Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto

[kiklo]

Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto ?
_____________________________________________________________________________

Nope, but he has been confirmed to be a creepy Easter bunny.



Scared the daylights out of the kids.  


Happy Easter!  


 

[QuestionAuthority]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

[AGD]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Lets say Craig was in court and needed to prove without a doubt, he was Satoshi Nakamoto to avoid a sentence. If he tried to prove it with the same fake setup (that convinced Gavin Andresen) he would end up in jail.
If he simply signed the PGP key, that is publicily asociated to Satoshi or if he signed a message with an early Bitcoin block or he would move some Bitcoins from one of these early Satoshi blocks, people would believe he is SN. It would take just a minute and the value to proof his statement is very very high.

[Quickseller]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Lets say Craig was in court and needed to prove without a doubt, he was Satoshi Nakamoto to avoid a sentence. If he tried to prove it with the same fake setup (that convinced Gavin Andresen) he would end up in jail.
If he simply signed the PGP key, that is publicily asociated to Satoshi or if he signed a message with an early Bitcoin block or he would move some Bitcoins from one of these early Satoshi blocks, people would believe he is SN. It would take just a minute and the value to proof his statement is very very high.

What you say is true, however Wright has not been in this situation.

To play devil's advocate, it is possible that someone was able to uncover that Wright was Satoshi, confronted Wright (and attempted to gain access to Wright's private keys), and in order to throw the attacker off his trail, he created this multi-year elaborate scheme that would supposedly prove that he is Satoshi, with the intention of having the story quickly unravel under scrutiny. 

[QuestionAuthority]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

I just meant that Craig Wright had every reason to want to prove he was Satoshi. He even convinced the former lead dev that he was (which I never really understood, but whatever). If he was so highly motivated to prove himself and was the real deal it wouldn't have been very difficult to do. To me that proves he's not Satoshi. You're right though, your logic is sound, it really means it's highly unlikely that he could be Satoshi.

[Searing]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Lets say Craig was in court and needed to prove without a doubt, he was Satoshi Nakamoto to avoid a sentence. If he tried to prove it with the same fake setup (that convinced Gavin Andresen) he would end up in jail.
If he simply signed the PGP key, that is publicily asociated to Satoshi or if he signed a message with an early Bitcoin block or he would move some Bitcoins from one of these early Satoshi blocks, people would believe he is SN. It would take just a minute and the value to proof his statement is very very high.

What you say is true, however Wright has not been in this situation.

To play devil's advocate, it is possible that someone was able to uncover that Wright was Satoshi, confronted Wright (and attempted to gain access to Wright's private keys), and in order to throw the attacker off his trail, he created this multi-year elaborate scheme that would supposedly prove that he is Satoshi, with the intention of having the story quickly unravel under scrutiny.  

who was it john nash and finney....supposedly helped make bitcoin...if wright is the 3rd guy in this cabal as he claims...he has said there is a trust of all the btc
that is being held till jan 1st 2020.....I guess we will know then..my fear is he is so pissed at everyone in the btc commnity ..that he will flush the works.tank btc and price
just to take the money and watch it burn...he often stated he was an anrchist....satoshi I mean....what a fine joke that would be

just saying only give the odds at 1 out of 20...but...that is my btc boogieman idea that keeps me awake nites.

[AGD]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

Nobody is interested to prove that Wright is NOT Satoshi, but it was Craig who stated the he is. As long as he doesn't prove HIS statement, people will take him as he is: a liar.

[Searing]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

I just meant that Craig Wright had every reason to want to prove he was Satoshi. He even convinced the former lead dev that he was (which I never really understood, but whatever). If he was so highly motivated to prove himself and was the real deal it wouldn't have been very difficult to do. To me that proves he's not Satoshi. You're right though, your logic is sound, it really means it's highly unlikely that he could be Satoshi.

He also settled with help from 'rich folks' that think he is satoshi ..with the australian tax authorities which is how this all became uncovered (i think) thus it is either a long
con...or the btc commnity and press and such..just pissed off someone who could flust ..what is it 1/2 billion dollars as a sale to the btc universe..watch it burn and walk
away still with millions of dollars....

sheesh..scared myself again

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

Nobody is interested to prove that Wright is NOT Satoshi, but it was Craig who stated the he is. As long as he doesn't prove HIS statement, people will take him as he is: a liar.

Yep I agree....just saying if he is satoshi...he strikes me as a guy who holds a grudge...thus jan 1st 2020....could be real frigging interesting (like a heart attack) kinda day imho

[Quickseller]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

Nobody is interested to prove that Wright is NOT Satoshi, but it was Craig who stated the he is. As long as he doesn't prove HIS statement, people will take him as he is: a liar.

Don't get me wrong, it is my belief that Wright is a fraud and a liar, and more importantly that Wright is not Satoshi.

It is just that I cannot authoritatively say that Wright is not Satoshi [as a fact] (I can only say that I believe that Wright is not Satoshi).

[QuestionAuthority]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

I just meant that Craig Wright had every reason to want to prove he was Satoshi. He even convinced the former lead dev that he was (which I never really understood, but whatever). If he was so highly motivated to prove himself and was the real deal it wouldn't have been very difficult to do. To me that proves he's not Satoshi. You're right though, your logic is sound, it really means it's highly unlikely that he could be Satoshi.

He also settled with help from 'rich folks' that think he is satoshi ..with the australian tax authorities which is how this all became uncovered (i think) thus it is either a long
con...or the btc commnity and press and such..just pissed off someone who could flust ..what is it 1/2 billion dollars as a sale to the btc universe..watch it burn and walk
away still with millions of dollars....

sheesh..scared myself again

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

Nobody is interested to prove that Wright is NOT Satoshi, but it was Craig who stated the he is. As long as he doesn't prove HIS statement, people will take him as he is: a liar.

Yep I agree....just saying if he is satoshi...he strikes me as a guy who holds a grudge...thus jan 1st 2020....could be real frigging interesting (like a heart attack) kinda day imho

Don't have a heart attack. That's sure to ruin the rest of your day. You don't have anything to worry about for 2020. Craig Wright is a liar and a manipulator. There is no trust (that was a silly story anyway) and I can make you sleep easy tonight because I'm Satoshi. LOL    Speaking of sleep, I've got to hit the rack before the drugs wear off. Goodnight all.

[AGD]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

This is invalid logic. I am glad that I have never lived in the city where you worked as a cop (since it would be so easy to prove that I did not steal from the store, since I have not proven that I did not steal from the store, I must therefore be guilty of theft).

Not true, all he would have to do is move some of Satoshi's coins and say how many he was moving and everyone would know he was Satoshi. If he can't do that he's not.

You wouldn't have to worry. I wasn't a beat cop LEO.

Sure, Wright could move known Satoshi coins and it would be known that he is satoshi, however the absence of this movement does not disprove that Wright is satoshi.

The only way to truly disprove something is to prove a certain set of circumstances that would make it impossible for this something to be true. So, in order to prove that Wright is not Satoshi, someoen would need to show that it would be impossible that Wright is Satoshi (one example of this would be to show that Wright was in a coma when Satoshi was posting).

I would say that the current evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that Wright is Satoshi.

Nobody is interested to prove that Wright is NOT Satoshi, but it was Craig who stated the he is. As long as he doesn't prove HIS statement, people will take him as he is: a liar.

Don't get me wrong, it is my belief that Wright is a fraud and a liar, and more importantly that Wright is not Satoshi.

It is just that I cannot authoritatively say that Wright is not Satoshi [as a fact] (I can only say that I believe that Wright is not Satoshi).

I got your theorem and I agree, but it is only a theoretic problem. In real life nothing changes when somebody just says "I am Satoshi Nakamoto" without presenting a proof. Craigs statement was supported by a plot, which makes it worth a story, but
lets say I was Satoshi Nakamoto. Would i need to make a statement before presenting a proof? I mean, wouldn't I simply move some Bitcoins from a known block and sign a message with that Block and post that on Bitcointalk using my account and my PGP key? Imagine what impact this would have in real life? This forum would be full of "The real Satoshi is back" postings and the market would drive nuts.
I assume, that Satoshi knows, that he doesn't need to say "I am Satoshi Nakamoto" to prove anything.

This makes me 100% certain that Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto.

[hermanhs09]

Or just a real good liar??


It looks like he presented some very convincing evidence, but it seems some still had doubts. Below are some excerpts from a CNBC article that came about a year ago, when Craig went public and made his claims.


"To prove his claim, Wright digitally signed a message using the cryptographic keys that were associated with the creator and was backed up by experts."


"These are the blocks used to send 10 bitcoins to Hal Finney in January [2009] as the first bitcoin transaction," Wright told the BBC."


"Jon Matonis, co-founder of the nonprofit Bitcoin Foundation, said he believed Wright's claims after seeing the same demonstration."


"During the London proof sessions, I had the opportunity to review the relevant data along three distinct lines: cryptographic, social and technical. Based on what I witnessed, it is my firm belief that Craig Steven Wright satisfies all three categories," Matonis wrote in a blog post on Monday."

"The social evidence, including his unique personality, early emails that I received, and early drafts of the Bitcoin white paper, points to Craig as the creator. I also received satisfactory explanations to my questions about registering the bitcoin.org domain and the various time-of-day postings to the BitcoinTalk forum. Additionally, Craig's technical working knowledge of public key cryptography, Bitcoin's addressing system, and proof-of-work consensus in a distributed peer-to-peer environment is very strong."



What do you guys think???

He didn't really provide any conclusive evidence. If he wanted to actually prove that he could have done it in various ways, for example signing a message from an old address known to belong to satoshi, or simply logging into the forum here.

And no, instead he goes around all these easy solutions to find who's actually satoshi, and does something that does not conclude with him being the one and only satoshi.

And I really doubt satoshi would ever reveal himself. If he wanted to he could have done so a long time ago.

[21kevin21]

He is hardly the inventor of Bitcoin. There is no concrete evidence on this matter, only the assumptions of the researchers.

[panopotty]

It should be pretty easy to prove you're Satoshi and Craig Wright couldn't prove he's Satoshi so that means he's not.

Did not. This is not could not.

Wright also did not fix the claim that he faked his academic qualifications. We have verified at least 8 (likely more but we cannot get a response) post grad degrees including a PhD and a professional doctorate.

Wright has several IDs at each uni. At Charles Sturt he has the following student IDs as well as a staff account:
      11293457A
      11293457B

That is a little strange, but they are all the same person. So Wright is allowing (actively promoting) the lies that he has no academic quals...

Next, the tax claim is spurios.
Wright does not owe the tax office. He also did not recieve the money. More, the sale would have been a taxible supply linked to the return. IF the tax ppl had accepted wright's claims, wright would have paid tax. that 54 mill was an offset. there is 35% tax on business is aus, so a gain of 300 mill would be offset. That is 105m tax - 54 m offset or 51m to be paid to the gov. With wright NOT believed, he pays ZERO tax.

This arguement, Wright invented patents to make the fraud seem real... Really? He invented a 300 million USD company to cover up a fraud? If he could do that, why the fraud in the first place?

No, the reality for the tax is (as we see it):
1. Wright wants the tax ppl to thik he is not involved and a fake. This has allowed him to avoid having to sell BTC or pay tax. IF wright has those BTC and the tax ppl treat it as currency, australian law means that he needs to mark to market on an annual basis [1]. That means he has to pay tax EVEN if he does not sell. There are no claims on wright UNLESS he is Satoshi. Company debts do not flow through even if he has some. Wright CAN walk (and did) away from those companies. IT IS ONLY if wright is Satoshi that he needs to pay tax!

Next:
1. Core are biased. They cannot have a Satoshi who supports large blocks.

2. That computer was real, but it was involved witnh a company that does gambling online... The US gov indicted a few of the people who ran the servers last year. They are on trial.

None of this proves nor disproves wright is or is not satoshi, but that some have a reason for him not to be, wright has a reason to let people think he is not and wright is not fixing the lies that are said abpout him.

wright could EASILY send a copy of his transcripts. We have verified 6 masters degress and two doctorates. He has poist grad quals  in law, finance, computer science, game theory, coding, management, info sec, maths and statistics/probability theory.

if wright REALLY wanted to prove he was Satoshi... why would he NOT just debunk the claims that his degrees are fake?

Wright has a tax thing. He wants the tax ppl to think he is NOT.




Some of the degrees we have verified wright holds:
 - Masters in Statistics (dissertation on Levene's theory)
 - Masters Science (Information Management)
 - Masters Science (Information Engineering)
 - Masters Network and Systems Engineering
 - Masters Information Systems Security
 - Masters Law (International Commercial Law)
 - PhD (Computer Science, Game theory, Behavioral Economics)

The others are not related in any way we can see.

[1] http://www.ifrsbox.com/ias21-foreign-exchange-rates/

[panopotty]

Nobody is interested to prove that Wright is NOT Satoshi, but it was Craig who stated the he is. As long as he doesn't prove HIS statement, people will take him as he is: a liar.

BS. As with the post before. Blockstream are interested in NOT having a Satoshi.

Wright himself is NOT interested in playing satoshi...

It seems that there are MANY ppl wanting to prove wright is not satoishi and wright has helped fuel this.

seems that any 'expert' making money from bitcoin or even blockchain and even alt coins (esp alt coins) would not want to have wright or any other come back as satoshi.

Senario...
You are a 'expert'. Satoshi returns... You are no longer the expert.

There is no trust

actually, that is not correct. we have hit a wall, but there is a trust. wright is using Baker and McKenzie [1]. they are a wall though and we cannot find more. there is a trust
do you think 300 million USD would not be in a trust... given wright's view of tax ppl, would that money go to himself?
there is a REAL trust it is just that it is beyond what we can dig into

BM are also good with stuff wright gets into [2]

[1] http://www.bakermckenzie.com/
[2] http://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2017/04/dawn-raid

[panopotty]

Lets say Craig was in court and needed to prove without a doubt, he was Satoshi Nakamoto to avoid a sentence.

flawed arguemnt
wright would NOT want to prove.

wright's tax claim is not that he was satoshi. you clearly did not read the transcripts.
the tax ppl WANT wright to be satoshi as they can get him.

wright can just shut up and then it is up to others to prove.

[Denker]

He is hardly the inventor of Bitcoin. There is no concrete evidence on this matter, only the assumptions of the researchers.

Of course he is not Satoshi. I don't get it why people still give this guy a platform for speaking out his bs to the public.
That man is a con artist, a hoax, a scammer you name it!
Satoshi kept quite since 2011, gave us an open source technology and suddenly that aussie guy comes around the corner, claimes to be him and wants to patent a shitload of what we are using since years? That's ridiculous!

[panopotty]

Of course he is not Satoshi. I don't get it why people still give this guy a platform for speaking out his bs to the public.
That man is a con artist, a hoax, a scammer you name it!
Satoshi kept quite since 2011, gave us an open source technology and suddenly that aussie guy comes around the corner, claimes to be him and wants to patent a shitload of what we are using since years? That's ridiculous!

you cannot patent the blockchain or bitcoin... so what he has is something different.

blockstream have patents.
21 have patents...
Adam back has patents...

so you are speaking out your ass.

wright does  not want anything other than for us to think he is a lair. This is not proof he is and it is not proof he is not, but he is helping the fraud lair side and NOT trying to clear it up.

the guy just made a 300 million deal and that is a shit load. Even if he was not or is not, that can BUY a fukload of miners

start thinking for fuksake!

Stop what wright is or ios not and start trying to think whatr he may be doing!

[cryptonia]

Since Craig Wright failed miserably trying to proof, that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, I would say he is not.

Since he rather obviously showed he is not, he probably is Satoshi, but his secret is now safe as no one will believe he is

[VTCutch]

No, it's just a false assumption. There are no reliable facts about the fact that this person is the creator of bitcoin, this is a fraudster.