You may not like CSW...

[XinXan]

OP is clearly a troll (or mentally ill) I have seen his other threads. CSW was proven to be a fake long ago by multiple people, he had all the chances to actually prove his identity if he wanted to. You also only need to hear him speak about technical details to realize that he is not Satoshi. The copyright claim was also just bullshit anyways. I wish people would stop giving the guy attention, all exchanges should refuse to list his shit coin.

[CryptoLing]

This is the comprehensive evidence that CSW is NOT Satoshi : Link

Everyone is Satoshi, expect CSW 

[uray]

CSW was proven to be a fake long ago by multiple people, he had all the chances to actually prove his identity if he wanted to. You also only need to hear him speak about technical details to realize that he is not Satoshi. The copyright claim was also just bullshit anyways. I wish people would stop giving the guy attention, all exchanges should refuse to list his shit coin.

He did not prove anything regarding his claims and if he is not able to do anything of that sort he should not reveal and come in the forefront with all those claims but that being said you cannot question his technical knowledge, i have heard some of his discussions earlier and i thought it was a joke when he said bitcoin was turing complete well back in 2015 but later it was proved that bitcoin is in fact turing complete and it was a jaw drop moment for me, so i would not question his technical skills but no one is Satoshi unless there is concrete proof cryptographically.

[gmaxwell]

but later it was proved that bitcoin is in fact turing complete

You've been suckered.

Bitcoin is not turing complete.  If some small additions were made (e.g. enabling covenants) it would be, all wright did is repeat long known and publicly printed stuff and jumble it up with technobabble to confuse the reader and pretend that (1) he was showing turing completeness (he wasn't) and (2) that he was saying something new or unknown.

It is also not particularly desirable or even useful for a thing like bitcoin to be made turing complete.  Bitcoin isn't a computer (if it were it would be the stupidest computer ever conceived) but a _validator_.  Turing completeness isn't required to validate any claim.

I would really like to know how wright managed to fool you on this.  He repeated over and over again that he had cellular automata running on bitcoin proving its turing completeness, but then never pointed to where they were (and, of course, people looked and there were none).  So is that all it takes? just repeat something a number of times and then wait a year and wham, a few percent of people will just believe?

[uray]

I would really like to know how wright managed to fool you on this.  

You are the boss buddy , but i have gone through Clemens Lay papers and Craig's and with the possibility of functions they propose it is indeed turing complete, i have not tested to come to an indefinite conclusion myself and i know bitcoin does not have the loop function to be a complete turing complete machine, in Craig's paper he used simulation of linear iteration using an unrolled loop function, theoretically that is possible, happy to learn more about that from you.

[gmaxwell]

You are the boss buddy , but i have gone through Clemens Lay papers and Craig's and with the possibility of functions they propose it is indeed turing complete, i have not tested to come to an indefinite conclusion myself and i know bitcoin does not have the loop function to be a complete turing complete machine, in Craig's paper he used simulation of linear iteration using an unrolled loop function, theoretically that is possible, happy to learn more about that from you.

If Bitcoin as it exists were turing complete, than craig would be able to point to the transactions he claimed he had in the network implementing a turing complete cellular automata.  Yet no such transactions exist.

Craig's paper is mashing together terminology culled from the bitcoin-wizards irc logs and bitcoin-dev (e.g. total language), none of which means turing completeness.

If you can't actually defend the claim you shouldn't be repeating it, unless you want to get downrated for promoting a scam.  Not trying to be mean, but people confirming things they half understand and repeating it is a big part of how he perpetrates his scam.

[Reid]

He watched to much Marvel specially Iron Man.

It is like he said "I am Iron Man."
Now he is a target. I dont really care now about his claims but he is really making some bad decisions here.
Awards? That is for starters. Next time it will be his life which is on the line.

He may have wished he didnt do it.

[uray]

If Bitcoin as it exists were turing complete, than craig would be able to point to the transactions he claimed he had in the network implementing a turing complete cellular automata.  Yet no such transactions exist.

That is true as there is no transaction that could prove his claims.

Craig's paper is mashing together terminology culled from the bitcoin-wizards irc logs and bitcoin-dev (e.g. total language), none of which means turing completeness.

If you can't actually defend the claim you shouldn't be repeating it, unless you want to get downrated for promoting a scam.

The mashing up of terminology made me believe that it was turing complete, i will never promote a scam, so go easy on me buddy.

[Kryptowerk]

But you cannot say he is not Satoshi the inventor of Bitcoin.  After all, look at all of his patents and now even the US government is awarding copyrights to him which can ONLY be given to the original author.  It's a fact: CSW is Satoshi.

Cry all you like, you won't change the facts.

Where did you get your troll certificate? I want one, too. <3

On a serious note: You do realize anyone could have claimed that copyright for them. The copyright claim happens automatically for anyone trying it.
NOTHING IS PROVEN, expecpt the fact that CSW is a lying, attention seeking POS. So nothing new really.

[leonair]

Nonsense post, If CSW is Satoshi Nakamoto then he must prove it but he can't simply move a single or even a fraction of a Bitcoin from the genesis block. Craig Steven Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, he only wants publicity, end of the story.

[ðºÞæ]

On the Satoshiness of Dr Craig S Wright  (from @shadders333)


https://www.yours.org/content/on-the-satoshiness-of-dr-craig-s-wright-6d80f2050fe1

[ene1980]

Nonsense post, If CSW is Satoshi Nakamoto then he must prove it but he can't simply move a single or even a fraction of a Bitcoin from the genesis block. Craig Steven Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, he only wants publicity, end of the story.

So you are telling that if he could move bitcoin from the genesis block you will accept him as Satoshi  . How long you are in the bitcoin platform to be ignorant like this, just understand the basics first dude, looks like you have no clue that genesis block zero is not movable. When it comes to Craig it is documented that he is deceptive and went on to provide fake documents in court, the legal course will play on its own and we as a audience will witness the drama unfolding.

[hv_]

Some will never like him I fear

https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-libel-suits-crypto-critics/

Guess Satoshi s been forced into reaction mode?