Craig Wright and Gavin Andresen - Summary of the Story

[chek2fire]

economist upload an update article. The news here is not that Wrightamoto is a fake Satoshi but that economist link reddit article

Craig Wright’s claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto come under fire


http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698066-onus-on-craig-wright-provide-better-evidence-satoshi-nakamoto?utm_content=bufferf7cb0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[franky1]

the OP's post is not a summary. because it doesnt show the hoax part
-snip-

With all due respect to your legendary status, but I think Gavin knows more than you.

If he says he has proof, is because he has proof, Gavin is not stupid.

no offense to your noob status.
but did you see the way gavin was smirking when saying he "thinks" its him. and how no one can be 100% sure

Still, Gavin seems to believe he really is Satoshi, he even said that he was also a skeptic before.

So surely he saw something that made him change his mind.

In any case everybody should see what he saw so we can put this case to rest.

he saw this


bad attempt at craig saying he is making a signature..

which produced:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

which electrum verified as belonging to
12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S

but the data of the message that was signed is not a fresh message of 2016 saying hello world im craig.
instead its just the tx data of 2009 tx that is locked in the blockchain forever, publicly viewable to copy and paste by anyone

[Carlton Banks]

give it a rest Franky, you've been spamming the same retarded message all day. on every thread, we are starting to get the message like 7 times later.

[TPTB_need_war]

Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them

hahah this guy is so funny lol. He doesn't need to move any coin to prove it, just sign the fcking message if he has the prive keys

Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise.

To understand what is really going on, you need to read carefully what Craig Wright has always said and continues to reiterate:

In his initial blog post, Wright noted that “Satoshi is dead... but this is only the beginning.” He also said that he would follow up with a more detailed mathematical explanation for the revelation. Now, the world will likely have to wait for “the coming days”—however long that may be—for more clues.

If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.

I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.

Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi,

Satoshi is dead.

But this is only the beginning.

You need to remember that Craig Wright has never claimed he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead, he has claimed that his former colleague (who died) was Satoshi. He claims he was backing his colleague's the development of Bitcoin.

This Australian Says He and His Dead Friend Invented Bitcoin

David Kleiman, Craig Wright's friend more likely Satoshi Nakamoto

OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order.

Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key:

The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed.

Realize that he has probably promised to endorse Andresen's block chain scaling preferences and thus probably why Gavin wants him to be Satoshi:

Andresen’s only attempt at an explanation for Wright’s bizarre behavior, he says, is an ambivalence about definitively revealing himself after so many years in hiding. “I think the most likely explanation is that … he really doesn’t want to take on the mantle of being the inventor of Bitcoin,” says Andresen, who notes that his own credibility is at stake, too. “Maybe he wants things to be really weird and unclear, which would be bad for me.”

That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking.

Remember that after his death, David Kleiman's family recovered his USB flash drive and gave it to Craig Wright. Thus likely Craig Wright may have an unpublished transaction but not the actual private key. So he may be about to fool the world into thinking he is Satoshi, or making some proof that he was the man behind the man who was the real Satoshi.

[TPTB_need_war]

No - what Craig did was grab an existing signature used by Satoshi and pretend he had created it to sign a document by Sartre (which is fraud and even Gavin is not sure what on earth to make of that).

And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim).

Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics?

Re-read my post, you didn't seem to understand it. Craig has not said he is Satoshi. Find a quote where he said that. You won't. He has always said it was his colleague.

And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology. 

I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.

I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.

It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course).

And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would  have told Gavin it was his friend and not him).

You are just butthurt.

It is very relevant.

Craig has played Gavin. He knows Gavin needs support for his preferences for the block scaling debate.

[chek2fire]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/03/craig-wright-bitcoin-founder-claim-labelled-scam-satoshi-nakamoto

guardian label him as a scammer

and something else

Dan Kaminsky -> Andresen:
``` What is going on here?
    There's clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you're lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?
```

Andresen:

 ```    Yeah, what the heck?

    I was as surprised by the 'proof' as anyone, and don't yet know exactly what is going on.

    It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.

    And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.

    If I'm lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.

    Feel free to quote or republish this email.

[maydna]

in my feeling, i don't believe that craig wright is founder of bitcoins, i dont know why but i don't believe even if he can prove that he have all document about bitcoin from beginning starting the project.

why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know

[chek2fire]

in my feeling, i don't believe that craig wright is founder of bitcoins, i dont know why but i don't believe even if he can prove that he have all document about bitcoin from beginning starting the project.

why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know

economical problems

[ebliever]

bulista, between here and Reddit and dozens of blogs there has been a tremendous amount of research and speculation regarding the Craig Wright saga. And you manage to studiously avoid all of it with your three links. That's not even remotely helpful. I suggest you stop posting for a while and start reading and digesting what has already been established.

[futureofbitcoin]

bulista, between here and Reddit and dozens of blogs there has been a tremendous amount of research and speculation regarding the Craig Wright saga. And you manage to studiously avoid all of it with your three links. That's not even remotely helpful. I suggest you stop posting for a while and start reading and digesting what has already been established.

I'm sorry, but you do know what a "summary" is, right?

(not saying whether OP's summary is good (enough) or not, didn't look at the links)

[ebliever]

bulista, between here and Reddit and dozens of blogs there has been a tremendous amount of research and speculation regarding the Craig Wright saga. And you manage to studiously avoid all of it with your three links. That's not even remotely helpful. I suggest you stop posting for a while and start reading and digesting what has already been established.

I'm sorry, but you do know what a "summary" is, right?

(not saying whether OP's summary is good (enough) or not, didn't look at the links)

Even a cursory glance at his links should show you it's not a "summary". A summary provides a balanced overview of the state of something. Not a careful selection of just a sliver of the evidence. A person who only views those three links will be clueless about the fraudulent nature of the entire first link, the back-dating fraud in Wright's December expose, Gavin's backpedaling from his claim that Wright is Satoshi, the possibility that Wright's dead associate Dave Kleiman is the real Satoshi, the Electrum report that no one downloaded their files in the UK the day of Wright's private meeting in London, and on and on.

The OP is either naïve, dishonest or ignorant. Thus my recommendation (assuming #1 or #3 is the case) that he read up before misleading people more. I suggest starting with _this_ Summary of links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459343.0;topicseen

[Leonius]

the OP's post is not a summary. because it doesnt show the hoax part
-snip-

With all due respect to your legendary status, but I think Gavin knows more than you.

If he says he has proof, is because he has proof, Gavin is not stupid.

no offense to your noob status.
but did you see the way gavin was smirking when saying he "thinks" its him. and how no one can be 100% sure

Still, Gavin seems to believe he really is Satoshi

Im fine with this, what is frustrating is.. is Gavin expecting us to just take his word for it? he cant expect that from us its not the bitcoin way.

[ebliever]

Gavin has backpedaled from his claims about Wright: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459596.0 - I've seen this a couple places, but does anyone have the original source?)

Dan Kaminsky -> Andresen:
``` What is going on here?
    There's clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you're lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?
```

Andresen:

 ```    Yeah, what the heck?

    I was as surprised by the 'proof' as anyone, and don't yet know exactly what is going on.

    It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.

    And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.

    If I'm lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.

    Feel free to quote or republish this email.

[chek2fire]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36202904

[ebliever]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36202904

Hehe, that was fast - thanks! ;-)

[maydna]

in my feeling, i don't believe that craig wright is founder of bitcoins, i dont know why but i don't believe even if he can prove that he have all document about bitcoin from beginning starting the project.

why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know

economical problems

i guess its not about economical problems

[Kprawn]

The only logical explanation for this is, " Gavin got drugged or hypnotized to confirm his story " or " He joined Craig in London and they end up in a Pub, where Gavin got shit faced and he confirmed his story

when he was still inebriated " or " Craig has something on Gavin, and he is forcing him to confirm his story " .... Whatever was done, they both underestimated the intelligence of the skilled Bitcoiners. The days

are gone, where you only had a few dev's who could say and do anything and it was just accepted... We now have shitloads of spectator detectives and semi-skilled technical people, who questions everything.

[RodeoX]

If I were Satoshi I might be tempted to sign a message stating that I am Craig Wright. I would then disappear again and be less worried that ever about being discovered. It would be quite a shock to Craig also, assuming he in not Satoshi.  

[kelsey]

If I were Satoshi I might be tempted to sign a message stating that I am Craig Wright. I would then disappear again and be less worried that ever about being discovered. It would be quite a shock to Craig also, assuming he in not Satoshi.  

was thinking the same lol (even thought that might have been half gavins reason for backing wrights claim help the real satoshi stay anon)


only flaw is Wrights trying too (and has) commit fraud

[Leonius]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36202904

"It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his - I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify," Mr Andresen told security researcher Dan Kaminsky

That is really strange, lets not make anymore mistakes and be sure.  Makes me think this was to crash the market and was it really worth it?, $10-$20 down and now back up.