Those saying Wright is not Satoshi are full of $#!%

[DannyHamilton]

Those of you that are saying Mr. Craig Wright is not Satoshi are just making up nonsense, and so are those of you that are saying that he is Satoshi.

The fact is that none of you can know for sure.  No matter which "side" you're on, you've just decided what you want to be true and then started accusing those that don't agree with you of being wrong.

I've seen exactly zero irrefutable proof that Wright is Satoshi.

I've seen exactly zero irrefutable proof that Wright is NOT Satoshi.

At the moment, all we have to go on is our personal opinions about the likelihood that Gavin Andreesen could be fooled or would participate in a conspiracy.  That's it.

That being said...

Many have disagreed with Gavin over many decisions, but I've never seen any indication that he's "dumb", "unintelligent", or "lacks intellectual curiosity".  I'd certainly expect him to be careful about verifying a signature as well as being careful about what was being signed.  I doubt a scammer would be able to convince Gavin that an invalid signature was valid, especially when it comes to deciding if that person was Satoshi or not.

This leaves me with five possibilities:

• Gavin has lost his ability to think properly
• Gavin is part of a conspiracy
• Craig Wright is a better scammer than I can comprehend
• Craig Wright got a hold of some of Satoshi's private keys somehow
• Craig Wright is Satoshi

I cannot say which of those is true, and neither can any of you.  What a bunch of gullible, opinionated, nonsense spreading, emotional, whiners you all are.

I'm not sure when this forum became over-run by people that can't seem to think logically, but I'm thinking that this forum has probably lost it's worth. I'm not even sure why I bother checking this forum anymore. Probably just habit.

[1714684312]

1714684312

[1714684312]

1714684312

[1714684312]

1714684312

[1714684312]

1714684312

[fenican]

If Craig Wright is the real Satoshi, and wants to prove it, ALL he has to do is sign one new message with an address known to belong to Satoshi and post it on here.

Junior members do this routinely in the lending area to prove they own an address but the creator of Bitcoin can't figure out how? Give me a break.

He's either not Satoshi or wants everyone, except Gavin apparently, to think he's not Satoshi.

[futureofbitcoin]

I think it takes a different kind of intelligence to be able to see through elaborate scams. You need more than just logic; you need to understand human psychology and the tricks these experts use to scam people.

So I think by far the most likely answer is that Gavin was simply tricked.


As to not having proof that this guy isn't Satoshi, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he's Satoshi, not the other way around. You have no proof that I'm not Satoshi either. Or that there isn't an invisible unicorn in my pocket.

[DannyHamilton]

If Craig Wright is the real Satoshi, and wants to prove it, ALL he has to do is sign one new message with an address known to belong to Satoshi and post it on here.

And he has not.  Therefore, you can't say that he definitively IS Satoshi.  However, you also can't say that he definitively is NOT Satoshi.  You don't know why he's chosen not to provide proof to anyone other than Gavin.  Instead, you've made up an imaginary reason in your mind, and decided to believe it is true.

the creator of Bitcoin can't figure out how? Give me a break.

Are you incapable of distinguishing the difference between imagination and reality?

Just because you image that he can't figure out how, doesn't mean he can't actually figure out how. You only know that he hasn't done so, you don't know why.

He's either not Satoshi or wants everyone, except Gavin apparently, to think he's not Satoshi.

Yep.  Those are the possiblities that I've already described:

• Gavin has lost his ability to think properly (implying that Wright is NOT Satoshi)
• Gavin is part of a conspiracy (implying that Wright is NOT Satoshi)
• Craig Wright is a better scammer than I can comprehend (implying that Wright is NOT Satoshi)
• Craig Wright got a hold of some of Satoshi's private keys somehow (implying that Wright is NOT Satoshi)
• Craig Wright is Satoshi (implying that he wants Gavin to know he's Satoshi and doesn't care what you think)

[DannyHamilton]

I think it takes a different kind of intelligence to be able to see through elaborate scams. You need more than just logic; you need to understand human psychology and the tricks these experts use to scam people.

Either Gavin did as he said and verified valid cryptographic proof, or he didn't.  There's no psychology involved in that.

So I think by far the most likely answer is that Gavin was simply tricked.

Seems very unlikely to me unless he's suffered some sort of brain damage, but it is included in my list of possibilities:

• Craig Wright is a better scammer than I can comprehend

As to not having proof that this guy isn't Satoshi, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he's Satoshi, not the other way around.

Only if he actually wants you to know that he is Satoshi.  If he doesn't care what you believe, then there's no need for him to provide you proof of anything.

You have no proof that I'm not Satoshi either. Or that there isn't an invisible unicorn in my pocket.

You are correct.  And so I can't state that you are NOT Satoshi, nor can I state that you ARE Satoshi (nor can I state anything about the contents of your pocket).  What's the sense in even discussing it unless you're going to provide me proof?

[Cryddit]

Will not posting a wallet address with 1million bitcoin prove beyond doubt that he is Satoshi? How many people own 1 million Bitcoin after all besides Satoshi?

No such wallet address exists. Satoshi mostly didn't touch the coins he mined.  Sergio Lerner has done a good job identifying a bunch single-block mining subsidies that have a 99.999+% chance of belonging to Satoshi. 

If someone meets a journalist for pizza and then pays using one of THOSE txOuts, that would be an interesting story. 

Of course by the time the reporter got the second paragraph written, long before she actually filed the story, the markets would all be going crazy because OMG ONE OF SATOSHI'S ADDRESSES MOVED!!!

[albert11]

The guy supposedely created a brilliant system to prove ownership in a trustless way and his proof is : TRUST ME

don't you see the irony?

[futureofbitcoin]

I think it takes a different kind of intelligence to be able to see through elaborate scams. You need more than just logic; you need to understand human psychology and the tricks these experts use to scam people.

Either Gavin did as he said and verified valid cryptographic proof, or he didn't.  There's no psychology involved in that.

You have no proof that I'm not Satoshi either. Or that there isn't an invisible unicorn in my pocket.

You are correct.  And so I can't state that you are NOT Satoshi, nor can I state that you ARE Satoshi (nor can I state anything about the contents of your pocket).  What's the sense in even discussing it unless you're going to provide me proof?

I'm no crypto expert or con-man, I can't begin the imagine the types of tricks a scammer could use. But I'm sure there are plenty.

And if you want to nitpick like that, I haven't seen anyone say outright that "Craig Wright is not Satoshi". Certainly that's not what most people are saying. They're simply saying that it's highly unlikely that this guy is Satoshi, and I think that is a very reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence.

[akumaburn]

I think it takes a different kind of intelligence to be able to see through elaborate scams. You need more than just logic; you need to understand human psychology and the tricks these experts use to scam people.

Either Gavin did as he said and verified valid cryptographic proof, or he didn't.  There's no psychology involved in that.

So I think by far the most likely answer is that Gavin was simply tricked.

Seems very unlikely to me unless he's suffered some sort of brain damage, but it is included in my list of possibilities:

• Craig Wright is a better scammer than I can comprehend

As to not having proof that this guy isn't Satoshi, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he's Satoshi, not the other way around.

Only if he actually wants you to know that he is Satoshi.  If he doesn't care what you believe, then there's no need for him to provide you proof of anything.

You have no proof that I'm not Satoshi either. Or that there isn't an invisible unicorn in my pocket.

You are correct.  And so I can't state that you are NOT Satoshi, nor can I state that you ARE Satoshi (nor can I state anything about the contents of your pocket).  What's the sense in even discussing it unless you're going to provide me proof?

Though I agree with your other points, I must disagree with:

"There's no psychology involved in that."

You must understand that this so called "verification" happened on a "new" laptop that Craig provided.

It could easily be something akin to a magician's trick, except with a "sealed" laptop that has custom software on it that validates whatever he wants.

I'm not saying it is, nor it isn't.. In my personal opinion he isn't Satoshi. His last name fits the bill somewhat for the sort of code used in the past, but his persona doesn't measure up.

[DannyHamilton]

No such wallet address exists. Satoshi mostly didn't touch the coins he mined.  Sergio Lerner has done a good job identifying a bunch single-block mining subsidies that have a 99.999+% chance of belonging to Satoshi. 

If someone meets a journalist for pizza and then pays using one of THOSE txOuts, that would be an interesting story. 

Of course by the time the reporter got the second paragraph written, long before she actually filed the story, the markets would all be going crazy because OMG ONE OF SATOSHI'S ADDRESSES MOVED!!!

Yes, that would be a heck of a story, but that's not what we've got here.

Instead, we have a guy saying, "I'm effectively Satoshi (along with some others I worked with)", and Gavin saying "He proved it to me".

Does this mean he is Satoshi?  Nope.
Does this mean he's NOT Satoshi?  Nope.

Effectively, what the closest thing we have to a "story" here is:

Gavin Andreesen claims to believe that this guy is Satoshi.

That's interesting, and opens a lot of questions about why Gavin would believe such a thing, and why he would agree to be the sole source of verification.  However, it isn't enough for any of us to state one way or the other whether or not Wright actually is Satoshi.

[DannyHamilton]

The guy supposedely created a brilliant system to prove ownership in a trustless way and his proof is : TRUST ME

Proof?  What proof?

He supposedly proved himself to Gavin, but he hasn't attempted to prove anything to any of the rest of us.  Maybe he isn't saying "trust me" to the rest of us.  Maybe he's just saying "why do you care?"

[DannyHamilton]

I haven't seen anyone say outright that "Craig Wright is not Satoshi".

I have.

Certainly that's not what most people are saying. They're simply saying that it's highly unlikely that this guy is Satoshi, and I think that is a very reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence.

And I'm just saying that there isn't enough information to say that "it's highly unlikely that this guy is Satoshi".  The only thing we can say is "it isn't proven yet" and "It's odd that Gavin would believe it if it isn't true".  I really don't think that it can logically be said yet that it is likely, and I really don't think that it can logically be said yet that it isn't likely.

[DannyHamilton]

You must understand that this so called "verification" happened on a "new" laptop that Craig provided.

Link please?

I haven't yet seen anything indicating that Gavin used a laptop provided by Mr. Wright to perform the verification of the cryptographic proof.

[--Encrypted--]

You must understand that this so called "verification" happened on a "new" laptop that Craig provided.

Link please?

I haven't yet seen anything indicating that Gavin used a laptop provided by Mr. Wright to perform the verification of the cryptographic proof.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_please_detail_all_parts_of_the/d2plygg

Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1.

That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum.

I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement).

I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post.

didn't think much of that at first. but being not allowed to keep even the message is strange.

[futureofbitcoin]

You must understand that this so called "verification" happened on a "new" laptop that Craig provided.

Link please?

I haven't yet seen anything indicating that Gavin used a laptop provided by Mr. Wright to perform the verification of the cryptographic proof.

I read that an assistant went out and bought a new laptop. Can't remember the source.


Wait, found it: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-creator/

Andresen says an administrative assistant working with Wright left to buy a computer from a nearby store, and returned with what Andresen describes as a Windows laptop in a “factory-sealed” box. They installed the Bitcoin software Electrum on that machine. For their test, Andresen chose the message “Gavin’s favorite number is eleven.” Wright added his initials, “CSW,” and signed the message on his own computer. Then he put the signed message on a USB stick belonging to Andresen and they transferred it to the new laptop, where Andresen checked the signature.

[DannyHamilton]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_please_detail_all_parts_of_the/d2plygg

Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1.

That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum.

I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement).

I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post.

didn't think much of that at first. but being not allowed to keep even the message is strange.

found it: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-creator/

Andresen says an administrative assistant working with Wright left to buy a computer from a nearby store, and returned with what Andresen describes as a Windows laptop in a “factory-sealed” box. They installed the Bitcoin software Electrum on that machine. For their test, Andresen chose the message “Gavin’s favorite number is eleven.” Wright added his initials, “CSW,” and signed the message on his own computer. Then he put the signed message on a USB stick belonging to Andresen and they transferred it to the new laptop, where Andresen checked the signature.

Wow!

I'm really surprised (and disappointed).

I really thought Gavin would be more careful than that.

I'm going to temporarily lock this thread while I look into this new information a little closer.

My point remains.  People are making claims without knowledge, but regardless of that...

If Gavin used a computer supplied by someone else and retained nothing afterwards, then I'm certainly wondering if Gavin has lost his ability to think properly.  It's not like he wouldn't realize that anything he said would be closely scrutinized.