BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED!

[Bitcoiner_cph]

what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with.

From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi. 

This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger?  And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain?  Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?

You are right, the whole idea is to remove the 3th party, and the mainstream media, is owned by and controlled by third-parties, that also have been the masses slave-masters for centuries. They dont want to give their power away, this must be somekind of scam they are pulling to confuse the masses in the hope the get a few more years of control.. am I right about this??

I have to say that I meet so many people, that I tried to talk about Bitcoins and related topics, and many of them, maybe 90%, either:

1. do not understand the basic idea of bitcoin and removing 3th party trust

or

2. refuse to talk about the real meaning of bitcoin and removing 3th party trust, and just play stupid to protect them self.

What is confusing for me, is that it is so few people that I can talk with about bitcoin, and having a meaningfull conversation in real life, are you here on the forum experiencing the same??? And I have talked to ALOT of people regarding Bitcoin.

[1714127667]

1714127667

[1714127667]

1714127667

[1714127667]

1714127667

[1714127667]

1714127667

[Quickseller]

what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with.

From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi. 

This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger?  And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain?  Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?

In order to sign a message all you need to do is control the private key of the address you are signing. There is no actual movement/exchange of money. Please see this thread for more information about how signing a message works.

The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.

[Chakraball]

Okay, who woke up Crackhead? http://pastebin.com/6TAyryqH

Many of you know me as cryptcracker, the bounty hunter that is uncovering the truth behind the Crypty "hack" and bringing the perpetrators to justice. However I have been doing this kind of work far before the cryptsy incident, I am making this dispatch today to reveal crucial information on the sudden news about Satoshi Nakamoto's identity and the plot Gavin Andresen has been involved in.

Satoshi was the greatest mind that I have seen in ages always calm and collected a real genius. Notice that I said was, that's because I'm sorry to say Satoshi Nakamoto was murdered by Gavin Andresen and his CIA associates. The CIA saw the transparency of the blockchain and they thought this would be a good way to track their "dirty subordinates". Let me explain, the CIA gives money, guns and drugs to terrorists so they can do things like stage a coup and overthrow governments this is well documented. The CIA saw the transparency of bitcoin and got the idea to start using bitcoin as one of the ways they fund these dirty subordinates.

Gavin was given the task of identifying Satoshi and flipping on him which he did. Once Satoshi was found and about to be captured I was informed 1 of 2 things happened, Satoshi committed suicide or the authorities were successful in capturing Satoshi and Satoshi was tortured and then killed. I am sorry for not being 100% certain on which one it is but it was one of the two I know this because my sources also relayed documents to me showing Satoshis dead body and classified CIA files.  

Craig Wright was chosen as the CIA's front man to act like he was the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Gavin Andresen was to use his position in the community to pass this off. However these fools completely botched there plan because 1. they don't have the keys to the best of my knowledge and 2. they over estimated their manipulative tactics. The CIA got used to pulling these tactics on the general population but they didn't understand something this transparent wouldn't work against the bitcoin Community since it's much more tech savvy.

This was one of the saddest stories that I have known about for a while and I think it needs to get out there. I am currently hesitant in releasing the confidential CIA files because if Satoshi's identity is know his friends and family will be in danger along with my sources. I will attempt to secure them so they are not in danger once that is done I might be able to release the files.

Thank you for your time, another dispatch will be coming soon.

Apart from the "kidnap/murder" bollocks there could actually be a 3 letter agency link to this whole CSW charade.

He must have known he would never fool the real savvy Bitcoin community but what if he were going through the motions at the behest of an agency in return for lenience on his tax/fraud affairs?

Judging by the shit storm of activity on Twitter , Reddit and who knows how many forums over this escapade, an interested agency could be sweeping up usernames & IP addresses of what they consider to be an active part of the bitcoin community.

Very handy to know if legislation is brought in to control/tax bitcoins.

[Armadillo]

All he has to do is send me a few hundred bitcoin from one of his large accounts and that will be proof enough for me....

[--Encrypted--]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36185622

gavin:

I think he feels that he has no choice. there was information leaked about him in the fall.

when was that? never heard of wright before december.

edit:
ohhh. nvm, wrong continent. thanks gleb.

[Gleb Gamow]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36185622

gavin:

I think he feels that he has no choice. there was information leaked about him in the fall.

when was that? never heard of wright before december.

NotBatman, please explain that even under a dome December 8th is still technology fall.

[cjmoles]

what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with.

From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi. 

This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger?  And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain?  Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?

In order to sign a message all you need to do is control the private key of the address you are signing. There is no actual movement/exchange of money. Please see this thread for more information about how signing a message works.

The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.

Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now.  Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) ?  Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?

[BitcoinFX]

- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright

Reference: 25. ^ Wright, Craig; Kleiman, Dave; Sundhar R.S., Shayaam (2008). "Overwriting Hard Drive Data: The Great Wiping Controversy". In Sekar, R. Information Systems Security: 4th International Conference, ICISS 2008, Hyderabad, India, December 16–20, 2008, Proceedings. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 243.

GWU .edu - No comment  ?

[Avox]

--- We will never know who is the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Never.

1. Because it's too late. Because too much time has passed since the moment when the genuine Satoshi could be identified (a man or a group).
2. Because Bitcoin no longer need Satoshi. It lives it's own life regardless of it's origin creators.
3. Because Satoshi is now a question not of need, but a question of speculations and curiosity. So time after time an ordinary guy or group will reveal himself as "real Satoshi".
4. There are three kinds of people: believers, skeptics and doubters. And always, ALWAYS will be hot discussions about real SN.
5. That's a destiny of Bitcoin. And for me it looks catching.

My poor two satoshi.

[suchmoon]

Okay, who woke up Crackhead? http://pastebin.com/6TAyryqH

This pastebin was shown to me on a burner laptop so it must be true.

[aso118]

All he has to do is send me a few hundred bitcoin from one of his large accounts and that will be proof enough for me....

If he indeed is Satoshi and wants to prove it, he can easily do so. But by refusing to sign custom messages, he is only creating doubts.

[machinek20]

satoshi i like this name like pokemon

[bitbaby]

See how Andreas M. Antonopoulos got contacted ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hj1xu/why_i_declined_to_verify_sns_identity_two_weeks/ ) :

If SN wants to "prove" their identity, they don't need an "authority" to do so. They can do it in a public, open manner.

^This. We don't need anybody to tell us that someone is Satoshi, the real Satoshi himself wouldn't need to get verified by a person or an authority, he can sign a message from PGP key/Bitcoin address and/or move some funds and that will be the ultimate proof. This looks to me like a government plot and members who are vouching for this have been bought, which is shameful.

[adamstgBit]

See how Andreas M. Antonopoulos got contacted ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hj1xu/why_i_declined_to_verify_sns_identity_two_weeks/ ) :

If SN wants to "prove" their identity, they don't need an "authority" to do so. They can do it in a public, open manner.

^This. We don't need anybody to tell us that someone is Satoshi, the real Satoshi himself wouldn't need to get verified by a person or an authority, he can sign a message from PGP key/Bitcoin address and/or move some funds and that will be the ultimate proof. This looks to me like a government plot and members who are vouching for this have been bought, which is shameful.

his goal was more about getting the reports off his and his family's back then proving to everyone that he is satoshi. in fact he would rather no one know that he is satoshi.
and so, he proves to a few poeple that he is satoshi. says " i am satoshi " for the camera and and posted some BS sig for everyone else.
now the reporters will leave him alone because its yesterday's news
and everyone will keep on believing that he isn't satoshi
Brilliant!

[Gleb Gamow]

Craig recently deleted one of his Twitter accounts: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SsT1QaIIxIIJ:https://twitter.com/c01nblog+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/10/the-search-for-the-godfather-of-bitcoin-does-not-end-with-craig-wright/#gref



Craig: I don't want fame or fortune. Okay, so I do want fame and WILL use my supposed fortune to secure loans.

[Quickseller]

what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with.

From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi. 

This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger?  And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain?  Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?

In order to sign a message all you need to do is control the private key of the address you are signing. There is no actual movement/exchange of money. Please see this thread for more information about how signing a message works.

The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.

Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now.  Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) ? 

Satoshi's bitcoin are not held in a multisig address(es). A multisig address is currently one that starts with a "3" while a "traditional"/"normal" bitcoin address is currently one that starts with "1" (although if I understand correctly, segwit will change this), and all of the bitcoin that is believed to be owned/held by satoshi are held in non-multisig addresses. Additionally it was not possible to use "multisig" addresses (at least how we have ever known them) as of the time when satoshi left. It is possible (however I personally believe it to be unlikely) that satoshi generated many private keys in a way so that he did not personally have access to the entire private key and that some other party had access to the portions of the private keys that Wright does not have access to. It is also possible that Wright gave access to his private keys to some third party trustee who agreed to hold onto the coins until certain conditions are/were met and then deleted the private keys. Another possibility is that satoshi created n-lock-time transactions that spent his bitcoin to a previously unused address(es) that is only valid a long time in the future and then deleted his private keys.

Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?

zero

[Gleb Gamow]

what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with.

From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi. 

This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger?  And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain?  Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?

In order to sign a message all you need to do is control the private key of the address you are signing. There is no actual movement/exchange of money. Please see this thread for more information about how signing a message works.

The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.

Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now.  Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) ? 

Satoshi's bitcoin are not held in a multisig address(es). A multisig address is currently one that starts with a "3" while a "traditional"/"normal" bitcoin address is currently one that starts with "1" (although if I understand correctly, segwit will change this), and all of the bitcoin that is believed to be owned/held by satoshi are held in non-multisig addresses. Additionally it was not possible to use "multisig" addresses (at least how we have ever known them) as of the time when satoshi left. It is possible (however I personally believe it to be unlikely) that satoshi generated many private keys in a way so that he did not personally have access to the entire private key and that some other party had access to the portions of the private keys that Wright does not have access to. It is also possible that Wright gave access to his private keys to some third party trustee who agreed to hold onto the coins until certain conditions are/were met and then deleted the private keys. Another possibility is that satoshi created n-lock-time transactions that spent his bitcoin to a previously unused address(es) that is only valid a long time in the future and then deleted his private keys.

Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?

zero

... easily convincing the third party that the keys transferred were indeed capable of unlocking the coins, offering up proof via some techno spaghetti sans peer review, i.e., Gavin Andresen to confirm with, "Yep, thems proof enough for me. Give Craig whatever he wants." The mark felt comfortable enough to not warrant putting Gavin on a plane for a private meetup to confirm the techno mumble-jumble in person.

[cjmoles]

what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with.

From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi.  

This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger?  And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain?  Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?

In order to sign a message all you need to do is control the private key of the address you are signing. There is no actual movement/exchange of money. Please see this thread for more information about how signing a message works.

The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.

Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now.  Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) ?

Satoshi's bitcoin are not held in a multisig address(es). A multisig address is currently one that starts with a "3" while a "traditional"/"normal" bitcoin address is currently one that starts with "1" (although if I understand correctly, segwit will change this), and all of the bitcoin that is believed to be owned/held by satoshi are held in non-multisig addresses. Additionally it was not possible to use "multisig" addresses (at least how we have ever known them) as of the time when satoshi left. It is possible (however I personally believe it to be unlikely) that satoshi generated many private keys in a way so that he did not personally have access to the entire private key and that some other party had access to the portions of the private keys that Wright does not have access to. It is also possible that Wright gave access to his private keys to some third party trustee who agreed to hold onto the coins until certain conditions are/were met and then deleted the private keys. Another possibility is that satoshi created n-lock-time transactions that spent his bitcoin to a previously unused address(es) that is only valid a long time in the future and then deleted his private keys.

Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?

zero

That's what I thought.  So, if we assumed that Gavin's assessment of the proof presented to him was genuine and we assumed that Gavin's competent enough to accurately assess that evidence without being fooled, then we can assume that Wright does have the private key associated with the address in the genesis block.  Correct?  If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason why a transaction cannot be published from that address right?  (unless, of course, transactions from block #0 are not accessible for some reason)

[Quickseller]

what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with.

From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi. 

This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger?  And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain?  Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?

In order to sign a message all you need to do is control the private key of the address you are signing. There is no actual movement/exchange of money. Please see this thread for more information about how signing a message works.

The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.

Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now.  Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) ?

Satoshi's bitcoin are not held in a multisig address(es). A multisig address is currently one that starts with a "3" while a "traditional"/"normal" bitcoin address is currently one that starts with "1" (although if I understand correctly, segwit will change this), and all of the bitcoin that is believed to be owned/held by satoshi are held in non-multisig addresses. Additionally it was not possible to use "multisig" addresses (at least how we have ever known them) as of the time when satoshi left. It is possible (however I personally believe it to be unlikely) that satoshi generated many private keys in a way so that he did not personally have access to the entire private key and that some other party had access to the portions of the private keys that Wright does not have access to. It is also possible that Wright gave access to his private keys to some third party trustee who agreed to hold onto the coins until certain conditions are/were met and then deleted the private keys. Another possibility is that satoshi created n-lock-time transactions that spent his bitcoin to a previously unused address(es) that is only valid a long time in the future and then deleted his private keys.

Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?

zero

That's what I thought.  So, if we assumed that Gavin's assessment of the proof presented to him was genuine and we assumed that Gavin's competent enough to accurately access that evidence without being fooled, then we can assume that Wright does have the private key associated with the address in the genesis block.  Correct?  If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason why a transaction cannot be published from that address right?  (unless, of course, transactions from block #0 are not accessible for some reason)

It was actually from block "1" which is the block found immediately after the genesis block. (and the BTC in the genesis block are actually not spendable so it would not be entirely out of the question for satoshi to have destroyed this private key). Other then that your assessment is correct -- if you assume that Wright did in fact produce a valid signature to a message signed with the private key to the address that received the block subsidy of block "1" then there is no reason why Wright would not be able to push a transaction from that address. 

[Gleb Gamow]

what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with.

From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi.  

This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger?  And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain?  Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?

In order to sign a message all you need to do is control the private key of the address you are signing. There is no actual movement/exchange of money. Please see this thread for more information about how signing a message works.

The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.

Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now.  Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) ?

Satoshi's bitcoin are not held in a multisig address(es). A multisig address is currently one that starts with a "3" while a "traditional"/"normal" bitcoin address is currently one that starts with "1" (although if I understand correctly, segwit will change this), and all of the bitcoin that is believed to be owned/held by satoshi are held in non-multisig addresses. Additionally it was not possible to use "multisig" addresses (at least how we have ever known them) as of the time when satoshi left. It is possible (however I personally believe it to be unlikely) that satoshi generated many private keys in a way so that he did not personally have access to the entire private key and that some other party had access to the portions of the private keys that Wright does not have access to. It is also possible that Wright gave access to his private keys to some third party trustee who agreed to hold onto the coins until certain conditions are/were met and then deleted the private keys. Another possibility is that satoshi created n-lock-time transactions that spent his bitcoin to a previously unused address(es) that is only valid a long time in the future and then deleted his private keys.

Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?

zero

That's what I thought.  So, if we assumed that Gavin's assessment of the proof presented to him was genuine and we assumed that Gavin's competent enough to accurately access that evidence without being fooled, then we can assume that Wright does have the private key associated with the address in the genesis block.  Correct?  If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason why a transaction cannot be published from that address right?  (unless, of course, transactions from block #0 are not accessible for some reason)

It was actually from block "1" which is the block found immediately after the genesis block. (and the BTC in the genesis block are actually not spendable so it would not be entirely out of the question for satoshi to have destroyed this private key). Other then that your assessment is correct -- if you assume that Wright did in fact produce a valid signature to a message signed with the private key to the address that received the block subsidy of block "1" then there is no reason why Wright would not be able to push a transaction from that address.  

Craig is now capable of convincing some rich mark with a low IQ (fuck, even a high IQ for that matter since its been demonstrated that'll work) that he does have control of the first block by sending U$100 worth of BTC to it as proof to grander a U$10M loan thanks to Gavin's endorsement.