Whats up with Craig Wright?

[Classified: Top Secret]

Today I happened across a recent interview with him, in a bitcoin discussion.

He stated at the end, "I was Satoshi".

The interesting thing I noted is a well educated smart individual using the word "was", is very past tense.

It could have been nothing really, but from someone who hasn't even begun to touch his wallets for some time, sounded odd.

Is he for real? He doesn't seem fraudulent to me.

But that is a big statement to make to the crypto world.

I apologize if this has been posted to death, I didnt want to necro any old stuff.

[1713559985]

1713559985

[1713559985]

1713559985

[1713559985]

1713559985

[1713559985]

1713559985

[1713559985]

1713559985

[1713559985]

1713559985

[franky1]

long story short
he doesnt write bitcoin code
in 2013+ he pretended to own bitcoin of pre 2012 and make a false name for himself by pretending to own coins of bitcoins inventor(due to certain addresses being well known(part of his ploy/plot))

he does not own the coins and just grabbed publicly available data, which anyone has access to, to fake a 'trustfund' to then use the trust fund as collateral to scam many businesses including the australian government.
the aussy government tried chasing him with civil court actions so he fled australia
he is now just trying to grab fresh money from many places to hope to repay old money (run a ponzi) so now he is geting deeper into trouble

he is now trying social drama techniques to continue false faming himself. and hopes the fame would be the proof of ownership without having to prove ownership. and hope he can dig himself out of his hole using social drama, although he is just digging his hole deeper

in short he is not a bitcoin coder, not a bitcoiner, and not a bitcoin influencer.
no point talking more about him as he has nothing really relating him to bitcoin but scams. thus lets not give him more attention. let his name die out and let his faked fame evaporate

[Classified: Top Secret]

Thank you and that does explain a lot of my question. Heard of him before, never gave it much consideration. And that is where I should leave it. Appreciated.

-CTS-

[avikz]

Since Franky answered and explained your question very nicely, I won't go into that details. Just one thing I am willing to mention, there's no way we can prove his statement right or wrong! So he is just taking the "benefit of doubt" of this dilemma. If he was the creator of bitcoin, then why he would create another coin? If your son is behaving badly, will you abandon your son or would you try to fix his behavior? 

[DooMAD]

in short he is not a bitcoin coder, not a bitcoiner, and not a bitcoin influencer.
no point talking more about him as he has nothing really relating him to bitcoin but scams. thus lets not give him more attention. let his name die out and let his faked fame evaporate

He seems to have influenced you pretty strongly.  You appear to use a number of his arguments when you talk about how you think Bitcoin should work.  Let's look at some comparisons:

The deception that has been allowed to creep into Bitcoin (or that pseudo-Bitcoin called BTC) is that non-mining nodes help in any way. They do not. The concept lowers your own personal security, and limits the usefulness of Bitcoin.

also those few people that have slow internet because they are home users actually bottleneck the propogation. and thus they are not helping the network. so just being a full node for the sake of thinking they are helping, is actually doing the opposite.

Soft forks and all of the changes make something that is not Bitcoin. You are not validating Bitcoin, you are validating the fork of the week, when you allow soft forks and the UASF model.

look at cores tactics
1. go soft, avoid node decision of consensus vote
2. go soft to give only pools the vote
3. if pools say no, UASF bomb the pools.
4. if the community say no to UASF then do a mandatory activation with a trigger for late 2018 no matter how many pools or nodes vote or veto

All of the real changes to BTC have been about subverting the key controls in Bitcoin. They have all been about making Bitcoin something that cannot scale, that cannot function.

BUT the usefulness and function of btc has stalled.

LN is not a BTC saviour. dont scream it can never die. instead scream it can comatose and then dmand th devs actually do something to prevent it stagnating.
again LN is not the saviour.. devs are already planning o letting other coins use LN while keping btc stalled in a effort that people lock up their BTC move it into LN and then not want to ever sttle back to btc due to all th things the devs have done to stall btc onchain innovation

to all those that think just screaming btc is utopia and gonna take over the world. should look back to 2011-2013 where the same was said.. and then the devs started to show their weakness by calling it a beta experiment and btc cant scale.

Looks like you two have got a great deal in common.  Like two peas in a pod bits of corn in a turd.  I wonder why you don't want to talk about him?  I guess we'll just let people form their own conclusions.  

[buwaytress]

Since Franky answered and explained your question very nicely, I won't go into that details. Just one thing I am willing to mention, there's no way we can prove his statement right or wrong! So he is just taking the "benefit of doubt" of this dilemma. If he was the creator of bitcoin, then why he would create another coin? If your son is behaving badly, will you abandon your son or would you try to fix his behavior? 

1. We don't have to prove his statement right or wrong, just as no one has to prove the hundreds of claims right or wrong. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. No one has proven it, least of all CW.
2. Benefit of doubt is not the privilege of a claimant. If I claim to be Satoshi, should I be given the benefit of doubt?
3. It's an assumption to think Bitcoin's creator would or would not do anything. Therefore, until proof is forthcoming, any theories we would have would have to be based on quite a bit of assumption.

[eaLiTy]

Since Franky answered and explained your question very nicely, I won't go into that details. Just one thing I am willing to mention, there's no way we can prove his statement right or wrong! So he is just taking the "benefit of doubt" of this dilemma. If he was the creator of bitcoin, then why he would create another coin? If your son is behaving badly, will you abandon your son or would you try to fix his behavior? 

There is no point in listening to anyone claiming to be the creator of bitcoin, until and unless someone can sign and verify using the genesis known wallet, there is no point in claiming he is the creator, what is the reason to come out and say that he is the creator and not willing to prove anything, if he plans to come out in the public, he has to validate rather than telling clumsy reasons for not revealing everything. Who ever created bitcoin abandoned within the first year of existence and if that person has to come back, he would have appeared when there was the block size limit issue and prove himself he created it and made some opinions as to how the development has to go.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There is no point in listening to anyone claiming to be the creator of bitcoin, until and unless someone can sign and verify using the genesis known wallet

Even if he did, that would not be proof that CSW is Satoshi, and I think it would be more likely that he had somehow "acquired" Satoshi's keys than he was actually Satoshi himself.

You only have to compare Satoshi's writing and philosophies to CSW's ranting, scamming, faking and incompetence to see that they are not the same person, regardless of which keys CSW may or may not be in possession of.

[franky1]

social drama

craig appeared public in 2015.. i been here since 2012
chicken.. egg..

what you dont realise is craig is not as smart as he makes out to be. so pretending craig influences people is a big laugh..

also. my opinion is mine. made from many sources human, code, running scenarios... basically research.. u might wanna try it as your echo's are echo's heard many times before by a known group.
but nice try playing the echo game against me.. shame it didnt work due to lack of proper research

so yea ill still yawn and facepalm you. have a nice day
P.S ive never been into the altcoin drama. my mindset is on diversity WITHIN BITCOIN. but you continue highlighting altcoin and social drama stuff

but maybe stick to eastenders next time

[figmentofmyass]

Is he for real? He doesn't seem fraudulent to me.

that's incredible to me, because he comes off like an obvious conman to me. maybe it's just the fact that i've seen him caught in lies---like the time he tried to trick people into believing he controlled satoshi's PGP key. it was an obvious scam.

there are other things too. he gets incredibly angry and flustered when bitcoin discussions turn highly technical which never seemed quite right.

[Classified: Top Secret]

Is he for real? He doesn't seem fraudulent to me.

that's incredible to me, because he comes off like an obvious conman to me. maybe it's just the fact that i've seen him caught in lies---like the time he tried to trick people into believing he controlled satoshi's PGP key. it was an obvious scam.

there are other things too. he gets incredibly angry and flustered when bitcoin discussions turn highly technical which never seemed quite right.

Maybe true but I only heard of him before in retrospect after watching an interview with him.

I must have been under a rock lol.

[gmaxwell]

that's incredible to me, because he comes off like an obvious conman to me. maybe it's just the fact that i've seen him caught in lies---like the time he tried to trick people into believing he controlled satoshi's PGP key. it was an obvious scam.

Like some other people that dupe people around this space (... say someone who posted earlier in this thread...) Wright compensates for cluelessness by applying an abusive attitude, technobabble, and choir preaching insults at respected authorities to both elevate his standing and make his audience feel superior (like "I knew it! all along those respected folks were really worst than me!").

People without the relevant background can't judge the content, but they hear the the tone and attitude and they can't imagine using that approach unless they were telling the truth.  They just cant imagine being a pathological liar with testicles of neutronium themselves... and so, improbable as it seems, they actually find Wright's spiel credible even though to the rest of us it wouldn't even make for a credible conman act in a movie.

In fact, his utter implausibility works in his favour in another way: it discourages competent people from spending their time discrediting him, and when they do it they find themselves saying something like "wtf. how could you _possibly_ believe this crap. I can't even.", -- not exactly the most effective, even though it's actually a fair response considering the utter absurdity of the situation.

Also, since no one has linked it and to avoid myself being guilty of just giving a "I can't even" response, the bitcoin wiki page on Wright is obligatory reading: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright

[betty11]

This Wright seems like an impostor. If he doesn't write any bitcoin node like someone above me inferred, then he should gaining popularity by riding on the anonymous identity of Satoshi. People really don't take him serious.

[BitcoinFX]

that's incredible to me, because he comes off like an obvious conman to me. maybe it's just the fact that i've seen him caught in lies---like the time he tried to trick people into believing he controlled satoshi's PGP key. it was an obvious scam.

Like some other people that dupe people around this space (... say someone who posted earlier in this thread...) Wright compensates for cluelessness by applying an abusive attitude, technobabble, and choir preaching insults at respected authorities to both elevate his standing and make his audience feel superior (like "I knew it! all along those respected folks were really worst than me!").

People without the relevant background can't judge the content, but they hear the the tone and attitude and they can't imagine using that approach unless they were telling the truth.  They just cant imagine being a pathological liar with testicles of neutronium themselves... and so, improbable as it seems, they actually find Wright's spiel credible even though to the rest of us it wouldn't even make for a credible conman act in a movie.

In fact, his utter implausibility works in his favour in another way: it discourages competent people from spending their time discrediting him, and when they do it they find themselves saying something like "wtf. how could you _possibly_ believe this crap. I can't even.", -- not exactly the most effective, even though it's actually a fair response considering the utter absurdity of the situation.

Also, since no one has linked it and to avoid myself being guilty of just giving a "I can't even" response, the bitcoin wiki page on Wright is obligatory reading: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright

Indeed. I welcome everyone to see for themselves exactly how they try to twist things to fit with their own agenda ...

Another exert from The Satoshi Affair - Andrew O’Hagan on the many lives of Satoshi Nakamoto , for the topic ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100073.msg49624996#msg49624996

Page 9
"... Weeks later, I was in the kitchen of the house Wright was renting in London drinking
tea with him when I noticed a book on the worktop called Visions of Virtue in
Tokugawa Japan. I’d done some mugging up by then and was keen to nail the name
thing.
‘So that’s where you say you got the Nakamoto part?’ I asked. ‘From the 18th-century
iconoclast who criticised all the beliefs of his time?’
‘Yes.’
‘What about Satoshi?’
‘It means “ash”,’ he said. ‘The philosophy of Nakamoto is the neutral central path in
trade. Our current system needs to be burned down and remade. That is what
cryptocurrency does – it is the phoenix ...’
‘So satoshi is the ash from which the phoenix ...’
‘Yes. And Ash is also the name of a silly Pokémon character. The guy with Pikachu.’
Wright smiled. ‘In Japan the name of Ash is Satoshi,’ he said.
‘So, basically, you named the father of bitcoin after Pikachu’s chum?’
‘Yes,’ he said. ‘That’ll annoy the buggery out of a few people.’ This was something he
often said, as if annoying people was an art...."

...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Ketchum

"... Ash Ketchum, known as Satoshi (サトシ) in Japan, is a fictional character in the Pokémon franchise owned by Nintendo. He is the main protagonist of the Pokémon anime and certain manga series as well as on various merchandise related to the franchise..."

"... His English name is derived from the Japanese name (as the letters 'ash' are included in 'Satoshi') and his English motto, "Gotta Catch 'Em All"..."

"... Controversy

On August 18, 2016, the XYZ episode Kalos League Victory! Satoshi's Greatest Decisive Battle (カロスリーグ優勝！サトシ頂上決戦 Karosurīgu yūshō! Satoshi chōjō kessen) (Down to the Fiery Finish! in the English dub) faced criticism from fans when Ash lost the Kalos League against Alain. The fans specifically criticized the episode due to misleading trailers that suggested that Ash would win the battle and because Ash had lost all of the Pokémon Leagues in past seasons..."

...

Q. How do you fit 20,000 Pikachu's onto a bus ?    

P.S. I'm NOT an anarchist ? - SWIM

EDIT:
* More Satire *
- https://youtu.be/iZNFKxeYZPA

- https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1095296293625360385

"I have also come to learn, I really do not like anarchist fools. They have their head up their ass and cannot understand reality nor that others do not want their "utopia" Honestly, this force you to be free crap."

- https://twitter.com/MADinMelbourne/status/1095292274211139587

"the trolls are coming out fast and thick again... so difficult to hear #bitcoin was designed to be legal, to make the existing system more efficient. Anarchists "libertarians" suffering with this knowledge #denial hurts."

- https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1095305896073330688

"I hope people understand, with Bitcoin and Metanet, there is now NO reason for that pseudo leak site- WikiLeaks to even exist. Have a nice life, you had an opportunity to be more than a bunch of socialist losers and do something right - you failed. Enjoy as we make you obsolete"

  

It is immutable (transcript).

 

[pawanjain]

long story short
he doesnt write bitcoin code
in 2011+ he pretended to own bitcoin and make a false name for himself by pretending to own coins of bitcoins inventor(due to certain addresses being well known(part of his ploy/plot))

he does not own the coins and just grabbed publicly available data, which anyone has access to, to fake a 'trustfund' to then use the trust fund as collateral to scam many businesses including the australian government.
the aussy government tried chasing him with civil court actions so he fled australia
he is now just trying to grab fresh money from many places to hope to repay old money (run a ponzi) so now he is geting deeper into trouble

he is now trying social drama techniques to continue false faming himself. and hopes the fame would be the proof of ownership without having to prove ownership. and hope he can dig himself out of his hole using social drama, although he is just digging his hole deeper

in short he is not a bitcoin coder, not a bitcoiner, and not a bitcoin influencer.
no point talking more about him as he has nothing really relating him to bitcoin but scams. thus lets not give him more attention. let his name die out and let his faked fame evaporate

Well that explains everything clearly. Besides that there would be no proof for him to justify that he is the real Satoshi.
I guess even if the real Satoshi appears right now, it would be difficult for us to trust him unless he shows us the access to his real old addresses and funds.

[bittraffic]

He can't prove he is satoshi. The guy is a fraud.

The most challenging for CSW to do its to sign message of satoshi's wallet and send some BTC to another wallet. No one touches that wallet since time.
If he "WAS" satoshi why destroy BTC with his own fork? 

[brokens]

He can't prove he is satoshi. The guy is a fraud.

The most challenging for CSW to do its to sign message of satoshi's wallet and send some BTC to another wallet. No one touches that wallet since time.
If he "WAS" satoshi why destroy BTC with his own fork? 

I am too of the same opinion as you because I am not sure if CSW is satoshi, if indeed he is satoshi then he must dare to say who he is in all media or news from crypto. no, no he is not satoshi and I am sure he is a cheater.

[metalglowd]

seeing franky's answer, its just open my eyes about what will happen if someone pretends to be someone else and seems to be in power about it just because he has little involvement in it. Right now Mr Satoshi is still "not found" or its maybe just an anonymous people that put some people's random photo in it and then named it as "Satoshi Nakamoto"

[leonair]

If he was Satoshi then why would he just said it later on? the thrill will vanish, it's all about publicity, no more no less.

Anyone can claim that they are Satoshi, even me but until the time comes that the account of Satoshi Nakamoto's account 'Last Active: Today' will be sighted then that's the time I'll be started to believe that he's back.

[kryptqnick]

long story short
he doesnt write bitcoin code
in 2011+ he pretended to own bitcoin and make a false name for himself by pretending to own coins of bitcoins inventor(due to certain addresses being well known(part of his ploy/plot))

he does not own the coins and just grabbed publicly available data, which anyone has access to, to fake a 'trustfund' to then use the trust fund as collateral to scam many businesses including the australian government.

in short he is not a bitcoin coder, not a bitcoiner, and not a bitcoin influencer.

I agree that this man is probably not Satoshi, even though we cannot be 100% sure, but  I am pretty sure he owns (or used to own until recently) a lot of bitcoins. I mean, don't we even know for sure he has lots of bitcoins? He wouldn't have been sued for billions unless people new he had them, no? And he said he'll sell a lot, and we can see that someone did.
Returning to the question in the original post, he is not, was not and will not ever be the Satoshi we respect and value.