Craig is not satoshi

[colinistheman]

Craig is not satoshi

[thejaytiesto]

I remember seeing this conference back in the day (well, it was not a long ago) and the guy didn't impress me at all. I still think Szabo has way more chances at being Satoshi. Also you are not making anyone a favor by continuing with the Dr. Craig Wright (Satoshi Nakamoto) thing. You could say, "rumored to be" and not (Satoshi Nakamoto) because that's just bullshit.

[shorena]

Also invented time travel -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1282144.0

[johnyj]

"(Part B) Dr. Wright says people are looking at Bitcoin too small (Bitcoin is more than money). In Machine Code, there are none of these limitations. We have a rather rich instruction set in Bitcoin. It's just not well defined. Ethereum is out there developing a new stack because they think we can't loop. But you can in Bitcoin. You have to use a separate control stack. It's not like other control codes where you only have a single stack. It can all be done in the Bitcoin protocol."

This part is interesting, this is the first time I heard about that bitcoin is turing-complete, unlike other guys claimed. If he indeed can demonstrate the implementation in multiple stack, then no doubt he is the most knowledgeable one in bitcoin architecture

[keepdoing]

"(Part B) Dr. Wright says people are looking at Bitcoin too small (Bitcoin is more than money). In Machine Code, there are none of these limitations. We have a rather rich instruction set in Bitcoin. It's just not well defined. Ethereum is out there developing a new stack because they think we can't loop. But you can in Bitcoin. You have to use a separate control stack. It's not like other control codes where you only have a single stack. It can all be done in the Bitcoin protocol."

This part is interesting, this is the first time I heard about that bitcoin is turing-complete, unlike other guys claimed. If he indeed can demonstrate the implementation in multiple stack, then no doubt he is the most knowledgeable one in bitcoin architecture

Now now - calm down there - lets not jump to the possible conclusion that "he is the most knowledgeable one in bitcoin architecture" because g-d forbid then someone might jump to the conclusion that he actually IS Satoshi.  And then you've got some on here that might start drooling and talking to themselves as their minds implode.

And of course, if he IS running a scam just to get publicity, it's so obvious that he'd go over the top with obvious outlandish claims he could never hope to backup - thereby sealing his future fate as being uncovered as a fake.   I mean - that is the normal modus operendi of scam artists?  Yes?  Intentionally choose a course that has a 100% chance of ending in "You're busted"?

[keepdoing]

PS.... to OP, this is an excellent summary reference.  Thank you.

[johnyj]

And his view about fiat currency and property rights aligns very well with the spirit of bitcoin

[TPTB_need_war]

I remember seeing this conference back in the day (well, it was not a long ago) and the guy didn't impress me at all. I still think Szabo has way more chances at being Satoshi. Also you are not making anyone a favor by continuing with the Dr. Craig Wright (Satoshi Nakamoto) thing. You could say, "rumored to be" and not (Satoshi Nakamoto) because that's just bullshit.

My immediately prior installment in this journey was about Turing-completeness, so it is highly relevant to note that Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he is lacking knowledge about Turing-completeness compared to this Craig Wright that some are claiming might be Satoshi.

At roughly the 17 minute mark in this conference video, Wright correctly explains that due to unbounded recursion, the Bitcoin block chain scripting is effectively Turing-complete. Afaics, he is entirely correct and Nick Szabo is wrong, because although the scripting language stack can't loop within one transaction, one can use multiple transactions to simulate looping. This is precisely the point I made in my recent post wherein I explained that under composition it is impossible to prevent unbounded recursion and thus unbounded entropy. Review the Dr. Suess proof of Turing-completeness. It doesn't matter what the called script answers, the calling script can always change the outcome. If you have the ability to store state on the block chain across multiple invocations of a script, then the block chain becomes the stack. Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he isn't as smart as I thought. Dr. Wright makes a relevant point that many people these days seem to forget that in machine code there is no virtual machine that controls what the instruction set can do in terms of which memory it can treat as a stack. Bitcoin's script instruction set can be viewed as machine code w.r.t. to its ability to read and store state any where in the memory space of the block chain UTXO.

What Dr. Wright meant when he said, "the looping function is actually separate from the loop itself ... that would assume the only way of devising code would be to put it directly in the script". Szabo made really stoopid statement implying that the language can only be Turing-complete if the script stack is, but he completely fails to realize that the block chain is state and thus can be an orthogonal stack. And most definitely then you can loop. When I say "loop", I mean in the sense relative to the block chain as the stack, so I do not mean that any one transaction can loop. Yet such a distinction is arbitrary any way, because I can have a client interacting with the block chain causing it to loop.

Here is more about conjecture about Craig Wright being Satoshi:

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

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-alleged-to-be-australian-academic

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police?CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntech


Edit: and add Gregory Maxwell (nullc) to list of people who don't understand Turing-completeness:

   He's discussion at the All Star Panel, was very odd, and not in any way lucid or clear. Here is /u/nullc take on a transcript I made. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxsfy8p

[chek2fire]

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

[TPTB_need_war]

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

Proof?

Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Opinions are like buttholes, we all have one.

[justspare]

Wow. So we now know who the inventor of Bitcoin is. This is great. I have always wondered who the real Satoshi was and now we know. And nice summary, by the way.

[justspare]

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

Did you not just see the evidence that he provided? Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin, deal with it.

[USB-S]

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

Did you not just see the evidence that he provided? Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin, deal with it.

Do we have a mathematical proof? Until he provides mathematical proof that he is satoshi, he is a bum.

[Amph]

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

Did you not just see the evidence that he provided? Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin, deal with it.

no he is not, he did not proves anything about signing a msg, he is a confirmed impostor

why people believe everything so easily is beyond me

[n2004al]

Clip 2: (Part A) Dr. Wright ...... says that Bitcoin is a commodity.

I am giving below a previous my post which analyze such kind of definition given by Dr. Wright (alias Satoshi Nakamoto). I am curious to learn his opinion about my thoughts and interpretations, but not being me Gavin Andresen with who he had privileged partnership, this my hope can be archived. Who know if I will be ably to sleep tonight after this disillusion. Below the my previous post (only it is replaced the name of the previous poster with the name of Dr. Wright):

But lets go to the facts. According to Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp :

1. A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade.

2. Any good exchanged during commerce, which includes goods traded on a commodity exchange.

So, according to Dr. Wright, we have a basic good that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. It is clear that bitcoin is a commodity because all the things bought with it are of the same type of it. All the computer bought at Dell with bitcoin, all the xBox bought at Microsoft with bitcoin and all the other things bought at internet with bitcoin (porn, movies, gambling etc.) are at the same type with bitcoin. Have its qualities (so with all of those can be bought everything), are an invention of a peer to peer technology and are all within internet (so don't exist out of it). More convincing arguments than the above Dr. Right cannot find.

Then, always according to Dr. Right, commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. Sure, Dr. Right learn to all us that bitcoin is used widely to produce all the above things bought by it. So bitcoin is used as input in the production of computers, xBox, in the producing of porn, movies, gambling etc. Who of us have not tasted a very good porn make and played from bitcoin itself. Another undeniable argumentation made by Dr. Right.

For me are enough those arguments to not go further. Who want to go forward can continue with the other arguments made from this brave, sure and deep cognitive of bitcoin.

Maybe needed to do ever one definition which fulfill the above argumentation of Dr. Right and without which can be created some doubt about everything written above. What is the meaning of good.

According to Wikipedia https://en.hwikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics):

In economics, a good is a material that satisfies human wants and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (also called goods) and services, which are non-physical.

Then always according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property :

Tangible property in law is, literally, anything which can be touched, and includes both real property and personal property (or movable property), and stands in distinction to intangible property.

The big Dr. Right tell in this case only one important thing which is a devastating argument in support of its inspiring theory: bitcoin is a good (commodities) which is a tangible property: so which can be touched (as it is written in the above definitions). Who of us have not touched with his hands the beautiful coin (commodity) named BITCOIN.

[TPTB_need_war]

Clip 2: (Part A) Dr. Wright says money is a commodity and explains how that relates to Bitcoin. He says that Bitcoin is a commodity.

In economics, a commodity is a substantially fungible marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs.

Craig Wright is correct. You are not.

[bitsmichel]

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

Did you not just see the evidence that he provided? Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin, deal with it.

no he is not, he did not proves anything about signing a msg, he is a confirmed impostor

why people believe everything so easily is beyond me

Craig is not the author. He had the wrong signature. You can find proof by Gavin

[n2004al]

Clip 2: (Part A) Dr. Wright says money is a commodity and explains how that relates to Bitcoin. He says that Bitcoin is a commodity.

In economics, a commodity is a substantially fungible marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs.

Craig Wright is correct. You are not.

We have another Craig Wright here. Very determined and sure in those which told. Very short in argumentation. Sign of superiority. So no need to give other interpretations about the meaning of the only one sentence bring by him to argues its having right. It is enough to give those. Everyone who read is capable to understand all.

Good. Pleasure to have read your post. But you must be more crafty in doing posts and in arguing your thoughts and those of Dr. Wright (alias Satoshi Nakamoto, presented as such without the request of no one). Otherwise cannot be credible.

According to your source must be told even that what is written after your supposed crushing sentence. Even me will try to be very short (like you) in this post. If I will be able. Because not anyone is so smart like you to give a book full with intensive and very deep thoughts within only one sentence.

FIRST

According to Wikipedia (your source):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

In economics, a commodity is a substantially fungible marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. Economic commodities comprise goods and services.

So it is a little different about what has given who need war and make fear. Then at the same page are given more explanations about such concept (a few down). I am giving below all the paragraph (not for the needed for war - who make fear because he don't need such explanations; it is very prepared about such matter and have no need for those) in order that everyone make its interpretations with his mind and only after reading EVERYTHING has to do with the matter in discussion given by the war needed.

Types of commodity

The term commodity is specifically used for an economic good or service when the demand for it has no qualitative differentiation across a market. In other words, a commodity good or service has full or partial but substantial fungibility; that is, the market treats its instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them. As the saying goes, "From the taste of wheat, it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist." Petroleum and copper are other examples of such commodities, their supply and demand being a part of one universal market. Items such as stereo systems, on the other hand, have many aspects of product differentiation, such as the brand, the user interface and the perceived quality. The demand for one type of stereo may be much larger than demand for another.

In contrast, one of the characteristics of a commodity good is that its price is determined as a function of its market as a whole. Well-established physical commodities have actively traded spot and derivative markets. Generally, these are basic resources and agricultural products such as iron ore, sugar, rice. Soft commodities are goods that are grown, while hard commodities are ones that are extracted through mining.

There is another important class of energy commodities which includes electricity, gas, coal and oil. Electricity has the particular characteristic that it is usually uneconomical to store; hence, electricity must be consumed as soon as it is produced.

All the other explanations given below this paragraph are various interpretations of it or development of it but NOT SOMETHING THAT CHANGE IT. Everything important of the above paragraph is treated in my previous one rejected with only sentence with very few words by the who need war and make fear.

But lets leave me. As everyone can see with his eyes, this paragraph taken from the source of the above poster (the one who need war and make fear), is full of interpretations and facts given exactly for and about bitcoin. Especially the part with copper (the main material used in the alloy who create the touchable commodity (good) named bitcoin). End here with this point.

SECOND

Even in this case is not important or needed to give the second point in correlation with the discussion we are having there (because is enough only the part of the words given after the words of the the One who need war and make fear), I must tell only for being correct with myself and to someone who maybe don't know this fact, that Wikipedia cannot be never source more credible than a dictionary of the field in which is discussed. My source is "Investopedia" which is a source much more specialized in the field we are discussing than Wikipedia. So even if Wikipedia may have something that can oppose to my words cannot be credible. It is way away as a financial source compared to Investopedia. Normally such things happens because in economics there are various schools of thoughts and it is not rare that to many situations or concepts can be different (even not less) from one another. But it is not the case in this discussion. As everyone can see there is nothing different in both sources. There was only a small trickery of the who need war and make fear.

So dear poster who need war and make fear what have to tell about the above written by me? Please reject me again only with one sentence with not more than 2-3 words. Otherwise will be not more yourself.  

[chek2fire]

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

Proof?

Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Opinions are like buttholes, we all have one.

so many proof all this days. Do your research and you can easy find out the proof that you want. Fake crypto keys, fake blog posts, fake supercomputer, fake education. This guy is completly fake.

[TPTB_need_war]

Craig Wright IS NOT inventor of Bitcoin

Proof?

Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Opinions are like buttholes, we all have one.

so many proof all this days. Do your research and you can easy find out the proof that you want. Fake crypto keys, fake blog posts, fake supercomputer, fake education. This guy is completly fake.

Three of his Masters degrees were confirmed by one of the universities.

How many Masters degrees do you have?

Your level of contempt for someone who has done nothing to you is akin to this group of monkeys I saw on YouTube viciously murdering one of their brethren.