Craig Wright (not) answering why his Satoshi "Proof" was Fake

[ene1980]

that's the thing though, he never signed anything. i don't know why you think that now. he faked some signature and refused to show it publicly because he knew if he did do that, people would catch his fraud in matter of seconds. so he paid Gavin to lie for him. it is harder to prove someone lied to prove a cryptographic signature is a lie.

You think Gavin would take some bribe and spread a lie ,what ever Craig showed was convincing enough for him and remember he did have contact with the real Satoshi and if you did have contact with a man as long as he did with Satoshi through any medium you could identify him if you meet him in person that being said i am not convinced either who the real Satoshi is unless i see the proof myself.

[1715586977]

1715586977

[1715586977]

1715586977

[1715586977]

1715586977

[Iranus]

BTW, Satoshi owes me no proof.

Yes he does.  In fact, if he's satoshi he literally needs to spend two minutes to boot up a computer and sign a message or send a transaction.  The fact that he will not do that pretty much confirms that he's not satoshi. 

Especially when he won't provide any explanation for not doing that.  He doesn't say "I'm sorry, I lost the keys", he tries to provide a fake signature and then evades questions afterwards.

that's the thing though, he never signed anything. i don't know why you think that now. he faked some signature and refused to show it publicly because he knew if he did do that, people would catch his fraud in matter of seconds. so he paid Gavin to lie for him. it is harder to prove someone lied to prove a cryptographic signature is a lie.

if you did have contact with a man as long as he did with Satoshi through any medium you could identify him if you meet him in person

Gavin later conceded that he made a mistake.

[hv_]

BTW, Satoshi owes me no proof.

Yes he does.  In fact, if he's satoshi he literally needs to spend two minutes to boot up a computer and sign a message or send a transaction.  The fact that he will not do that pretty much confirms that he's not satoshi. 

Especially when he won't provide any explanation for not doing that.  He doesn't say "I'm sorry, I lost the keys", he tries to provide a fake signature and then evades questions afterwards.

that's the thing though, he never signed anything. i don't know why you think that now. he faked some signature and refused to show it publicly because he knew if he did do that, people would catch his fraud in matter of seconds. so he paid Gavin to lie for him. it is harder to prove someone lied to prove a cryptographic signature is a lie.

if you did have contact with a man as long as he did with Satoshi through any medium you could identify him if you meet him in person

Gavin later conceded that he made a mistake.

Sorry. I decide here.

Thx pa.

[gentlemand]

Whatever the truth is, and it's fairly obvious, it still got the job done. He is now for better or much worse a Bitcoin related 'name'. Anyone else here could've achieved the same by shouting loud enough and using some long words.

[jyakulis]

I always pictured Satoshi to be somewhat of a loose cannon in my mind but this guy is like a walking atomic bomb 

[:wq]

Not only is Craig S Wright not willing to prove in public his identity as Satoshi, but it doesn't help that nobody also wants him to be. Probably one of the most hated persons in the crypto space.

[Diced90]

Craig Wright seems emotional in this vlog after being questioned about the fake proof, I cant believe this guy

I wonder what his net worth is because those 1 million bitcoins seating around could make him a happy man if he were the real SATOSHI

[cjmoles]

Whatever the truth is, and it's fairly obvious, it still got the job done. He is now for better or much worse a Bitcoin related 'name'. Anyone else here could've achieved the same by shouting loud enough and using some long words.

You know ---> I've been thinking about this whole Andresen/Wright meeting and something crossed my mind ---> if Satoshi Nakamoto wanted curatorship over bitcoin without actually providing proof of its generation because he feared some form of liability ---> then he would have engaged in a true form of Zero Knowledge Proof (http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~mkowalcz/628.pdf) , such that ---> he would leave room for plausible denial should that be necessary.  If he could concretely prove to one, and only one, person that he knew the "secret" and then rely on that one person's expertise and credibility, then he succeeds.  <---- something to think about on a deeper level.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

More than likely he was involved in a plot against the real Satoshi.

More than likely he’s got a new lambo and doesn’t give two bits about your opinion. 

Did you dump your BTC for BCH yet?

I don’t buy it. 

If I were in that car redlining it with you shouting at me to chill then I’d believe it.   

Ver has a gaudy yellow monstrosity. Are you sure this isn't his?

[gentlemand]

You know ---> I've been thinking about this whole Andresen/Wright meeting and something crossed my mind ---> if Satoshi Nakamoto wanted curatorship over bitcoin without actually providing proof of its generation because he feared some form of liability ---> then he would have engaged in a true form of Zero Knowledge Proof (http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~mkowalcz/628.pdf) , such that ---> he would leave room for plausible denial should that be necessary.  If he could concretely prove to one, and only one, person the "secret" and then rely on that one person's expertise and credibility then he succeeds.  <---- something to think about on a deeper level.

Can anyone prove themselves to be Satoshi any more? I'm not convinced they can.

If someone shows up and moves coins or signs from the only two blocks we know for sure he controls, all that proves is that they have control over those private keys which could've been obtained from Satoshi by varying means.

[faithupgrade]

In the first place why he claimed to be satoshi,  what are the advantages. If he is satoshi,  then make a transaction from the btc address used from the genesis block.

I'm actually shocked how extremely crude this is.

See Mr. Fake in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIvqn87iAz8&t=0m35s

Is this a new level of fraudster?

[BitHodler]

In the first place why he claimed to be satoshi,  what are the advantages. If he is satoshi,  then make a transaction from the btc address used from the genesis block.

If he manages to confirm people, and then mainly this whole industry that he is Satoshi, he could pretty easily find himself be asked for plenty of positions in various influential businesses here.

If he has even more shady plans, I am sure that he could extend his position abuse even further to bank on something big. He however made a fool of himself by acting shady and not providing actual public evidence.

Gavin believing that he is actually Satoshi just shows what kind of idiot he is, and that he is a shady entity as well. It's mind boggling how a once respected high level Bitcoiner managed to sink that deep.

[cjmoles]

You know ---> I've been thinking about this whole Andresen/Wright meeting and something crossed my mind ---> if Satoshi Nakamoto wanted curatorship over bitcoin without actually providing proof of its generation because he feared some form of liability ---> then he would have engaged in a true form of Zero Knowledge Proof (http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~mkowalcz/628.pdf) , such that ---> he would leave room for plausible denial should that be necessary.  If he could concretely prove to one, and only one, person the "secret" and then rely on that one person's expertise and credibility then he succeeds.  <---- something to think about on a deeper level.

Can anyone prove themselves to be Satoshi any more? I'm not convinced they can.

If someone shows up and moves coins or signs from the only two blocks we know for sure he controls, all that proves is that they have control over those private keys which could've been obtained from Satoshi by varying means.

True. The "secret" is the possession of the keys....they only prove ownership of the asset.  However, being the owner of those assets is significant to securing a curatorship over their value which raises a variety of liability concerns.  We all know that Satoshi Nakamoto couldn't have built the network without the rest of the early adopters....thus, this elusion ---> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/ See where I'm going?

[teamjk]

this guy on video and his words don't quite fit whoever person(s) wrote the paper some 9 years ago
the hidden satoshi had an ideology behind all this (don't judge it good or bad).

this clown is so arrogant and being a market-corporate guy. It is all about the money and the markets.
pathetic at least

does in 2:27 refers also to Nick? heard something like this, not sure

[pooya87]

that's the thing though, he never signed anything. i don't know why you think that now. he faked some signature and refused to show it publicly because he knew if he did do that, people would catch his fraud in matter of seconds. so he paid Gavin to lie for him. it is harder to prove someone lied to prove a cryptographic signature is a lie.

You think Gavin would take some bribe and spread a lie ,what ever Craig showed was convincing enough for him and remember he did have contact with the real Satoshi and if you did have contact with a man as long as he did with Satoshi through any medium you could identify him if you meet him in person that being said i am not convinced either who the real Satoshi is unless i see the proof myself.

there are only two possibilities about why Gavin posted his blog post about CW being Satoshi:
- either he is so naive that he was easily fooled into believing the proof was legit
- or he was paid to lie about it. he was flown to London, all paid and shit...

to save face Gavin later corrected himself and said he was wrong. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/
enjoy reading.

[gredisgold88]

I do not really know who nakamoto satoshi. is he a fictional character for bitcoin ? , or indeed he is a person named nakamoto satoshi, but nakamoto satoshi has a good anounymous identity in his time.

[uartasic]

Well, Australians are very direct people, and when you ask a question like that, then expect that kind of answer.

These days people feel they are entitled to know other peoples business. It doesn't work that way in Australia.

I dont think i want to know who Satoshi really is, it would be like finding out Willy Wonka is Darth Vader's introverted brother.

Our foundation messiah Andresen seems to give CSW the time of day and credibility, i take something positive from that.

[hv_]

that's the thing though, he never signed anything. i don't know why you think that now. he faked some signature and refused to show it publicly because he knew if he did do that, people would catch his fraud in matter of seconds. so he paid Gavin to lie for him. it is harder to prove someone lied to prove a cryptographic signature is a lie.

You think Gavin would take some bribe and spread a lie ,what ever Craig showed was convincing enough for him and remember he did have contact with the real Satoshi and if you did have contact with a man as long as he did with Satoshi through any medium you could identify him if you meet him in person that being said i am not convinced either who the real Satoshi is unless i see the proof myself.

there are only two possibilities about why Gavin posted his blog post about CW being Satoshi:
- either he is so naive that he was easily fooled into believing the proof was legit
- or he was paid to lie about it. he was flown to London, all paid and shit...

to save face Gavin later corrected himself and said he was wrong. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/
enjoy reading.

what about: Gavin was shown a different proof?

[Vlad2Vlad]

Well, Australians are very direct people, and when you ask a question like that, then expect that kind of answer.

These days people feel they are entitled to know other peoples business. It doesn't work that way in Australia.

I dont think i want to know who Satoshi really is, it would be like finding out Willy Wonka is Darth Vader's introverted brother.

Our foundation messiah Andresen seems to give CSW the time of day and credibility, i take something positive from that.

This ^^^

Loyical sensible people with some common sense do exist in the coal mine.

[Vlad2Vlad]

I do not really know who nakamoto satoshi. is he a fictional character for bitcoin ? , or indeed he is a person named nakamoto satoshi, but nakamoto satoshi has a good anounymous identity in his time.

Yes, a fictional character from a fairytale book coded bitcoin.   

And Dorothy and wizard of Oz helped out too.