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

[DooMAD]

*gibberish*

Just because you're not peddling your scamcoin anymore, doesn't mean your opinion is suddenly worth something around here.  Leave the history lessons to be taught be people who aren't held back by the burden of their tinfoil hats, please.

[1714183023]

1714183023

[Casdinyard]

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.

If you guys are watching him for a long time, you should what he is doing with us, he keep on claiming that he is the creator of bitcoin then he spit some negativity to it, from that phase you should have know what he is trying to do with your mind. He is just setting your mind to hate him and love more bitcoin, and from that you guys will have the courage to invest more in bitcoin on which he privately holds a lot of it. Craig is a smart person, he would not be this too low if he does not want something in exchange.

[nutildah]

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.

If you guys are watching him for a long time, you should what he is doing with us, he keep on claiming that he is the creator of bitcoin then he spit some negativity to it, from that phase you should have know what he is trying to do with your mind. He is just setting your mind to hate him and love more bitcoin, and from that you guys will have the courage to invest more in bitcoin on which he privately holds a lot of it. Craig is a smart person, he would not be this too low if he does not want something in exchange.

Hey Greg, this guy says you should invest more in bitcoin. Did you see that? Should probably think about that.

LOL.

Seriously though. I mean wow, what a post!!

[NotATether]

Bitcoin was created by the NSA so the government would have a way to track "cash" transactions.

So how do you explain the fact that it took so much data collected form mass surveillance for the NSA to make a fingerprint of Satoshi? From the link:

But why? Why go to so much trouble to identify Satoshi? My source tells me that the Obama administration was concerned that Satoshi was an agent of Russia or China — that Bitcoin might be weaponized against us in the future.

[20kevin20]

~

But why? Why go to so much trouble to identify Satoshi? My source tells me that the Obama administration was concerned that Satoshi was an agent of Russia or China — that Bitcoin might be weaponized against us in the future.

I don't know man, I feel like Satoshi's identity is very important to them because Bitcoin is a threat to them so they want to stop any genius mind - like Satoshi's - that could provide us so-called "weapons" against them..

I'm just wondering: what if Bitcoin's creator was either Chinese or a Russian? Yeah, so what? Where's the threat to us as human beings? I'm asking because it looks to me like it'd be a threat to them, the 1%, not to the peasants.


Haven't you guys had enough of CSW on here? I don't know, it kinda scratches my brain when I read his name now, just let his character die in peace, let him be, he doesn't deserve any of the attention we give him as we pop this topic to the top every day..

I'mma be straight on point: he's not Satoshi, he's just a lying pos that deserves nothing of what he's received except the court case. The court case is what he deserves, and I hope his final sentence will be larger than what he's got so far.

[MineHunter12]

this has been discussed so many times and we have made a conclusion that craig is not satoshi but faketoshi. By discussing him again and again we are doing what he exactly want i.e. giving him popularity. so I suggest all members not to discuss this faketoshi.

[gmaxwell]

this has been discussed o many times and we have made a conclusion that craig is not satoshi but faketoshi. By discussing him again and again we are doing what he exactly want i.e. giving him popularity. so I suggest all members not to discuss this faketoshi.

"I knew Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi Nakamoto was a friend of mine. And you Sir are no Satoshi Nakamoto."

https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/friends/SatoshiNakamoto

You added yourself years after Satoshi was no longer active: https://web.archive.org/web/20141022054522/https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/friends/SatoshiNakamoto

It looks like you created your account in March 2014 and the first thing you did was leave a comment promoting a shitty altcoin on a more than five year old post by Satoshi.

If you knew Satoshi in any way there certainly isn't any evidence at the link you provided-- quite the opposite: Most people don't tend to go around writing impersonal "Thank you for the clarification" messages to five year old posts by their friends. They especially don't go sticking tacky ads for their competing offerings on them.

Why do all these satoshi obsessed people need to be incompetently lying pieces of shit?

[nutildah]

"I knew Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi Nakamoto was a friend of mine. And you Sir are no Satoshi Nakamoto."

https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/friends/SatoshiNakamoto

You added yourself years after Satoshi was no longer active: https://web.archive.org/web/20141022054522/https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/friends/SatoshiNakamoto

It looks like you created your account in March 2014 and the first thing you did was leave a comment promoting a shitty altcoin on a more than five year old post by Satoshi.

If you knew Satoshi in any way there certainly isn't any evidence at the link you provided-- quite the opposite: Most people don't tend to go around writing impersonal "Thank you for the clarification" messages to five year old posts by their friends. They especially don't go sticking tacky ads for their competing offerings on them.

Why do all these satoshi obsessed people need to be incompetently lying pieces of shit?

LOL. Busted. Guess this wasn't true either:

Satoshi who friended me years ago on P2P Foundation was actually a group.

He didn't "friended" you, you "friended" him.

Why let little details get in the way of a good story though?

[Wind_FURY]

Someone in the forum once said that, the anti-Core trolls, have not brought their A-game yet. Their clout-chasing moves might be the start for another one of their disinformation rampage in the forum again.

They want to trick newbies to take their narratives for truth because, "look I know Satoshi, I have clout".

[hv_]

Someone in the forum once said that, the anti-Core trolls, have not brought their A-game yet. Their clout-chasing moves might be the start for another one of their disinformation rampage in the forum again.

They want to trick newbies to take their narratives for truth because, "look I know Satoshi, I have clout".

Reading the Satoshi White-Paper and having no heavy hodl bags - get Bitcoin on a higher abstraction level than a ticker - is always best way to get into and understand the matter.

[imstillthebest]

thats okay if the founder gave him a permision to do that but what if not ? and he claims that he is sato   ? thats no good  .

that is worst if sato is really dead because he dont respect a dead guy   .  now going back to my first sentence  . if satoshi is a different guy ( and not craig ) i think its still awful to claim that he is sato even if given a legal permision  .   satoshi will only be satoshi for all of our hearts because that is the name we know when he released btc

[hv_]

thats okay if the founder gave him a permision to do that but what if not ? and he claims that he is sato   ? thats no good  .

that is worst if sato is really dead because he dont respect a dead guy   .  now going back to my first sentence  . if satoshi is a different guy ( and not craig ) i think its still awful to claim that he is sato even if given a legal permision  .   satoshi will only be satoshi for all of our hearts because that is the name we know when he released btc

Satoshi released BitCoin a Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System - P2P - on IP to IP  ....  - not just a ticker

If you can only think ticker, first was no ticker, than  BC

not btc

[wozzek23]

I don’t know if this is true or not, but you do have a point here. It might be that Craig Wright knows about this Satoshi Nakamoto and maybe the real person is dead and he then decides to claim that he’s the one so that he can take all the glory.

Or maybe he took the courage to do so, because he saw other people that has been claiming to be the real Satoshi that nothing was done to them. You just can’t tell. And moreover, I am not wishing that Satoshi be dead, because I am hoping that one day he would show up and reveal himself and take the spot he deserves. I seriously want to see who the real Satoshi Nakamoto is, and I don’t want him to die , not yet lol.

[xtraelv]

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.

I have often seen people with a list of "thinks to ask and do" crumble under pressure in court or in a pressure setting. Wright would have known Gavins strong desire for being shown a demonstration of proof. Wright would have carefully spelled out his demands and "walked away" if he felt the ruse wouldn't work due to his demands not being met. With other situations his temper and demeanor resulted in him intimidating others or throwing his toys out of the cot. Gavin appears to be a relatively placid character.

To verify it properly it either needs to be able to pass public scrutiny or requires a "James Randi" of Crypto to verify it properly using carefully prepared tests. The demonstrator should never set the limits or scrutiny of the test.  The test needs to be designed by those that verify it.

Wright has the perfect chance to prove it in the Kleiman and McCormack case. Where the court determines conduct and demeanor. The lawyers and experts will determine the tests.

If he does not utilize the opportunity to prove it then he will still be held liable for his claims. For the case to succeed they do not have to prove that he is or isn't Satoshi. They just have to prove that his conduct means Kleiman is eligible for compensation.

Under "fair comment" McCormack only has to prove that based on the publicly available information that in McCormacks opinion he is not Satoshi.

The BSV camp will try to claim victory while facing complete failure. Because despite the claims that evidence will be provided by Craig that he is Satoshi I am of the opinion that it will not stand up to scrutiny.

this has been discussed o many times and we have made a conclusion that craig is not satoshi but faketoshi. By discussing him again and again we are doing what he exactly want i.e. giving him popularity. so I suggest all members not to discuss this faketoshi.

"I knew Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi Nakamoto was a friend of mine. And you Sir are no Satoshi Nakamoto."

https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/friends/SatoshiNakamoto

[Wind_FURY]

Someone in the forum once said that, the anti-Core trolls, have not brought their A-game yet. Their clout-chasing moves might be the start for another one of their disinformation rampage in the forum again.

They want to trick newbies to take their narratives for truth because, "look I know Satoshi, I have clout".

Reading the Satoshi White-Paper and having no heavy hodl bags - get Bitcoin on a higher abstraction level than a ticker - is always best way to get into and understand the matter.

What's that have to do with anti-Core trolls, that gaslight, and spread disinformation to trick the newbies?

Plus every forked shitcoin is after the ticker. They want to be "the Bitcoin, BTC", but no, they can never be. The community can't be tricked by frauds, and con-artists.

[Wallflower28]

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? 

How do he knows the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto? And how he knew that SN was dead already? A lot of people probably is searching for the real person behind the inventor of bitcoin. But no one get any idea about him. If CW is saying that he is SN and he keeps on making announcements that he is the person behind while proofs and other events telling the people he isn't it. He just making some noise.

[MCobian]

Craig Wright only wants to get public attention, so he claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. After all, how would Craigs Wright know Satoshi
Nakamoto has died, while Satoshi Nakamoto identity is unknown. Several times claiming he was Satoshi Nakamoto was useless, as long
as can't show proof that craig wright is satoshi nakamoto. Now craig wright is known as faketoshi.

[Chris Barth]

I had this thought when I watched that video. The only way you can actually claim ones position in life is mostly when the person is dead. Good point but.... No matter who's dead and who's alive, bitcoin lives till the day after tomorrow!! ♥

[finaleshot2016]

It's been 3 years and still, the topic is very lively.

I had this thought when I watched that video. The only way you can actually claim ones position in life is mostly when the person is dead. Good point but.... No matter who's dead and who's alive, bitcoin lives till the day after tomorrow!! ♥

It makes sense 'cause CW won't have any confidence if he knew that the real satoshi is still living.

And there are possibilities that CW might know the personality of Satoshi Nakamoto, maybe he's claiming the title for his friend.

But still, I doubt that CW will make and receive the approval of those judges since he lacks a lot of evidence even the basic one to help him in the court, so probably he's a fraud.

[buwaytress]

I don’t know if this is true or not, but you do have a point here. It might be that Craig Wright knows about this Satoshi Nakamoto and maybe the real person is dead and he then decides to claim that he’s the one so that he can take all the glory.

Or maybe he took the courage to do so, because he saw other people that has been claiming to be the real Satoshi that nothing was done to them. You just can’t tell. And moreover, I am not wishing that Satoshi be dead, because I am hoping that one day he would show up and reveal himself and take the spot he deserves. I seriously want to see who the real Satoshi Nakamoto is, and I don’t want him to die , not yet lol.

Just take a few minutes to read up. And you'll realise he has no point. The theory of Satoshi being dead is a plausible one (relatively, as is the theory aliens kidnapped Satoshi), but the discussions that follow this particular thread of CW knowing stuff, has no merit, is full of holes and contradictions. It is extremely easy to:
- prove Satoshi is dead.
- prove any claim of being Satoshi.

Yet none of the claimants have been able to do anything other than peddle fantasy stories not even really interesting.