Craig W. only claims to be Satoshi, because he knows the real Satoshi is dead?

[AGD]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

[squatter]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN.

What proof could he have? I guess he could sign a message using a key from the genesis block, stating that Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Even then, this is not definitive. Control of a private key does not prove your identity. For example, it's possible for "Satoshi" to sign such a message from the genesis block coinbase address key, and for Craig Wright also to sign a message using the same key.

What would that prove?

[AGD]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN.

What proof could he have? I guess he could sign a message using a key from the genesis block, stating that Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Even then, this is not definitive. Control of a private key does not prove your identity. For example, it's possible for "Satoshi" to sign such a message from the genesis block coinbase address key, and for Craig Wright also to sign a message using the same key.

What would that prove?

Control of the early wallets or his original PGP key would be the best as a proof. There is nothing else that could do it better.
If somebody comes up with either one, he would destroy the rest of a good reputation, that Craig Wright might still have.

[Taki]

Satoshi Satoshi Satoshi How long do we plan to discuss this topic? I suppose till the time when the identity of this person will not be uncovered by BBC or other historical channel. But let's come back to your idea. If so, it may be supposed that it is just profitable to Satoshi to stay incognito and even better that some other person is acting like "yes, Satoshi is me". But let's not forget that Satoshi Nakomoto is just a nik from the internet. Who is behind this nik is a mystery.

[e1ght]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why)

[AGD]

Satoshi Satoshi Satoshi How long do we plan to discuss this topic? I suppose till the time when the identity of this person will not be uncovered by BBC or other historical channel. But let's come back to your idea. If so, it may be supposed that it is just profitable to Satoshi to stay incognito and even better that some other person is acting like "yes, Satoshi is me". But let's not forget that Satoshi Nakomoto is just a nik from the internet. Who is behind this nik is a mystery.

Then SN would give his PGP keys to CW to definitely silence the people that wanted a cryptographic proof.

[AGD]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why)

To me it's not obvious. Please explain.

[Sithara007]

He was about to give proof that he was the real Satoshi. He once announced that he will move some of Satoshi's coins (which were mined in 2009 and not moved since). But later he went back on his promise, saying that he risked arrest from law enforcement agencies, if he prove that he was the real Satoshi.

[AGD]

He was about to give proof that he was the real Satoshi. He once announced that he will move some of Satoshi's coins (which were mined in 2009 and not moved since). But later he went back on his promise, saying that he risked arrest from law enforcement agencies, if he prove that he was the real Satoshi.

Reality is: He can't, because he doesn't have control over any of Satoshi's keys.

[hatshepsut93]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

His "proof" was just a copy of signature from an early Bitcoin transaction rumored to be made by Satoshi. There's no need for the real Satoshi to come and expose Wright. Craig Wright did it just to get attention, and argument that he is Satoshi is now used by big block trolls to misguide newbies into supporting their shitcoins, which tells us a lot about big blockers. IMO we won't hear about Satoshi again, because his presence would hurt Bitcoin - he wanted decentralized, self-regulating community, which achieves consensus on its own. If he stayed as benevolent dictator, some people would argue that Bitcoin is not really decentralized - kinda like Ethereum is now.

[AGD]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

His "proof" was just a copy of signature from an early Bitcoin transaction rumored to be made by Satoshi. There's no need for the real Satoshi to come and expose Wright. Craig Wright did it just to get attention, and argument that he is Satoshi is now used by big block trolls to misguide newbies into supporting their shitcoins, which tells us a lot about big blockers. IMO we won't hear about Satoshi again, because his presence would hurt Bitcoin - he wanted decentralized, self-regulating community, which achieves consensus on its own. If he stayed as benevolent dictator, some people would argue that Bitcoin is not really decentralized - kinda like Ethereum is now.

I have no problem with SN hiding and I don't care about his real identity.
Now I do care about people with an obviously great influence on some key figures, that claim to be the creator of Bitcoin and fail to show a proof to their claims.

[e1ght]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why)

To me it's not obvious. Please explain.

Well according to some blockchain analysts, Satoshi is sitting on billions of US dollars worth of Bitcoin.
If I was them, I wouldn't risk any possibility of being traced. This includes making a post on the internet or really doing anything online that involves that username.

[AGD]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why)

To me it's not obvious. Please explain.

Well according to some blockchain analysts, Satoshi is sitting on billions of US dollars worth of Bitcoin.
If I was them, I wouldn't risk any possibility of being traced. This includes making a post on the internet or really doing anything online that involves that username.

So you would never spend a satoshi from your wealth and keep hiding? Then what would you do this for?

[eXpl0sive]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

Of course that's the case.

https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-david-kleiman-was-satoshi-nakamoto-heres-why/

There is good reason to believe Kleiman and Wright knew each other well. Wright posted an emotional tribute to Kleiman on YouTube (since removed) upon learning of his death. It is entirely possible that Wright was a trusted friend and confidante of Kleiman’s, and this might have given him access to information that ‘only Satoshi could have known’ that would have been useful when Craig Wright convinced Gavin Andresen of his legitimacy.

[krishnapramod]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof?  

1. When Dorian Nakamoto was suspected to be SN, Satoshi Nakamoto's P2P Foundation account posted its first message in five years, stating: "I am not Dorian Nakamoto."

http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=504715.0

2. Before CW, many people have been suspected to be SN, but apart from CW not one claimed that they were Satoshi and he miserably failed at proving this claim.

Now Satoshi could have posted a similar message on P2P foundation about CW, but he didn't. Why? Assumptions, maybe SN is dead and CW knows about it, maybe computer forensics analyst David Kleiman was SN. CW made a fool of himself and SN let a fool remain a fool, why correct a fool

Satoshi had always wanted to remain anonymous and suddenly one day CW claiming himself to be Satoshi and wanting publicity, failing to provide any public cryptographic proof, too much of a stretch.

CW would remain an impersonator until he proves otherwise.

[AGD]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

Of course that's the case.

https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-david-kleiman-was-satoshi-nakamoto-heres-why/

There is good reason to believe Kleiman and Wright knew each other well. Wright posted an emotional tribute to Kleiman on YouTube (since removed) upon learning of his death. It is entirely possible that Wright was a trusted friend and confidante of Kleiman’s, and this might have given him access to information that ‘only Satoshi could have known’ that would have been useful when Craig Wright convinced Gavin Andresen of his legitimacy.

Makes sense, but why did they set up this obv. failed proof show with Gavin then?

[e1ght]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why)

To me it's not obvious. Please explain.

Well according to some blockchain analysts, Satoshi is sitting on billions of US dollars worth of Bitcoin.
If I was them, I wouldn't risk any possibility of being traced. This includes making a post on the internet or really doing anything online that involves that username.

So you would never spend a satoshi from your wealth and keep hiding? Then what would you do this for?

The government may want to question you and keep you on watch if you made something that could replace the currency they're built on.

[nexus99]

We will never know if CW is really Satoshi. Even if he WOULD have moved Satoshi's coins - that doesn't prove anything, the private key might have been stolen and stuff.
Anyway, even if he is Satoshi, what does it change? Satoshi has morphed into so many new identities over the years, that it doesn't matter so much who was the real person behind that name

[Iranus]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof?  

1. When Dorian Nakamoto was suspected to be SN, Satoshi Nakamoto's P2P Foundation account posted its first message in five years, stating: "I am not Dorian Nakamoto."

It's likely that satoshi's P2P foundation account was hacked.  If you read through his original thread about Bitcoin, you can see that later in the year when he posted that comment, his account warned satoshi that information was being sold on the darknet.

At a similar time, theymos also made a thread claiming to have received a suspicious email from satoshi's email account.

These services are things that are relatively easy to hack if you're talking about a major figure.  Satoshi did not sign a message with his post about not being Dorian Nakamoto.
In the past, plenty of other people have made similar claims without reasonable proof.  Without basically torturing him, there's no way to tell what Craig Wright knows.  But it's an interesting piece of speculation for sure.

[AGD]

Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 

No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why)

To me it's not obvious. Please explain.

Well according to some blockchain analysts, Satoshi is sitting on billions of US dollars worth of Bitcoin.
If I was them, I wouldn't risk any possibility of being traced. This includes making a post on the internet or really doing anything online that involves that username.

So you would never spend a satoshi from your wealth and keep hiding? Then what would you do this for?

The government may want to question you and keep you on watch if you made something that could replace the currency they're built on.

The gov. should know (as Satoshi should also know btw), that he can't change the bitcoin system to a gov friendly system. It will not be accepted by the Bitcoin community. He has one voice as every developer has. He wouldn't be in danger only because he created a code he can't change anymore. He might be in danger because of the potential money that he holds, but a burn address would delete this problem as well.