Craig Wright relents aka Satoshi (air quotes) in Public Apology!

[Gyrsur]

so we have a new target. 21 20 millions in existence ever.

[chopstick]

Additionally, we must never forget what Matonis and Andersen have done. To the real Satoshi, whoever (&& wherever) you are, we do not need to know.

Lauda, I know Gavin and Matonis give you nightmares in your dreams but there is no reason to be upset with them. They saw proof in person that was clearly convincing, and furthermore his personality fit with who they thought was satoshi. As much as you'd love to turn this into a smearfest against Gavin, I'm afraid it just doesn't hold up to water. You can't get upset with someone for having a personal opinion.

[Lauda]

Lauda, I know Gavin and Matonis give you nightmares in your dreams but there is no reason to be upset with them. They saw proof in person that was clearly convincing, and furthermore his personality fit with who they thought was satoshi. As much as you'd love to turn this into a smearfest against Gavin, I'm afraid it just doesn't hold up to water. You can't get upset with someone for having a personal opinion.

Incorrect. Personally, I have nothing against either one of them. However, my argument stands: Either both have been conned quite easily (i.e. they are too naive) or they have both been part of that 'plan' and signed an NDA. We might never know. In any case, there was a high chance that Gavin would have given CW control over the project (if he could). At least that is what he said a few years back about Satoshi. I do not understand why you would let them off so easy (people who helped spread this unfortunate event)?

[ab8989]

They saw proof in person that was clearly convincing, and furthermore his personality fit with who they thought was satoshi.

This scenario is made impossible because of this Dave Kleiman guy and also the fact the Craig Wright is totally clueless about any technical issue related to bitcoin.

The closest possible person in here for Satoshi is Dave Kleiman, not Craig Wright.

If the person Gavin communicated with on 2009 and 2010 was really Craig Wright, how did not Gavin notice back then that he is communicating with someone that is totally clueless?

On the other hand If Gavin in 2009 and 2010 communicated with Dave Kleiman as Satoshi how did he get fooled in 2016 to think that the personality of Craig Wright matches with what he knew as Satoshi, ie Dave Kleiman?

[ebliever]

Additionally, we must never forget what Matonis and Andersen have done. To the real Satoshi, whoever (&& wherever) you are, we do not need to know.

Well, I'd like to offer a caveat to that. While I don't think we ever need Satoshi to step forward in real life and identify himself, there is still the possibility that he or an inheritor will someday want to utilize the ~1 million coin fortune that he holds - perhaps for a philanthropic project or for investment in a worthwhile business startup, for example. As the Wright episode has shown, even the slightest rumor of a "Satoshi sighting" can move the market without proof - now imagine how the market might react if the coins really did start moving?

It would be prudent and courteous (to put it very mildly), therefore, for Satoshi to give everyone a heads up prior to taking any action. Not a press conference or anything. Just a post here or in a similar public forum with appropriate proof (similar to Charles Lee's litecoin demonstration) to prove the authenticity of the post, outlining briefly his plans to move/spend some or all the coins, with some idea of the timeframe involved and method of transaction (an auction would make much better sense than crashing the markets).

Again, Satoshi wouldn't need to reveal his real world identity. Just authenticate a message and let people know what (in general terms) what he plans to use the bitcoin for, and that he's not abandoning it or signaling that Bitcoin has failed.

[yayayo]

Lauda, I know Gavin and Matonis give you nightmares in your dreams but there is no reason to be upset with them. They saw proof in person that was clearly convincing, and furthermore his personality fit with who they thought was satoshi. As much as you'd love to turn this into a smearfest against Gavin, I'm afraid it just doesn't hold up to water. You can't get upset with someone for having a personal opinion.

Incorrect. Personally, I have nothing against either one of them. However, my argument stands: Either both have been conned quite easily (i.e. they are too naive) or they have both been part of that 'plan' and signed an NDA. We might never know. In any case, there was a high chance that Gavin would have given CW control over the project (if he could). At least that is what he said a few years back about Satoshi. I do not understand why you would let them off so easy (people who helped spread this unfortunate event)?

Exactly. Gavin's commit access should not be restored. He represents a tangible security risk. The willingsness of Gavin and Matonis to sign a NDA alone disqualifies them from taking part in the Bitcoin Core project any further. One may specualte what other NDAs they may have signed...

Talking about personality, Craig Wright to me seems like a highly narcissistic person. That doesn't fit to the personality of Satoshi at all. From all evidence we have, Satoshi was never an attention seeker.

ya.ya.yo!

[FinnCoin]

I still don't understand what was is motivation for this, and I assume he knew this lie would be very short lived...

I believe that he genuinely thought he could pull it off by carefully timing Gavin & co public announcement about SN true identity and his own blog post. He didn't realize his complicated cryptographic "proof" was so easy to debunk. Additionally he had to assume that the real SN wouldn't post any message disputing his identity.

[Syke]

His reputation along with Gavin's is tarnished.

To be fair to Gavin it looks like he wasn't really paying attention to how Wright was playing things and now admits he got it wrong:
https://dankaminsky.com/

    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.

"early block"? No, not good enough! Any block other than the genesis block could have been mined by someone else. Gavin should know you can't move the coins from the genesis block, so the only option is a signed message from the genesis block.

[Kprawn]

If I were the real Satoshi Nakamoto and I wanted to come forward, would I want to enter such a hostile place? Yes, Craig brought this on himself, with the piss poor attempt at fooling the community with the

" so called " proof he brought to identify himself, but it still a aggressive attitude towards someone who might have been Satoshi. I think we have to decide what we want as definite proof of his identity and we

put it out there. { This must be backed by technical advice from the more experienced developers in the scene } One day the real Satoshi might just decide not to come forward, due to this aggressive response

he or  she might get and we will never know the true identity of the creator of Bitcoin. { On one side I do not want him to come forward, but on the other hand.. I would really want to know who this is } 

[sgravina]

Someone just sent 0.111899 BTC (~$50 today) to the block 9 address.  Those bitcoins will probably stay there for the next 10,000,000,000 years.

https://blockchain.info/tx/e73a45c936d2ce195f13b5a715614f7d10f94ff7a6593dc24fcf98bf173941eb

God is probably turning in his grave.

[Gyrsur]

Someone just sent 0.111899 BTC (~$50 today) to the block 9 address.  Those bitcoins will probably stay there for the next 10,000,000,000 years.

https://blockchain.info/tx/e73a45c936d2ce195f13b5a715614f7d10f94ff7a6593dc24fcf98bf173941eb

God is probably turning in his grave.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588

On Monday evening, I suggested to Wright's PR firm that if he could send me a fraction of a coin from an early Bitcoin block - which of course I would return - that might show he had Satoshi's keys. But Wright's team came up with a different plan on Wednesday afternoon.

They sent me a draft blog in which he outlined a scheme that would see Matonis, Andresen and the BBC all send small amounts of Bitcoin to the address used in the first ever transaction. Then he would send it back, in what would be the first outgoing transactions from the block since January 2009.

We went ahead with our payments - I sent 0.017BTC (about £5), which you can still see in the online records. Matonis and Andresen sent similar amounts.

Then we waited. And waited. Then my phone rang - with the news that the whole operation was "on hold", with no reason given.

Eighteen hours later we are still waiting for the payments to be made - and now Wright's new blog says that is not going to happen.

 

https://blockchain.info/de/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S

three different tx's. do we have now the addresses of GA, JM and the BBC guy?

[Lauda]

Well, I'd like to offer a caveat to that. While I don't think we ever need Satoshi to step forward in real life and identify himself, there is still the possibility that he or an inheritor will someday want to utilize the ~1 million coin fortune that he holds - perhaps for a philanthropic project or for investment in a worthwhile business startup, for example. As the Wright episode has shown, even the slightest rumor of a "Satoshi sighting" can move the market without proof - now imagine how the market might react if the coins really did start moving?

I have never said that he can't have market influence due to the amount of coins that he is holding. What I'm saying is, we don't need to know who he is nor do people need to be obsessed with the 'Satoshi quest' as they are now.

Again, Satoshi wouldn't need to reveal his real world identity. Just authenticate a message and let people know what (in general terms) what he plans to use the bitcoin for, and that he's not abandoning it or signaling that Bitcoin has failed.

He has already abandoned Bitcoin long ago and (apparently) moved onto other things. I don't understand why his opinion on whether Bitcoin has failed or not would stand ground. No one should have that much influence in a decentralized system.

Exactly. Gavin's commit access should not be restored. He represents a tangible security risk. The willingsness of Gavin and Matonis to sign a NDA alone disqualifies them from taking part in the Bitcoin Core project any further. One may specualte what other NDAs they may have signed...

While I do agree with the first part of the post, I do have to correct you on the second part. I have said that it is possible that they signed that NDA (or something similar), I never said that this actually happened (since we have no proof of this).

[chopstick]

Lauda, I know Gavin and Matonis give you nightmares in your dreams but there is no reason to be upset with them. They saw proof in person that was clearly convincing, and furthermore his personality fit with who they thought was satoshi. As much as you'd love to turn this into a smearfest against Gavin, I'm afraid it just doesn't hold up to water. You can't get upset with someone for having a personal opinion.

Incorrect. Personally, I have nothing against either one of them. However, my argument stands: Either both have been conned quite easily (i.e. they are too naive) or they have both been part of that 'plan' and signed an NDA. We might never know. In any case, there was a high chance that Gavin would have given CW control over the project (if he could). At least that is what he said a few years back about Satoshi. I do not understand why you would let them off so easy (people who helped spread this unfortunate event)?

I doubt that you don't have anything against them. Your original comment was clearly seeking to instigate and make something into bigger than it actually is. You are lying.

Also, they have not been conned *easily*. Craig offered them proof none of us have seen, in a manner which would have been quite difficult to fake. You can say it was easy, but that would be a lie. JVP also believes Craig is Satoshi based on having met him before in 2005. There is actually a *lot* of anecdotal evidence which has not been explained or cleared up, and apparently the email conversations Craig had with them were extremely convincing. That is something that is extremely difficult to fake - coming off as being the exact same person as they talked to 5 years ago, just as a general feeling.

Letting them off easy, you say? Uhh, hello? People are people and we all make mistakes. We are not entitled to force them to beg forgiveness for being human and for having personal opinions. They have already done quite a bit to contribute positively to the bitcoin space, more than most other people. And they can't even have an opinion or make a blog post, even after giving so much to this project? That is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint.

Secondly, there is *zero* chance Gavin would have given CW control over the project. Not only does he not have the power to do that, but you are basing this assumption on a comment Gavin made many years ago during a time when things were a lot different than they are today.

Core has been wanting to take away Gavin's commit access for a long time. They used this as a convenient excuse to do so and now you are whitewashing the whole thing. If Core has any integrity, they would give it back. Looks like it's not gonna happen. Your hypocrisy continues to glare in the sunlight.

[Lauda]

I doubt that you don't have anything against them. Your original comment was clearly seeking to instigate and make something into bigger than it actually is. You are lying.

You're taking things way out of context. I have attempted to do no such thing, nor am I lying at this very moment (I have never had a single interaction with Gavin nor Matonis, I believe). Keep in mind that a lot of those articles written by the media mentioned both Matonis and Andersen (as an argument to make their 'case' more 'credible').

Also, they have not been conned *easily*. Craig offered them proof none of us have seen, in a manner which would have been quite difficult to fake. You can say it was easy, but that would be a lie. JVP also believes Craig is Satoshi based on having met him before in 2005. There is actually a *lot* of anecdotal evidence which has not been explained or cleared up, and apparently the email conversations Craig had with them were extremely convincing. That is something that is extremely difficult to fake - coming off as being the exact same person as they talked to 5 years ago, just as a general feeling.

This is not factual evidence; without cryptographic proof (which would be a nice starting point) these are just stories.

-snip-
Core has been wanting to take away Gavin's commit access for a long time. They used this as a convenient excuse to do so and now you are whitewashing the whole thing.

The rest is pretty much useless and does not need to be commented independently. This is just an attempt to defend Gavin and try to make Core look evil.                                                                                Besides, even if we ignore everything, Gavin does not need to have commit access anymore. While I do not understand the exact 'process' which was used to determine the set of people who will have commit access, Gavin is no longer a part of them. People who have stopped contributing to the project should not retain access.

[JaneEverycunt]

 Besides, even if we ignore everything, Gavin does not need to have commit access anymore. While I do not understand the exact 'process' which was used to determine the set of people who will have commit access,

Satoshi gave him access.

Gavin is no longer a part of them. People who have stopped contributing to the project should not retain access.

Self-fulfilling prophesy if access is taken away. Is there a mechanism for taking away such privileges? 95% super-majority consensus, something like that?

[Lauda]

Satoshi gave him access.

That is no valid reason for him to retain access, especially when he practically quit the role that he had.

Self-fulfilling prophesy if access is taken away. Is there a mechanism for taking away such privileges? 95% super-majority consensus, something like that?

No, it isn't. If he wants to contribute, he can create pull requests like everyone else. There is no mechanism for that and if I'm correct, Wladimir is the only one who can do that (due to him being the maintainer of the Github page).

[chopstick]

The rest is pretty much useless and does not need to be commented independently. This is just an attempt to defend Gavin and try to make Core look evil.                                                                                Besides, even if we ignore everything, Gavin does not need to have commit access anymore. While I do not understand the exact 'process' which was used to determine the set of people who will have commit access, Gavin is no longer a part of them. People who have stopped contributing to the project should not retain access.

I'm not saying Core is evil, although I am defending Gavin for the obvious reason that he does not deserve to be vilified merely for having an opinion, especially after having contributed so much to bitcoin.

Remember, you are the one who started the shit slinging.

[Lauda]

I'm not saying Core is evil, although I am defending Gavin for the obvious reason that he does not deserve to be vilified merely for having an opinion, especially after having contributed so much to bitcoin.

Oh, the irony present here is lovely: "we must never forget" == my opinion; so I deserve to be vilified ("lying", "hypocrisy", etc.) for having an opinion while Gavin does not?

Remember, you are the one who started the shit slinging.

Nope, I have started nothing. Do you see me say anywhere that e.g. 'Gavin is bad'? I haven't said anything bad about either one of them and have stated something that is a reasonable course of action once someone does something bad. Both of them have created reasonable amounts of doubt regarding their 'status', due to their latest actions (which is only normal). The only person that I've used a 'bad adjective' to describe in this incident is CW.
Update:

You tried to insinuate that Gavin/Matonis were part of some insidious plot along with Craig. Unless you're just trying to push some agenda, you have to know that isn't true. That is definitely shit-slinging and you should not expect not to get called out on it. And yes, you did start it.

I did no such thing. This conversation has been quite lovely, but you're wasting my time with nonsense.

[chopstick]

I'm not saying Core is evil, although I am defending Gavin for the obvious reason that he does not deserve to be vilified merely for having an opinion, especially after having contributed so much to bitcoin.

Oh, the irony present here is lovely: "we must never forget" == my opinion; so I deserve to be vilified ("lying", "hypocrisy", etc.) for having an opinion while Gavin does not?

Remember, you are the one who started the shit slinging.

Nope, I have started nothing. Do you see me say anywhere that e.g. 'Gavin is bad'? I haven't said anything bad about either one of them and have stated something that is a reasonable course of action once someone does something bad. The only person that I've used a 'bad adjective' to describe in this incident is CW.

You tried to insinuate that Gavin/Matonis were part of some insidious plot along with Craig. Unless you're just trying to push some agenda, you have to know that isn't true. That is definitely shit-slinging and you should not expect not to get called out on it. And yes, you did start it.

[tyz]

This is a very bad end of the story. I do not understand the motivation of Craig either. Why was he going to the public when he could not hold the promises? He should have known what impact such a confession must have 
Nevertheless, I am wondering why the real Satoshi did not posted on its P2P Foundation profile "that Craig is not Satoshi" if Craig would really not be Satoshi.
The whole story is confusing and mysterious.