Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto

[mr.mister]

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???

[franky1]

nope he is not

nope the evidence was not convincing

it was a signature that links to a known satoshi address

Take the signature being “verified” as proof in the blog post:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

Convert to hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce

Find it in Satoshi's 2009 transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?format=hex
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe - Input Scripts

the thing is.
ANYONE in the last 8 years can copy it, its public information.
so although it does say that it validates to a satoshi known address. does not mean that craig wright is satoshi


as for the 'social' evidence
emails posts and communications have been logged publicly so its easy to read, rehearse and revise them until you memorise them
i would have questioned anyone that did know the finer details of things said 6 years earlier. because they know too much for someone that might have said things on a whim to remember so clearly without 'preparing'/rehearsing.

after all if you registered a domain 6 years ago.. would you know off the top of your head the exact time/date you registered it. without preparing by checking out the info

[mr.mister]

nope he is not

nope the evidence was not convincing

it was a signature that links to a known satoshi address

Take the signature being “verified” as proof in the blog post:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

Convert to hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce

Find it in Satoshi's 2009 transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?format=hex
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe - Input Scripts

the thing is.
ANYONE in the last 8 years can copy it, its public information.
so although it does say that it validates to a satoshi known address. does not mean that craig wright is satoshi


as for the 'social' evidence
emails posts and communications have been logged publicly so its easy to read, rehearse and revise them until you memorise them
i would have questioned anyone that did know the finer details of things said 6 years earlier. because they know too much for someone that might have said things on a whim to remember so clearly without 'preparing'/rehearsing.

after all if you registered a domain 6 years ago.. would you know off the top of your head the exact time/date you registered it. without preparing by checking out the info

So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.

[LittleBitFunny]

nope he is not

nope the evidence was not convincing

it was a signature that links to a known satoshi address

Take the signature being “verified” as proof in the blog post:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

Convert to hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce

Find it in Satoshi's 2009 transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?format=hex
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe - Input Scripts

the thing is.
ANYONE in the last 8 years can copy it, its public information.
so although it does say that it validates to a satoshi known address. does not mean that craig wright is satoshi


as for the 'social' evidence
emails posts and communications have been logged publicly so its easy to read, rehearse and revise them until you memorise them
i would have questioned anyone that did know the finer details of things said 6 years earlier. because they know too much for someone that might have said things on a whim to remember so clearly without 'preparing'/rehearsing.

after all if you registered a domain 6 years ago.. would you know off the top of your head the exact time/date you registered it. without preparing by checking out the info

So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.

Oh yeah, he tried to trick everyone.  All he needed to do to prove that he was Satoshi is to sign a message proving that either:

A: he owned the satoshi forum account (he can sign a message with an address associated with the account)
B: he mined the Genesis block, or "block zero".  This was a block mined basically before Bitcoin was released and therefore was definitely mined by satoshi.

[franky1]

So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.

reason being is
without ever having any PRIVATE keys. he simply copied a load of early PUBLIC KEYS which he knew would not move funds because they were the satoshi stash that had not moved in the couple years before he copied them.

he got a friend to set up a trust. and notorise the PUBLIC keys as the "proof" of collateral (first fraud)
he then insured that trust (second fraud) for a large valuation to 'legitimise' the trust.

then he used that trust to get MILLIONS from the australian government (third fraud)
then he used the new valuation of the trust + australian tax grants to grab further investments (fourth fraud(and now playing a shell / ponzi game))

..
in 2015 the auzzie government smelled a rat and chased him. he fled the country and ended up in england.
he thought he can save himself by trying to convince media that he was satoshi to then use media stories as 'proof of identity' (fifth fraud) to hope it would make the auzzie government to back down..
it failed because within hours of showing:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

people recognised it was old public accessible data

now he is trying to create and apply for patents to try making new collateral to fill the void of old collateral(fraud1-2)
hoping it will be enough to sell the new collateral to cover all the legal costs and debt/civil fines and reimbursments he will have to pay the aussie government if ever extradited back to australia

..
now you should be upto date with all the drama

[mr.mister]

Only an idiot would think you can outwit public key cryptography. The irony is, that he was a cryptographer, no?

[countryfree]

I guess M.Wright has a twisted mind. But Satoshi Nakamoto probably has a twisted mind, too. So Craig Wright certainly fits. He has the right age and the right background. I'd be happy if he could prove he is what he claims to be. If I were Satoshi Nakamoto, I would plan for my identity to be revealed after my death.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.

reason being is
without ever having any PRIVATE keys. he simply copied a load of early PUBLIC KEYS which he knew would not move funds because they were the satoshi stash that had not moved in the couple years before he copied them.

he got a friend to set up a trust. and notorise the PUBLIC keys as the "proof" of collateral (first fraud)
he then insured that trust (second fraud) for a large valuation to 'legitimise' the trust.

then he used that trust to get MILLIONS from the australian government (third fraud)
then he used the new valuation of the trust + australian tax grants to grab further investments (fourth fraud(and now playing a shell / ponzi game))

..
in 2015 the auzzie government smelled a rat and chased him. he fled the country and ended up in england.
he thought he can save himself by trying to convince media that he was satoshi to then use media stories as 'proof of identity' (fifth fraud) to hope it would make the auzzie government to back down..
it failed because within hours of showing:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

people recognised it was old public accessible data

now he is trying to create and apply for patents to try making new collateral to fill the void of old collateral(fraud1-2)
hoping it will be enough to sell the new collateral to cover all the legal costs and debt/civil fines and reimbursments he will have to pay the aussie government if ever extradited back to australia

..
now you should be upto date with all the drama

+1.

Everyone should read Franky's post here.
Satoshi N. was in my opinion David K. who died in 2013.

Is it kinda weird, that death spurned a big surge in price that month?

No one knew that David K.'s death meant the destruction of supply of bitcoin because his death meant destruction of the private keys....right?

...I mean wouldn't htat mean almost 1million in less supply of bitcoin?

[mr.mister]

So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.

reason being is
without ever having any PRIVATE keys. he simply copied a load of early PUBLIC KEYS which he knew would not move funds because they were the satoshi stash that had not moved in the couple years before he copied them.

he got a friend to set up a trust. and notorise the PUBLIC keys as the "proof" of collateral (first fraud)
he then insured that trust (second fraud) for a large valuation to 'legitimise' the trust.

then he used that trust to get MILLIONS from the australian government (third fraud)
then he used the new valuation of the trust + australian tax grants to grab further investments (fourth fraud(and now playing a shell / ponzi game))

..
in 2015 the auzzie government smelled a rat and chased him. he fled the country and ended up in england.
he thought he can save himself by trying to convince media that he was satoshi to then use media stories as 'proof of identity' (fifth fraud) to hope it would make the auzzie government to back down..
it failed because within hours of showing:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

people recognised it was old public accessible data

now he is trying to create and apply for patents to try making new collateral to fill the void of old collateral(fraud1-2)
hoping it will be enough to sell the new collateral to cover all the legal costs and debt/civil fines and reimbursments he will have to pay the aussie government if ever extradited back to australia

..
now you should be upto date with all the drama

+1.

Everyone should read Franky's post here.
Satoshi N. was in my opinion David K. who died in 2013.

Is it kinda weird, that death spurned a big surge in price that month?

No one knew that David K.'s death meant the destruction of supply of bitcoin because his death meant destruction of the private keys....right?

...I mean wouldn't htat mean almost 1million in less supply of bitcoin?

How did David K. die, and what were his special skills?

[gmaxwell]

his special skills?

His special skills are that he once wrote a visual basic registry editing tool (which somehow qualifies him to create Bitcoin...) and that he's dead so that he can continually humiliate himself and people that believe he created Bitcoin, unlike Wright.

[franky1]

satoshi was not david K

david K was all about investigating and ID/forensics checking and finding things.. the opposite of satoshi

the david K thing was that craig wright wanted to have a backdoor by saying david created the trust and had the keys initially(both lies). so worse comes to worse craig wright could play the victim card and blame a dead guy by saying craig was fooled into believing he partnered with a fraud.
(truly sickened me when i was reviewing craig wrights story behind the story(reading the narrative behind the words))

[HaXX0R1337]

To tell you the truth if anyone comes up with any damn amount of proof no one is going to accept them and there have being person attacks against Craig Wright and no one wants to believe unless and until he signs a message from the address he is holding his old coins,i do really consider that Craig Wright has being an early developer but i am not sure whether he is the sole person behind it but he is an intelligent guy and sure he knows what he is talking about.

[ebliever]

I agree with Franky1's write-up on Craig not being Satoshi (shock! :-)

I'm not so quick to dismiss David K as Satoshi. It would explain a lot of things about Craig's weird claims and behavior, and I'd want a much more in depth refutation than Franky1's quick assessment here. I wouldn't rate the odds of David K being Satoshi very high (maybe no more than 20%), but that's higher than any other candidate I have in mind. (Nick Szabo is #2 on my list of candidates, but he's directly denied it which carries weight with me.)

[FiendCoin]

So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.

reason being is
without ever having any PRIVATE keys. he simply copied a load of early PUBLIC KEYS which he knew would not move funds because they were the satoshi stash that had not moved in the couple years before he copied them.

he got a friend to set up a trust. and notorise the PUBLIC keys as the "proof" of collateral (first fraud)
he then insured that trust (second fraud) for a large valuation to 'legitimise' the trust.

then he used that trust to get MILLIONS from the australian government (third fraud)
then he used the new valuation of the trust + australian tax grants to grab further investments (fourth fraud(and now playing a shell / ponzi game))

..
in 2015 the auzzie government smelled a rat and chased him. he fled the country and ended up in england.
he thought he can save himself by trying to convince media that he was satoshi to then use media stories as 'proof of identity' (fifth fraud) to hope it would make the auzzie government to back down..
it failed because within hours of showing:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

people recognised it was old public accessible data

now he is trying to create and apply for patents to try making new collateral to fill the void of old collateral(fraud1-2)
hoping it will be enough to sell the new collateral to cover all the legal costs and debt/civil fines and reimbursments he will have to pay the aussie government if ever extradited back to australia

..
now you should be upto date with all the drama

I usually disagree with everything franky1 posts but this shit is spot on. Good summery 

[Quickseller]

It is very difficult to prove a negative, and to my knowledge, the hypothesis that Wright is Satoshi has not been disproven.

With the above being said, the evidence that connects Wright to being Satoshi is dishonest/invalid and does not prove there is a connection. Further, Wright at one point said he was going to provide proof that he is Satoshi in the (then) near future, but failed to do so. As a result of the above, I think it is most probably a fact that Wright is in fact not Satoshi.

[AGD]

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

[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.

[Goruno]

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

I believe that there is no anybody named Satoshi Nakamoto presented in this digital world all rumors about him are only profitable for whales. I will keep all my bitcoins until it hits at least 2,500$ or more then I will sell it.

[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).

[Andre_Goldman]

his special skills?

His special skills are that he once wrote a visual basic registry editing tool (which somehow qualifies him to create Bitcoin...) and that he's dead so that he can continually humiliate himself and people that believe he created Bitcoin, unlike Wright.

that thing about the death reminds me two things ... one is a epic book written by Schneier and friends ...

(If you want to follow the ISO 7498-2 standard, use the terms “encipher” and “decipher.” It seems that some cultures find the terms “encrypt” and “decrypt” offensive, as they refer to dead bodies.)
The art and science of keeping messages secure is cryptography, and it is practiced by cryptographers. Cryptanalysts are practitioners of cryptanalysis, the art and science of breaking ciphertext; that is, seeing through the disguise. The branch of mathematics encompassing both cryptography and cryptanalysis is cryptology and its practitioners are cryptologists. Modern cryptologists are generally trained in theoretical mathematics—they have to be.

and the second was a cool remembrance by Whitfield Diffie about Finney and Vanstone ... jump video to about 41 minutes

RSA Conference 2015.
https://youtu.be/9RtZrNPP26w?t=41m26s

Happy Easter to all and rest in pieces ( I think I found a mathematical proof for 'one way function' )