Definitive PROOF that Satoshi Nakamoto is about to be exposed because ...

[igigme77]

Good read this thread was. I never had any doubt that satoshi would reveal himself at some point. Now seem like the best point too because bitcoin is about to take off in a major way.

[1714869628]

1714869628

[1714869628]

1714869628

[LeGaulois]

...

Humm i was not seeing things like this. I am not so much surprised finally to see guys changing their hat. It makes me think about an adage saying "to understand most of the things, follow the money".

Good read this thread was. I never had any doubt that satoshi would reveal himself at some point. Now seem like the best point too because bitcoin is about to take off in a major way.

i may need to re-read because i have not see somewhere in this disscussion  satoshi would reveal himself

[igigme77]

...

Humm i was not seeing things like this. I am not so much surprised finally to see guys changing their hat. It makes me think about an adage saying "to understand most of the things, follow the money". Similar case like in GNU Linux and why Open Source missed the point of Free Software and the community began campaigning in the name of “open source.” while the free software movement community  started to campaign in the name of “free software.” since 1983, long before Open source. Two group seperated with differents ideas

Finally with the time, it could be really annoying to have such group and a threat. As i said i never knew about them but i think it is the same for the majority of the bitcoin community

Good read this thread was. I never had any doubt that satoshi would reveal himself at some point. Now seem like the best point too because bitcoin is about to take off in a major way.

i may need to re-read because i have not see somewhere in this disscussion  satoshi would reveal himself

Then you never read the op.

[Wind_FURY]

That is the first Pete Rizzo article that I think is stupid and useless. Unless he already has the follow up story and has a solid lead on who Satoshi really is, I am quite disappointed that he came up with that article. He made me waste 5 min.s of my life by reading it.

[Gleb Gamow]

That is the first Pete Rizzo article that I think is stupid and useless. Unless he already has the follow up story and has a solid lead on who Satoshi really is, I am quite disappointed that he came up with that article. He made me waste 5 min.s of my life by reading it.

Let me see if I got this straight. It took you five minutes to read a short article that takes most every other English speaking person in the world no more than one minute to read. On top of that, in the same sentence you expressed wasting your life by reading it in spite of clearly known to all reading this reply that you indeed got paid for your efforts via posting about your dreadful experience which includes a paid sig campaign below the fold that you're participating in, ergo not a waste. How close am I?

In case you read a different article, the following is the article in question in its entirety:

That is the first Pete Rizzo article that I think is stupid and useless.

Albeit not stupid, I'll give you one guess as to who penned the following article back in December 2015: http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/ HINT: He attended University of Massachusetts located in Amherst where Gavin Andresen currently resides, and has extensive experience managing teams of journalists and copywriters, guiding editorial content and larger product vision.

[jyakulis]

"This time, however, there is said to be a potential twist to the story relating to an unknown entity that may have a claim to the intellectual property created by that group"


o rly?

 

[pooya87]

Does it really matter who she is and does anyone REALLY care anymore?

as a bitcoin enthusiast i don't want Satoshi identity to be revealed because it is the proof that anonymity can be achieved with bitcoin too.

but topic of Satoshi has always been important to two groups of people
1) shit news sites to post click bait
2) FUDsters to scare people with Satoshi moving his big stash!

[Xester]

There are many potential contestants to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto but all who have claimed that they are Satoshi Nakamoto have failed to prove that they are the right person. Craig Wright has shaken the bitcoin y industry with his claim and evidence or proof that he is the rightful creator of bitcoin but failed in the last moment. In the end Satoshi Nakamoto remains a mystery and it never be unveiled.

[20kevin20]

There are many potential contestants to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto but all who have claimed that they are Satoshi Nakamoto have failed to prove that they are the right person. Craig Wright has shaken the bitcoin y industry with his claim and evidence or proof that he is the rightful creator of bitcoin but failed in the last moment. In the end Satoshi Nakamoto remains a mystery and it never be unveiled.

If one of them was Satoshi it would've been very easy to prove it. When he created the cryptocurrency and then tried to hide himself.. he knew the day will come when he will have to prove it. The "fight", the competition between the people that are claiming to be the BTC owners are all about the money they can make out of this "reveal"..

[thepo1m]

I know most of us want to know who Satoshi really is, it will create exitement in the space but going forward it might hinder the progress of Bitcoin, for me the Bitcoin community has outgrown Satoshi and most people will take his opinion has the voice of the almighty Satishi speaking and must be done

[franky1]

Albeit not stupid, I'll give you one guess as to who penned the following article back in December 2015: http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/ HINT: He attended University of Massachusetts located in Amherst where Gavin Andresen currently resides, and has extensive experience managing teams of journalists and copywriters, guiding editorial content and larger product vision.

gleb, did you also remember the original gizmodo/wired "tip off" was from craig wright himself. asking all the media to sign a NDA until he was out of australia and in the uk before release

and craig wright done the same again later on to another bunch of people when he done the signature fail reveal

as well as the bit inbetween where craig wright was 'introduced' to the community by a select few people before anyone knew him.

(even back then i thought it all seemed like orchestrated and fake media drama)

In early November 2015, Gizmodo [and wired] received a series of anonymous tip emails from someone who claimed to not only know the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, but who also claimed to have worked for him. “I hacked Satoshi Naklamoto [sic],” the first message read. “These files are all from his business account. The person is Dr Craig Wright.” What followed was a package of email files apparently pulled directly from an Outlook account belonging to Craig Wright, an Australian academic, computer engineering expert, and serial entrepreneur with a litany of degrees and corporations to his name.

(spoiler: craig himself was the tipster)

all because craig wright was under legal pressure due to questions over his empty tulip trust and was being harassed by australian government to prove its value. (due to the dmorgan ltd saga of aus$54m of government funding)
he needed to get the australian government off his back by trying to suggest his tulip trust actually held real assets(it doesnt). and also create yet another business backed by the (in reality empty) tulip trust

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/aussie-technologists-are-opening-the-worlds-first-bitcoin-based-bank-this-year-2014-2

here is wired's recanting their belief craig was satoshi
https://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-suspect-craig-wright-may-be-a-hoaxer/

That final piece of evidence in particular resonates with something we pointed out in our original story: Wright seemed to planting breadcrumbs that would lead us to his theoretical secret identity. In fact, we’d already spotted that the three posts in Wright’s now-deleted blog that seemed to reveal his bitcoin work had been backdated or edited after the fact to insert that evidence; the clues were all missing in archived versions of the posts from 2013. Combined with our other apparently solid evidence, however, we wavered on whether the backdated posts were the sign of a hoax to steal Satoshi’s glory (or money), or simply the sign of a conflicted personality who may have hoped to finally receive credit for his work.

The two major holes in Wright’s resume that have come to light since, however, point to a hoaxer who may have planted clues of his purported bitcoin creation, just as he seems to have misrepresented his academic credentials and supercomputing achievements.

[zahra4577]

A conflict has risen, based upon that we cannot claim a key person to be Satoshi. To get exposed is simple but at the same bitcoin and other altcoins will be in danger.

Why do people believe that if Satoshi come to public,bitcoin will be in danger?
A lot of Altcoin devs are known to public yet these Altcoin are not only popular but prosepering as well.
Satoshi may have reasons not to disclose his identity but even if he did,bitcoin will not disappear.

[Gleb Gamow]

Albeit not stupid, I'll give you one guess as to who penned the following article back in December 2015: http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/ HINT: He attended University of Massachusetts located in Amherst where Gavin Andresen currently resides, and has extensive experience managing teams of journalists and copywriters, guiding editorial content and larger product vision.

gleb, did you also remember the original gizmodo/wired "tip off" was from craig wright himself. asking all the media to sign a NDA until he was out of australia and in the uk before release

and craig wright done the same again later on to another bunch of people when he done the signature fail reveal

as well as the bit inbetween where craig wright was 'introduced' to the community by a select few people before anyone knew him.

(even back then i thought it all seemed like orchestrated and fake media drama)

In early November 2015, Gizmodo [and wired] received a series of anonymous tip emails from someone who claimed to not only know the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, but who also claimed to have worked for him. “I hacked Satoshi Naklamoto [sic],” the first message read. “These files are all from his business account. The person is Dr Craig Wright.” What followed was a package of email files apparently pulled directly from an Outlook account belonging to Craig Wright, an Australian academic, computer engineering expert, and serial entrepreneur with a litany of degrees and corporations to his name.

(spoiler: craig himself was the tipster)

all because craig wright was under legal pressure due to questions over his empty tulip trust and was being harassed by australian government to prove its value. (due to the dmorgan ltd saga of aus$54m of government funding)
he needed to get the australian government off his back by trying to suggest his tulip trust actually held real assets(it doesnt). and also create yet another business backed by the (in reality empty) tulip trust

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/aussie-technologists-are-opening-the-worlds-first-bitcoin-based-bank-this-year-2014-2

here is wired's recanting their belief craig was satoshi
https://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-suspect-craig-wright-may-be-a-hoaxer/

That final piece of evidence in particular resonates with something we pointed out in our original story: Wright seemed to planting breadcrumbs that would lead us to his theoretical secret identity. In fact, we’d already spotted that the three posts in Wright’s now-deleted blog that seemed to reveal his bitcoin work had been backdated or edited after the fact to insert that evidence; the clues were all missing in archived versions of the posts from 2013. Combined with our other apparently solid evidence, however, we wavered on whether the backdated posts were the sign of a hoax to steal Satoshi’s glory (or money), or simply the sign of a conflicted personality who may have hoped to finally receive credit for his work.

The two major holes in Wright’s resume that have come to light since, however, point to a hoaxer who may have planted clues of his purported bitcoin creation, just as he seems to have misrepresented his academic credentials and supercomputing achievements.

In re the author of http://www.businessinsider.com.au/aussie-technologists-are-opening-the-worlds-first-bitcoin-based-bank-this-year-2014-2 (keyword: liz.tay@gmail.com)

Now that Liz Tay has a kid, she don't get around as much as she used to: http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=Travel&Number=11861389&Searchpage=1&Main=11754442&Words=+liz.t&topic=&Search=true#Post11861389

Speaking of Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-bitcoin-is-the-new-gold-btcc-2017-1

[Wind_FURY]

That is the first Pete Rizzo article that I think is stupid and useless. Unless he already has the follow up story and has a solid lead on who Satoshi really is, I am quite disappointed that he came up with that article. He made me waste 5 min.s of my life by reading it.

Let me see if I got this straight. It took you five minutes to read a short article that takes most every other English speaking person in the world no more than one minute to read. On top of that, in the same sentence you expressed wasting your life by reading it in spite of clearly known to all reading this reply that you indeed got paid for your efforts via posting about your dreadful experience which includes a paid sig campaign below the fold that you're participating in, ergo not a waste. How close am I?

In case you read a different article, the following is the article in question in its entirety:

That is the first Pete Rizzo article that I think is stupid and useless.

Albeit not stupid, I'll give you one guess as to who penned the following article back in December 2015: http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/ HINT: He attended University of Massachusetts located in Amherst where Gavin Andresen currently resides, and has extensive experience managing teams of journalists and copywriters, guiding editorial content and larger product vision.

Ok what I said is harsh. Maybe the word stupid is the wrong word to use, I should have used farfetched. I believe this is another wild goose chase just like what the journalist for Newsweek did. She pointed to Dorian Nakamoto which turned out to be the wrong.

Also do not forget that this is a huge gamble for Pete Rizzo. The outcome of this story will make or break his career. I like him and his articles, please do not get me wrong. But this article honestly made my eyes roll and say "This again?" in my head. Or maybe it was the thread title having "definitive PROOF" that made me have high expectations.

[Gleb Gamow]

That is the first Pete Rizzo article that I think is stupid and useless. Unless he already has the follow up story and has a solid lead on who Satoshi really is, I am quite disappointed that he came up with that article. He made me waste 5 min.s of my life by reading it.

Let me see if I got this straight. It took you five minutes to read a short article that takes most every other English speaking person in the world no more than one minute to read. On top of that, in the same sentence you expressed wasting your life by reading it in spite of clearly known to all reading this reply that you indeed got paid for your efforts via posting about your dreadful experience which includes a paid sig campaign below the fold that you're participating in, ergo not a waste. How close am I?

In case you read a different article, the following is the article in question in its entirety:

That is the first Pete Rizzo article that I think is stupid and useless.

Albeit not stupid, I'll give you one guess as to who penned the following article back in December 2015: http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/ HINT: He attended University of Massachusetts located in Amherst where Gavin Andresen currently resides, and has extensive experience managing teams of journalists and copywriters, guiding editorial content and larger product vision.

Ok what I said is harsh. Maybe the word stupid is the wrong word to use, I should have used farfetched. I believe this is another wild goose chase just like what the journalist for Newsweek did. She pointed to Dorian Nakamoto which turned out to be the wrong.

Also do not forget that this is a huge gamble for Pete Rizzo. The outcome of this story will make or break his career. I like him and his articles, please do not get me wrong. But this article honestly made my eyes roll and say "This again?" in my head. Or maybe it was the thread title having "definitive PROOF" that made me have high expectations.

Perhaps now you can see what I did there: If a seasoned editor like Pete Rizzo can pass off a rumor stemming from a closed-door meeting as being news, I, a Dumb-ass, can pen a thread with "definitive PROOF" in its title expanding upon his extraordinary exposé, then trump this thread with yet another thread in re a sensationalized story currently making the rounds - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1767039.0.

[MFahad]

There are many potential contestants to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto but all who have claimed that they are Satoshi Nakamoto have failed to prove that they are the right person. Craig Wright has shaken the bitcoin y industry with his claim and evidence or proof that he is the rightful creator of bitcoin but failed in the last moment. In the end Satoshi Nakamoto remains a mystery and it never be unveiled.

Somethings remains secret forever and its good they remain secret. For example if Satoshi Nakamoto reveals himself maybe his life maybe threaten and there are still lots of people and Govt. Institutions which hate bitcoin and do not want it to grow. Its better for bitcoin itself that this secret remains a secret.

[franky1]

Somethings remains secret forever and its good they remain secret. For example if Satoshi Nakamoto reveals himself maybe his life maybe threaten and there are still lots of people and Govt. Institutions which hate bitcoin and do not want it to grow. Its better for bitcoin itself that this secret remains a secret.

satoshi wont need to worry about governments hating bitcoin, otherwise charlie lee and Butterin would be locked up
id say satoshi's worse fear is people thinking he has 1m coins making him nearly a billionaire, and suddenly having strangers from around the plant begging him for donations or trying to become his best friend while touching up his pocket hoping to find a hardware wallet with 20,000 privkeys

or
all the drug dealers that lost out in silkroad or all the gamblers that lost out in dodgy dice games and exchang hats threatening him to pay them, something for their loses

[Gleb Gamow]

How rumors get started: https://criptonoticias.com/eventos/baja-asistencia-durante-segundo-dia-satoshi-roundtable/#axzz4XEsOYJMR


"Dear Diary: I think the redhead sitting across the aisle has the hots for me. Meanwhile, I can't help but feel that Craig Steven Wright is once again gonna provide proof that he is indeed Satoshi Nakamoto. PS: I missed my period again, thus I'm either going through menopause or I got pregnant when I sat on a toilet seat formerly utilized by Marshall Long. Oh, and I heard a rumor that somebody purchased a $4M home in California via bitcoins, but I'll believe that once I read such in some cryptocurrency periodical. Re Satoshi Roundtable, pretty thin turnout today, perhaps due to a many drinking more than their fair share of readily supplied Romulan Ale while most us attendees were in the hottub butt-ass naked last night, or was it this morning?. Rumor has it that Marshall Long was considering jumping in to take a bath, but opted out at the last minute so to play with his drones."

[Niksa90]

In early November 2015, Gizmodo [and wired] received a series of anonymous tip emails from someone who claimed to not only know the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, but who also claimed to have worked for him. “I hacked Satoshi Naklamoto [sic],” the first message read. “These files are all from his business account. The person is Dr Craig Wright.” What followed was a package of email files apparently pulled directly from an Outlook account belonging to Craig Wright, an Australian academic, computer engineering expert, and serial entrepreneur with a litany of degrees and corporations to his name.

(spoiler: craig himself was the tipster)


here is wired's recanting their belief craig was satoshi
https://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-suspect-craig-wright-may-be-a-hoaxer/

That final piece of evidence in particular resonates with something we pointed out in our original story: Wright seemed to planting breadcrumbs that would lead us to his theoretical secret identity. In fact, we’d already spotted that the three posts in Wright’s now-deleted blog that seemed to reveal his bitcoin work had been backdated or edited after the fact to insert that evidence; the clues were all missing in archived versions of the posts from 2013. Combined with our other apparently solid evidence, however, we wavered on whether the backdated posts were the sign of a hoax to steal Satoshi’s glory (or money), or simply the sign of a conflicted personality who may have hoped to finally receive credit for his work.

The two major holes in Wright’s resume that have come to light since, however, point to a hoaxer who may have planted clues of his purported bitcoin creation, just as he seems to have misrepresented his academic credentials and supercomputing achievements.

First, Gamow thanks for the elaborate peak in the Craig Wright hoax.
Can you share the domain of the erased blog of Wright? I would like to check on wayback to learn what exactly he reveals.(if the site's robots are not blocked)
About revealing the true Bitcoin dev, I think that if he wanted to share his identity he already would've done so, and for all of these people trying to get the claim, I think they are just baits that are trying to force the true dev to come out and take his rightful place.
And I totally agree this topic this is a wild goose chase
 

[franky1]

to add another direction to the craig wright as a satoshi fall guy social misdirection drama.

ill add this name as the fourth musketeer, which i presume cough*media*cough are investigating as part of their circle jerk of their own rumour creation

Joseph Vaughn Perling


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE
this video is after craig ran off to the UK. but before he allowed gizmodo and wired to publish his tipoff.. in essense this is craig wrights attempt to get his name out there before he unlocks the media storm.

then looking at Joseph Vaughn Perling
google can see JVP saying he met cough*satoshi*cough many times.

VaughnPerling says he met Wright at a conference in Amsterdam[2005] three years before publication of the Bitcoin white paper – and that Wright introduced himself as Satoshi Nakamoto at that time.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshi-saga-continues-tulip-trust-trustee-expected-to-appear-by-september-says-joseph-vaughnperling-1462467803/

(im facepalming and laughing at the same time)