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

[mindrust]

Just to refresh your minds... I quick searched the word "united" through all the pages but couldn't find anything so I'll assume that nobody has mentioned it yet.

Jeff Garzik also has a shitcoin project... a 1:1 (supply-wise) fork of Bitcoin.

United Bitcoin. (Trading for ~$1.8 at the moment on these exchanges, yep it is pretty much dead.)

Everybody was getting his own version of bitcoin, and that was Garzik's shot.

[ronbennett_]

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.

He doesn't even need to say that he does it. He can give some clues and hints that it is he but not show so much proof for the authorities. For example including a number on some tweets. Then moving the amount in BTC. This is just an idea.

[xtraelv]

Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?

This is not a matter of “opinion”.  (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.)  Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact.  Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?”

So no, he shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.

Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored.  That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.

I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility

So...  You “100% believe” that Satoshi endorsed the cryptographic competence of someone who does not know how to verify a forking digital signature!?

See also:

The Same Standard Applies to Me

Let’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture.  And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.

Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:

achow101

2018-02-13

Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics.

If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities:  Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.

What would Occam say about that?  —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?

While I wholeheartedly agree with what you said and the conclusions.

Gavin should have been more careful - he fell for the ruse. As a result his reputation too has been tarnished.

But Gavin wouldn't have been appointed as Chief Scientist for his forensic or detective skills. It would have been because of his passion for the project, his programming and project management skills.

Someone who is honest themselves is more likely to be trusting of others.  History shows very intelligent people fall for cults, cons and scams.

The definition of a con man is:

a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/con_man

Gavin was gullible, was used and was duped. As a result he gave traction to a hoax and  lost a lot of respect from the community.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say that if I was in his position that I wouldn't have fallen for the tricks. Errors in logic are not always immediately detected.

Hindsight is great and when a situation is stage managed there is limited time to make a proper assessment. Not everyone figures out how a trick is performed in a magic show.

Even if you are an expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0CC99hVK8

https://www.cryptologie.net/article/350/how-gavin-andresen-was-duped-into-believing-wright-is-satoshi/

[Koadharber]

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.

He doesn't even need to say that he does it. He can give some clues and hints that it is he but not show so much proof for the authorities. For example including a number on some tweets. Then moving the amount in BTC. This is just an idea.

Then again he cannot provide any proof that's why suddenly many people confuse to him so maybe it's best for us to move and not believe on any claims coming from him since listening to him is just a waste of time, finding the real Satoshi still a mystery right now and if he's alive maybe he need to show up to eliminate those fakers.

[Reatim]

even he knew or not if satoshi is dead still this person will claim the title because He is looking after the benefits he might have if he fooled the world and took the title from the real Satoshi Nakamoto.

Then again he cannot provide any proof that's why suddenly many people confuse to him so maybe it's best for us to move and not believe on any claims coming from him since listening to him is just a waste of time, finding the real Satoshi still a mystery right now and if he's alive maybe he need to show up to eliminate those fakers.

how can he Prove to be the one when he does not have Proof of claiming?simple thing to do is Sign  a Message to the wallet addresses that Satoshi has so that can save everyone's time for this issue?but why can't he provide this?because he is a Faker.

[ronbennett_]

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.

He doesn't even need to say that he does it. He can give some clues and hints that it is he but not show so much proof for the authorities. For example including a number on some tweets. Then moving the amount in BTC. This is just an idea.

Then again he cannot provide any proof that's why suddenly many people confuse to him so maybe it's best for us to move and not believe on any claims coming from him since listening to him is just a waste of time, finding the real Satoshi still a mystery right now and if he's alive maybe he need to show up to eliminate those fakers.

I prefer Satoshi to be anonym. It is really interesting to know who he really is but I prefer him to be privat and just enjoy what he have done. I hope also that he still owns his Bitcoin as he gave most of the people in this industry and of course all around the world a new chance and opportunity to achieve better things.

[whyrqa]

I will never believe this person, because there is no evidence that he is saying.  At least, when the court requested Craig Wright to provide secret keys to Bitcoin wallets, which are the real property of Satoshi Nakamoto, this person did not fulfill this requirement.  And if Satoshi is alive or dead, then this is a completely different conversation.

[NotATether]

I'm interested in this:

Back before these things actually were happening, I was spamming on the forum and people privately left and right to save as many individuals from being burned by the orchestrated scam as I could..

Where in the forum can I find these experiences that happened? They're probably buried under 500 threads by now.

[gmaxwell]

Hindsight is great and when a situation is stage managed there is limited time to make a proper assessment. Not everyone figures out how a trick is performed in a magic show.

Even if you are an expert:

This is a great point and it's something to keep in mind.  I do think that many of the people wright fooled could have and should have done better, but none of us should feel confident that we couldn't have been fooled. We could have. Maybe the trick that would have fooled us would have been different or the situation that succeeded would have been different. But humans make mistakes.

But Gavin wouldn't have been appointed as Chief Scientist for his forensic or detective skills.

To be fair, the only thing that ever appointed him as Chief Scientist of anything was an organization that he, alongside Jon Matonis (Former Nchain Vice President of Strategy), Roger Ver (another prior Wright sucker, massive shitcoin promoter), Peter Vessenes (stole millions from MTGox customers and is holding up the distribution of the remaining mtgox assets with frivolous litigation),  Charlie Shrem (went to jail for money laundering), and Mark Karpeles  (lost customer funds at MTGox and went to jail for smaller scale embezzling) created.

There are plenty of defences that can be offered for the Bitcoin Foundation and the people involved with creating it but I don't think anyone can argue that it was some dream team of people went on to demonstrate good and careful judgement.  

Validation of Wright's evidence is a question for a technical expert. Gavin had sufficient expertise to demand the right things-- he had even previously published a more or less reasonable laundry list-- and he didn't. He also knew enough to know the basic limits of his expertise, such as being unable to determine if a random windows PC had been tampered with. Most importantly, he should have known that he was being asked to participate because his enforcement would be taken as a high degree of assurance, nearly proof, by the media and the public -- and as a result deserved either an appropriately diligent vetting on his part or a refusal to participate if he was unable or uninterested in providing one.

From my perspective it was just another example of a long history of poor judgement.
 
The fact that anyone can be tricked is why it's so much more important for people who will be perceived to be an authority to make an extra effort to not get tricked or just not play along.  So I think here the issue isn't so much that wright tricked him, it's that he shouldn't have been exposed in the first place, and that to this day he still has do little to nothing to walk back the damage.  Wright suckers still continue to cite his equivocation as evidence to support wright. I  think Ver is one of the less ethical people around cryptocurrency, and yet even Ver did better and eventually provided an unequivocated statement against wright's claims.

[DeathAngel]

CW claims to be Satoshi because he’s a crook, a fraudster out for his own financial gain & he will do or so anything to ensure he earns money. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.

He’s a creep, the sooner he disappears into bankruptcy & or prison the better.

[kayvie]

CW claims to be Satoshi because he’s a crook, a fraudster out for his own financial gain & he will do or so anything to ensure he earns money. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.

He’s a creep, the sooner he disappears into bankruptcy & or prison the better.

Well said, this is the only reason we can see and we all know that this is what he really after. He also want to be more popular so he can perform more fraudulent activity by trying to earn the trust of those people who believes in  him to be SN.

[Lauda]

The fact that anyone can be tricked is why it's so much more important for people who will be perceived to be an authority to make an extra effort to not get tricked or just not play along.  So I think here the issue isn't so much that wright tricked him, it's that he shouldn't have been exposed in the first place, and that to this day he still has do little to nothing to walk back the damage.  Wright suckers still continue to cite his equivocation as evidence to support wright. I  think Ver is one of the less ethical people around cryptocurrency, and yet even Ver did better and eventually provided an unequivocated statement against wright's claims.

And yet I still have people who quack around telling me that Gavin is trustworthy around here, many things are backwards. The very very least that he should have done after all this nonsense got exposed was apologize and retract his statements (if not condemn Wright too). Ergo, not trustworthy.

[thesmallgod]

If he knows about the probable death of satoshi, I am very sure he is not the only person that knows about that and this secret must have long be broken. I just think the guy is playing mind game and maybe there is more to the character he is currently playing probably a move to see if the real satoshi will come out to rubbish the guy's claim

[nutildah]

Satoshi was a group, not a single person. Craig was part of this initial group. David Kleiman who mined the first million BTC is dead.

I don't understand how people still actually believe this. There's zero actual evidence that Kleiman knew fuckall about bitcoin. All that anybody has is a bunch of forgeries by Craig with computer generated signatures, some backdated documents and a shell corporation purchased in 2014.

MicroGuy, burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise. Anybody can say anything they want about Satoshi. That part is easy. Backing their statements with evidence and facts is another story.

Craig has already been caught in so many lies. It's absurd to continue to believe anything he has to say, about anything. People need to deliver proof that they know what they are talking about instead of just regurgitating Calvin Ayre and John McAfee talking points from twitter.

[senin]

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? 

Craig Wright assumes that Satoshi Nakamoto has not shown himself for more than ten years. Satoshi either does not want to prove himself, or cannot do this for various reasons. Craig Wright takes advantage of this. Of course, he takes a little risk, calling himself Satoshi Nakamoto, however, in his opinion, the risk is worth it.

[omone1]

Wright has no proof, his fame is dependent on been an imposter, this is how he gains more followers who know less about his original personality. I don't even think he knows about the real Satoshi.


Wright has no proof, his fame is dependent on been an imposter, this is how he gains more followers who know less about his original personality. I don't even think he knows about the real Satoshi.

[hv_]

He just knows most about BitCoin.

Nobody else ever disputed him on this matter.

Why?

[Saisher]

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? 

That's possible because there's a possibility that the real Nakamoto could come out and that will embarrass Craig Wright, I guess he knows the real cannot come out anymore, unless he gives out a will to his inheritors and that includes the private key,he is exploiting something that he knows.

[gmaxwell]

He just knows most about BitCoin.
Nobody else ever disputed him on this matter.
Why?

In fact Wright has shown extremely profound technical ignorance about Bitcoin, but he says that what he is saying is brilliant. Because you, yourself, are incapable of directly evaluating his claims you make the mistake of believing him and other similarly uninformed persons.

Of course, not absolutely everything he says is untrue or gibberish-- some things he just copies out of the bitcoin wiki or old posts and chatlogs.

[SatsLife]

Because you, yourself, are incapable of directly evaluating his claims you make the mistake of believing him and other similarly uninformed persons.

[/quote]

Agreed. I do not know enough about computer science and cryptology to challenge claims based in those topics. But I know enough about psychology and motivations. Craig's claims and existence do not align with Satoshi's original values.

They could not be more dissimilar.