Wikipedia Bitcoin page false info about Wright

[chek2fire]

I just see to Bitcoin Wikipedia page this

Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin. Wright, named himself as the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview. Wright apparently proved his claim by using 'signature' bitcoins associated with its inventor. Wright said 'his admission is an effort to end speculation about the identity of the originator of the currency.' In December 2015, Wired and Gizmodo, magazines also named Wright as likely to be bitcoin's creator.[88]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

this is completely false info and lure to misunderstanding. I dont know who are the editors of this article. The article is semi lock and i cannot edit.
First Wright never sign a transaction. Second Gizmodo and Wired in the end and with new article announce that they have do mistake about wright claims. This hoaxer's name must remove from bitcoin wikipedia asap.

[talkbitcoin]

i agree this looks back and it needs an immediate correction.
but i don't think CW's name should be removed instead it should be edited to make things clear that he only claimed to be satoshi and could never provide any single proof at all and actually that's the beauty of bitcoin
the proof is easy if you are legit and impossible if you are faking the identity like what wright did.

[chek2fire]

i agree this looks back and it needs an immediate correction. but i don't think CW's name should be removed instead it should be edited to make things clear that he only claimed to be satoshi and could never provide any single proof at all and actually that's the beauty of bitcoin the proof is easy if you are legit and impossible if you are faking the identity.

yes i agree with that. If anyone is an editor in wikipedia must fix this asap

[chek2fire]

it seems wikipedia page already corrected. it says now

Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview in 2016.[131] He offered to prove this claim cryptographically several days later, without offering an explanation of the delay. The circumstantial proof he provided was picked apart by cryptography experts[132], with one describing it as "flimflam and hokum".[133]

[chek2fire]

imo his name must completely removed from bitcoin wikipedia page. he has no place there because is not even a part of bitcoin history. I think he better be in Satoshi Nakamoto page as a person that failed to claim to be satoshi

[talkbitcoin]

it seems wikipedia page already corrected. it says now

Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview in 2016.[131] He offered to prove this claim cryptographically several days later, without offering an explanation of the delay. The circumstantial proof he provided was picked apart by cryptography experts[132], with one describing it as "flimflam and hokum".[133]

that is so much better now, and i specifically like this part about his "circumstantial" proof being picked apart.

and the reference to the github [132] looks like a very good reference to be there.

imo his name must completely removed from bitcoin wikipedia page. he has no place there because is not even a part of bitcoin history. I think he better be in Satoshi Nakamoto page as a person that failed to claim to be satoshi

that is a good idea too, because CW was actually stealing his identity.

[Kprawn]

I think it should be there, so that people can see that there are imposters trying to claim that they are Satoshi and then they get shot down by the evidence. This will possibly deter other imposters not

to try this.   CW even convinced Gavin that he was Satoshi, so if CW can do that... who will stop other people from doing the same thing. They should even add the requirements for people to prove

that they are Satoshi, so that they would see how difficult it would be to do that.   .... Well spotted OP... thanks.

[calkob]

I think there is debate over any info that is right about wright...... lol

[jonald_fyookball]

what was the circumstantial proof?

[AgentofCoin]

what was the circumstantial proof?

The circumstantial proof was that he claimed to have signed a message with a known Satoshi address,
yet upon closer examination, he signed a message with a well known Satoshi signature from 2009.

It is circumstantial because the proof provided was indirect and doesn't prove he is Satoshi.
If the community saw him sign with a new Satoshi signature, it would be proof he controlled that privatekey.

Also, it may be circumstantial as that CSW purportedly verified this signed message in controlled conditions
in which the media (and others) could not independently evaluate that "proof".
The resulting "proof" provided could only have been verified under those controlled "circumstances".

Ultimately, the "proof" was not concrete and unquestionable.