... in ALL worlds, he does NOT have to verify a damn thing to you.

Quick question.  Are you racist? 

[stan.distortion]

But what if Satoshi paid him to be Satoshi?  You guys ever think of that?

No i think you're Satoshi and hiding behind a fcking troll acct. Make alot more sense

Exactly what Satoshi is doing by paying Craig to be Satoshi.

I think this will be the thought if Satoshi's account on here makes a post saying he is and signs the message.

That would be the effect of reverse psychology.  Brilliant!  Satoshi is the master of smoke and mirrors.

Lol, not so sure about the mirrors on this one

Checkmate Mr Wright.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxslii7

If anything, that proves it is him. Specifically, the argument is this:

"PGP key.. its metadata contains cipher-suites which were not widely used until later software."

Craig was building PGP from source himself at the time. It would have included any new/experimental versions of the cipher suites. At the time, he was working with encryption. Go check his Usenet posts.

Any chance of a bit more info on that? Hadn't bothered looking at this after the presses previous Satoshi screwups but it's starting to get interesting.

[keepdoing]

Craig = Satoshi.  You can't fake most of the facts, and most of those facts fit.  AND the amount of innacurate information, exageration and FUD being propogated is growing so exponentially it is ridiculous.  This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense and drama because "Satoshi" was more fun to believe in as a purely idealistic vision - than to look at through the lens of reality.

Sort of like the whole Jesus concept.  If Jesus really were to come back, today, the first thing religion would do is beat the crap out of him and nail him up to another cross all the while screaming hysterically that he was an fraud.

LOL - same thing going on here.... Seems tech weenies are still just a step evolved above the apes, even with all your loft idealistic talk.  Your "Tech Jesus" has returned, and you scream to crucify him  Flippin monkeys.  Just when you think there is actual evolution occurring.  ROFL

LOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria

Easy.  Don't get mad bro.

I have more legitimate right to be angry than absolutely anyone posting on this forum, except for Craig himself, who I am not, although my situation is similar in parallel way.  I know that it should not make me angry that people act like people do.... but it is frustrating sometimes that there really is no helping most of this species in the end.  You will do what you will do, and you will end as you must.

[Preclus]

As a followup, the argument that the preferred hashes "weren't added" to GNUGPG until after 2009 is meaningless. Read RFC 4880:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-9

That is the RFC from November 2007. Now look at section 9.4, the preferred hashes. Hash algorithms 1 through 11 are in there. They are not experimental, they are standard hashes.

GNUPGP was just one of a number of OpenPGP implementations. PGP itself dates back to 1991. OpenPGP to 1997. Looking at the preferred hash list is meaningless.

[Preclus]

Any chance of a bit more info on that? Hadn't bothered looking at this after the presses previous Satoshi screwups but it's starting to get interesting.

Start by searching for "Craig Wright AES" in Google Groups (old Usenets posts)

[stan.distortion]

As a followup, the argument that the preferred hashes "weren't added" to GNUGPG until after 2009 is meaningless. Read RFC 4880:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-9

That is the RFC from November 2007. Now look at section 9.4, the preferred hashes. Hash algorithms 1 through 11 are in there. They are not experimental, they are standard hashes.

GNUPGP was just one of a number of OpenPGP implementations. PGP itself dates back to 1991. OpenPGP to 1997. Looking at the preferred hash list is meaningless.

Cheers, not about to jump to any conclusions on it but FUD free facts are much appreciated.

[Denker]

Look at Nick Szabo's reaction when she asked, "Who are you...?" and they pan the camera over to her... I think he smelled the bullshit way in advance or he knows more than what

he is revealing. I still think Nick is one of a group of people making up the Satoshi Nakamoto team... how ironic that Craig Wright ends up in that panel. I guess we will never know.

I just hope we will know before this person die, I would want him/her to receive all the accolades they deserve. 

Yes I was watching the video for the same reason.
I looked at Szabo to see his reaction.He showed a very light smile and then covered his mouth with his hands.It was kind of bizarre.
And how got this Craig Wright invited?
In the video it is just said Michele Seven knows him from twitter and invited him.
But who has known this guy before?
This is so weird.
But it would be crazy if he really holds seveal hundred thousands of bitcoins, which ATO might be going for now.

[keepdoing]

But it would be crazy if he really holds seveal hundred thousands of bitcoins, which ATO might be going for now.

ATO was investigating/working with Craig in parralel.  #1 - because of the bitcoin phenomena, as a gov't they have the responsibility to set the correct precedent.  Craig was starting up a huge bank.  Doing it properly also - sort of like Circle in the U.S. (by that I mean that Dynarius Bnk was being set up according to proper rules/regs.)

If you read one of the referenced transcripts, you will see that as the discussion/decision regarding the "Nature of Bitcoin" decision was evolving - you will see that teh very real possibility that one outcome would be that a REFUND from Gov't to Craig/Dynarius was a real possibility.  You will also see that they not only supported the advancement of the bank, they wee working very hard to get through the mandatory process of setting a firm foundation/definition of how to treat bitcoin - so that they could free up Craig to continue the project as quickly as possible. (READ the transcript - it is all there)

But unless I missed something, at no time was there a realization by ATO that Craig was actually Satoshi.  They were dealing with Huge amounts of Bitcoin, but they were looking at it as investment, trying to figure out what it meant to transfer say 30,000 Bitcoins from Wallet 1 to Wallet 2, and if that defined a change in ownership, how that applied to tax, cross border transactions etc.

WHEN the Craig = Satoshi news broke, they realized that the guy they had been working with was MUCH bigger (in potential amount of bitcoins) than they had previously been aware of.

Craig has now already pretty much concluded his "negotiations" with ATO to a degree that his future activity with the previously undisclosed bitcoins is now covered/protected by the conclusion of previous negotiation.

But of course it is never as simple as one thinks when dealing with Governments, and now Craig is based in London, with moves to Iceland.  Could be ATO is simply "making a show", or it could be they are feeling hoodwinked.

Craig does have a law degree

The "Satoshi stash" is probably now protected legally, and available to openly be used to supply all the necessary reserves for his new Bitcoin bank.  Just a thought

[pereira4]

It seems that this Craig guy had problems with taxes so he may have done this to get some fame, now he will do some interviews in the best paid mainstream media, become rich, pay back the taxes and then retire. Good move.

[keepdoing]

It seems that this Craig guy had problems with taxes so he may have done this to get some fame, now he will do some interviews in the best paid mainstream media, become rich, pay back the taxes and then retire. Good move.

Again, more uninformed, misleading nonsense.   If a person were patient and intelligent enough to review most of the evidence that is surfacing, before rushing to speak, they might find that....

The "tax problem" is actually pretty specific with Craig's pre-planned(?) attempts to take a small portion of the "Satoshi Stash" and introduce it into the financial network in a way that allowed him to best leverage its use with the most minimal tax/loss scenario, and to influence long term tax treatment.  He did so in a way that allowed him to set a precedent, without unveiling the true scope and size of the actual "satoshi stash" that was the ultimate prize of financial integration.

Again, more evidence of a brilliance of planning and manipulation worthy of Satoshi.

[cellard]

From reddit:

I genuinely don't understand the logic people are following. The article presents some evidence and then seems to go back and disprove it all.

    1. A "hacker" dropped off some emails and PDFs that they admit can't be verified
    2. The PGP signature matches an email that's 1 character off from Satoshi's... Which proves nothing useful and points to a forgery
    3. Later they reference the PGP signature as associated with Satoshi despite confirming that it's not
    4. He inserted the references to bitcoin into his 2009 blog posts in 2013

Then there's a video of a guy acting like a moron when someone asks when he got into Bitcoin.

How are we coming to this conclusion?

I agree, the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove this guy is Satoshi Nakamoto, you would need to take a leap of faith to do so, which is not an option.

[TeamButtcoin]

greg maxwell is also an idiot, sooo

[bryant.coleman]

From reddit:

I genuinely don't understand the logic people are following. The article presents some evidence and then seems to go back and disprove it all.

    1. A "hacker" dropped off some emails and PDFs that they admit can't be verified
    2. The PGP signature matches an email that's 1 character off from Satoshi's... Which proves nothing useful and points to a forgery
    3. Later they reference the PGP signature as associated with Satoshi despite confirming that it's not
    4. He inserted the references to bitcoin into his 2009 blog posts in 2013

Then there's a video of a guy acting like a moron when someone asks when he got into Bitcoin.

How are we coming to this conclusion?

I agree, the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove this guy is Satoshi Nakamoto, you would need to take a leap of faith to do so, which is not an option.

These evidences are more than enough to prove that Craig Wright is either a fraud, or a puppet of the big bankers. However, there is a chance that he might be holding hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins. BTC was going at $1 = BTC1,300 in 2010 (New Liberty Standard exchange rate). He might have bought quite a few of them at that time.

[bri912678]

As a followup, the argument that the preferred hashes "weren't added" to GNUGPG until after 2009 is meaningless. Read RFC 4880:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-9

That is the RFC from November 2007. Now look at section 9.4, the preferred hashes. Hash algorithms 1 through 11 are in there. They are not experimental, they are standard hashes.

GNUPGP was just one of a number of OpenPGP implementations. PGP itself dates back to 1991. OpenPGP to 1997. Looking at the preferred hash list is meaningless.

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

I doubt Satoshi would use a key in an experimental OpenPGP implementation he had written himself to link his key to the Bitcoin project.

Any good programmer knows software needs testing by a community before it's got any bugs ironed out. All programmers are likely to miss some bugs, which is why beta testing by a community is important.

Why would Satoshi use his own untested beta software for something vitally important when he could use the same reliable software used by everyone else?

[keepdoing]

These evidences are more than enough to prove that Craig Wright is either a fraud, or a puppet of the big bankers. However, there is a chance that he might be holding hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins. BTC was going at $1 = BTC1,300 in 2010 (New Liberty Standard exchange rate). He might have bought quite a few of them at that time.

FINALLY!  An honest insight into all the frenzy surrounding this.  The word "Bank" simply drives the unrealistic, immature, idealistic branch of the bitcoin community into choking spasms.  LOL

The second that Craig's (=Satoshi's) support for REALISTIC financial evolution of bitcoin into the mainstream became public knowledge, the idealistic dreamers were destined by their own nature to self destruct in hysterical hand wringing and to sink into non productive Hyper-FUD.  ROFLMAO

Ad this is evidenced in a louder and Louder and LOUDER screech of "there is evidence that Craig is a fraud."

AND YET NO EVIDENCE EXISTS, unless you count the hundreds of "OMG - he is a fraud." or "OMG, Newsweek got it wrong a long time ago, so everything will be wrong forever!"

PLEASE,  I BESEECH THEE!  Show the evidence. I dare you

[brg444]

Please stop talking about this lunatic 

[theymos]

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used satoshin@vistomail.com (only satoshi@vistomail.com and satoshin@gmx.com), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

[keepdoing]

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used satoshin@vistomail.com (only satoshi@vistomail.com and satoshin@gmx.com), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

And I am very disappointed in you, although that was always a pretty low bar for me to begin with. 

I won't waste to many words except to say that everything you just typed is not "anti-Proof".  You've taken a small sampling of the overwhelming facts, and in the end reduced it to a question mark.... "Why would Satoshi blah blah blah ?" 

Bottom line is that you don't know how he thinks, or why he might have done what he did, or what possible long term options he may have been considering.  So in the end you are simply another equal voice in the crowd - yet with a recognizable name - with nothing but your desire to not believe.

[brg444]

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used satoshin@vistomail.com (only satoshi@vistomail.com and satoshin@gmx.com), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

+1 it's like we're in the twilight zone.