Evidence that Craig Wright might be Satoshi after all

[jbreher]

This is 0 evidence.
Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.

True, there is no conclusive evidence. For any of the above.
Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to claim that Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.
However, it could be plausible to claim that Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more plausible candidates.

I'd lol if future evidence shows CSW to be Satoshi.
I'd lol also if it turned out that CSW was the exploiter of the DAO's recursive withdrawal. <- wild speculation, apropos of nothing.

[1714318051]

1714318051

[jbreher]

Lol!!  

What a moron.

Thanks for reasons number 2001-2051 that nobody will believe this guy is Satoshi.  

In what way does filing Bitcoin-related patents provide reasons that CSW is not Satoshi? There may be a moron in this post, but it does not seem to be CSW.

[jbreher]

hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.

Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.

[jbreher]

have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.

Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.

[tmfp]

hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.

Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.

That's a bit harsh.
See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia  )

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Especially when the "evidence" had been provided by someone who would directly benefit from it proving his assertion, it failing to do that and then being effectively withdrawn in what could be described as a "huff".

[franky1]

have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.

Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.

ill just leave this here
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B

wait.. i must be satoshi too

[jbreher]

hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.

Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.

That's a bit harsh.
See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia  )

Not harsh at all. And fully consistent with your sig (I don't know what Copi is). Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. Period.

You can call it evidence supporting a _conclusion_ of Not-A. I'd even agree with you. But it ain't proof.

[jbreher]

have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.

Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.

ill just leave this here
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B

wait.. i must be satoshi too

Show me where either Andresen or Matonis have indicated that the 'proof' they were given was the replay trickery to which you refer.

Oh, you mean you can't find any such claim? Interesting.

[tmfp]

hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.

Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.

That's a bit harsh.
See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia  )

Not harsh at all. And fully consistent with your sig (I don't know what Copi is). Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. Period.

You can call it evidence supporting a _conclusion_ of Not-A. I'd even agree with you. But it ain't proof.

Copi's an Irving not an it, wrote "Introduction to Logic".
My view, fwiw, is that by failure to provide proof for A (that CW=SN), in this case Not-A is assumed as default as it was before the claim was made, as A only ever existed in the claim, subsequently unproven, made by the potentially benefiting party.
One logical? step further would be that by failure of proof for A, the likelihood of Not-A is increased.
But yeah, I give you that CW≠SN isn't 100% proven, although neither is (insert any name)≠SN.

[Minor Miner]

So, why could he not access the address and send the bitcoin dust back to gavin as he said he would from Satoshi's account?

Don't you think a more like scenario is that Craig is in SERIOUS legal jeopardy for what appears to be a tax scam and wanted to be "outed" as satohsi so he could justify his right to patent and then sell all the patents to that company to get a lot of money fast (and save his bacon)?

[jbreher]

So, why could he not access the address and send the bitcoin dust back to gavin as he said he would from Satoshi's account?

While we know that he _did_not_, we do not know whether he _could_not_. Though admittedly that would be a plausible conclusion.

Don't you think a more like scenario is that Craig is in SERIOUS legal jeopardy for what appears to be a tax scam and wanted to be "outed" as satohsi so he could justify his right to patent and then sell all the patents to that company to get a lot of money fast (and save his bacon)?

I don't think enough facts are in evidence to call that scenario more likely. There is insufficient data to quantify probabilities. Again, I'll grant you plausible.

[Minor Miner]

So, why could he not access the address and send the bitcoin dust back to gavin as he said he would from Satoshi's account?

While we know that he _did_not_, we do not know whether he _could_not_. Though admittedly that would be a plausible conclusion.

Don't you think a more like scenario is that Craig is in SERIOUS legal jeopardy for what appears to be a tax scam and wanted to be "outed" as satohsi so he could justify his right to patent and then sell all the patents to that company to get a lot of money fast (and save his bacon)?

I don't think enough facts are in evidence to call that scenario more likely. There is insufficient data to quantify probabilities. Again, I'll grant you plausible.

Let's ask William of Ockham what he thinks on the matter.....

Yup, Craig ain't satoshi.      QED.   End of scam attempt.

[franky1]

have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.

Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.

ill just leave this here
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B

wait.. i must be satoshi too

Show me where either Andresen or Matonis have indicated that the 'proof' they were given was the replay trickery to which you refer.

Oh, you mean you can't find any such claim? Interesting.

search "gavin matonis wright block 9" to see lots of people discussing how wright showed them a signature that is validated by the address held in block 9

then look at the address that can verify the MEUCIQDBK... sig.. wait for it             wait for it                here comes the revelation..
Bam
you have finally caught up with the whole situation

[hikedoon]

Hmm. You may have had more activity if you entitled your post "Evidence of Wright maybe being Satoshi" or some such.

<I found it a compelling read...>

 I found it a compelling read too but it left me thinking he was a conman that tried to bite of more than he could chew.
 It took me 5 minutes to learn how to verify my address by signing a message and I'm clueless with computers.
 So it seems extremely fishy to me that Wright made such a palaver of providing proof.
 And this "trust holding the bitcoins" business seems like it's straight out of a crappy b movie plot.
     
 

 
 
 

[practicaldreamer]

OK - 1) who is this Calvin guy in Antigua, and whats his role ?   2) who are the trustees ?  3) where does Ross Ulbricht come into it exactly ?



What a fantastic film this is going to make - one day, when we know the ending.

How incredibly moving the story of Dave Kleiman, his relationship to Craig Wright, and his ultimate demise (shortly before the price took off).

You couldn't make this shit up.

[Hide_ip112]

I don't care who exactly created the bitcoin, however I want that after the owner/creator of the bitcoin is already present and claiming patent rights bitcoin. Bitcoin became stable and better yet, because the bitcoin has some constraints in several improvement and its system

[chek2fire]

not again with this scammer!

[countryfree]

OK, still no conclusive evidence but it's clear M. Wright is not your average scammer. He's hugely familiar with everything BTC. If he's not Satoshi, he has spent months learning about it, so much that he convince plenty others that he's the man.

[chek2fire]

OK, still no conclusive evidence but it's clear M. Wright is not your average scammer. He's hugely familiar with everything BTC. If he's not Satoshi, he has spent months learning about it, so much that he convince plenty others that he's the man.

lol hahahahaha ahhahahjhahahahahahahahahahahah   you dont really believe that this guy has nothing to do with bitcoin? He is scammer

[franky1]

OK, still no conclusive evidence but it's clear M. Wright is not your average scammer. He's hugely familiar with everything BTC. If he's not Satoshi, he has spent months learning about it, so much that he convince plenty others that he's the man.

if i was to say that i could give you tens of millions from the government. and then hundreds of millions from private investors. wouldnt you spend more than a passing glance at all the satoshi quotes and email leaks that are publicly available