Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam]

[nullius]

I cannot understand how he has gotten so much traction and gone so far along
this "Real Satoshi" claim, who in their right mind was the first person to believe
his claims without asking the question which we are asking now and have been
asking for quite some time, "sign a message ...and until such time as the message is signed you are treated as a fake"

An excellent point.

Its amazing how blindly some people can be led down a winding path

Craig Wright is a professional liar.  He can invent a new lie every day, so as to keep you running in circles debunking his wild claims.  This simultaneously drains your time and energy, and misleads people who don’t understand the deeper issues to wonder:  If he’s so wrong, why does he have so much to say that people keep needing to argue with him?  This facially absurd question rises from a mass-manipulator’s exploit of a well-known basic fallacy in human psychology.

hv_’s attempts to divert and reframe this thread exemplified the same propaganda technique (among others).  Look at the archival snapshots I took before deleting his posts; there is a reason why I archived before deleting.  Lies must be kept on record for examination, without letting liars dominate and derail the conversation.  Observe that besides some insults (e.g., “segshit”), hv_ kept trying to lure people into an endless argument over issues that are both irrelevant to my OP, and unreasonable to even consider when Craig Wright has not produced a cryptographic authentication of his claim to the identity of a cryptographic innovator who has known public keys.

The answer to every statement he ever said about Satoshi's wallets or ownership
of same should have been "sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet ...and until such time as the message is signed you are treated as a fake"

This is called a threshold question.  An affirmative answer thereto is necessary but insufficient to conclude an argument; and if the answer is either negative or nonexistent, then further questions need not be reached.

Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood.

It’s important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point.  But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else.  Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooled—and, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists!

I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wright’s hands—see above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.

aoluain is correct:  In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:

[...]
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....

and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"

That last bit is, “Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.”

[o_e_l_e_o]

The latest development in the saga is that known identity thief CSW has failed, for the nth+1 time, to sign a message or provide any proof of private keys.

He allegedly received a "bonded courier", which he previously swore in front of the court under penalty of perjury contained all the private keys to Satoshi's addresses. Instead, this week he submitted to the court only a list of addresses which are attainable by anyone thanks to the public nature of the blockchain, and his lawyers have now stated that he does not possess the private keys to Satoshi's addresses.

Don't worry, though. He is confident he will receive the keys at an unspecified "later date", but won't disclose when, by what method, in what form, or by who. All he will say is that the keys might come "split into parts", conveniently setting the groundwork for his next lie as to why he still cannot sign a message.

[Thekool1s]

Don't worry, though. He is confident he will receive the keys at an unspecified "later date", but won't disclose when, by what method, in what form, or by who. All he will say is that the keys might come "split into parts", conveniently setting the groundwork for his next lie as to why he still cannot sign a message.

I wonder if he is trying to crack satoshi's keys... I mean he definitely has got the resources to pull off an operation on this scale and he is maybe trying to get lucky... If he even succeeds to crack one most people will actually become convinced that he is satoshi. He already is getting things patented so it will serve him up in the long run. A perfect scam? Thoughts?

Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?

I think the demand should be all of Satoshi's addresses, not just one. Given the scenario above we can make it harder for people to steal satoshi's identity...

[JayJuanGee]

Don't worry, though. He is confident he will receive the keys at an unspecified "later date", but won't disclose when, by what method, in what form, or by who. All he will say is that the keys might come "split into parts", conveniently setting the groundwork for his next lie as to why he still cannot sign a message.

I wonder if he is trying to crack satoshi's keys... I mean he definitely has got the resources to pull off an operation on this scale and he is maybe trying to get lucky... If he even succeeds to crack one most people will actually become convinced that he is satoshi. He already is getting things patented so it will serve him up in the long run. A perfect scam? Thoughts?

Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?

I think the demand should be all of Satoshi's addresses, not just one. Given the scenario above we can make it harder for people to steal satoshi's identity...

There have already been many folks in the bitcoin community, to the extent such a thing exists, who have already suggested that if Craig were able to move some of the coins or sign some of the addresses from those likely satoshi blocks, that would ONLY become a starting point that would help his claim towards being satoshi, not serve as conclusive evidence of such claim.

Sure, if on day one, when that diptwat CSW had asserted that he was satoshi maybe more benefit of the doubt could have been given to various pieces of evidence and less proof - however, with the passage of time, CSW has employed scheme after scheme of deception and inferior (and even fraudulent) means of making his claims at being satoshi...

Remember that bullshit shenanigans that he attempted to pull right after he had supposedly privately signed some addresses with Gavin, and then CSW made a more public attempt at showing some signing that had been based on publicly accessible information that he had doctored.  When CSW was called out in detail on that obvious fraudulent doctoring of information, he asserted that he was going to go  back into hiding and never to be seen again. 

Sure, CSW disappeared from the scene for a few months, but then we soon thereafter got the joy to experience that pathological attention-seeking diptwat again, who showed that he could not even keep his promise to go away for more than a few months.  In essence, reasonable inferences could be made that CSW had been spending his time of "going away" as a means to planning and plotting his next scheme attempts rather than really making any efforts at getting out of the limelight.  The attention seeking whore loves the limelight.. so I feel a little bad about even talking or thinking about him.

It has been pointed out so frequently that the attention-seeking whore behavior of CSW and his various attempts to privatize, commercialize and even seeking self profits with bitcoin is so damned inconsistent with the whole presentation of satoshi, that there is almost NO possibility that narcissist CSW is satoshi - unless he had suffered from some kind of brain injury that had suddenly changed his personality (not wanting to provide any playbook for his next fraud claim attempt).

[aoluain]

Don't worry, though. He is confident he will receive the keys at an unspecified "later date", but won't disclose when, by what method, in what form, or by who. All he will say is that the keys might come "split into parts", conveniently setting the groundwork for his next lie as to why he still cannot sign a message.

I wonder if he is trying to crack satoshi's keys... I mean he definitely has got the resources to pull off an operation on this scale and he is maybe trying to get lucky... If he even succeeds to crack one most people will actually become convinced that he is satoshi. He already is getting things patented so it will serve him up in the long run. A perfect scam? Thoughts?

Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?

I think the demand should be all of Satoshi's addresses, not just one. Given the scenario above we can make it harder for people to steal satoshi's identity...

There have already been many folks in the bitcoin community, to the extent such a thing exists, who have already suggested that if Craig were able to move some of the coins or sign some of the addresses from those likely satoshi blocks, that would ONLY become a starting point that would help his claim towards being satoshi, not serve as conclusive evidence of such claim.

Sure, if on day one, when that diptwat CSW had asserted that he was satoshi maybe more benefit of the doubt could have been given to various pieces of evidence and less proof - however, with the passage of time, CSW has employed scheme after scheme of deception and inferior (and even fraudulent) means of making his claims at being satoshi...

Remember that bullshit shenanigans that he attempted to pull right after he had supposedly privately signed some addresses with Gavin, and then CSW made a more public attempt at showing some signing that had been based on publicly accessible information that he had doctored.  When CSW was called out in detail on that obvious fraudulent doctoring of information, he asserted that he was going to go  back into hiding and never to be seen again. 

Sure, CSW disappeared from the scene for a few months, but then we soon thereafter got the joy to experience that pathological attention-seeking diptwat again, who showed that he could not even keep his promise to go away for more than a few months.  In essence, reasonable inferences could be made that CSW had been spending his time of "going away" as a means to planning and plotting his next scheme attempts rather than really making any efforts at getting out of the limelight.  The attention seeking whore loves the limelight.. so I feel a little bad about even talking or thinking about him.

It has been pointed out so frequently that the attention-seeking whore behavior of CSW and his various attempts to privatize, commercialize and even seeking self profits with bitcoin is so damned inconsistent with the whole presentation of satoshi, that there is almost NO possibility that narcissist CSW is satoshi - unless he had suffered from some kind of brain injury that had suddenly changed his personality (not wanting to provide any playbook for his next fraud claim attempt).

This has entered my mind before, what CSW is attempting and how he is going
about it is so un-Satoshi like, we dont know Satoshi but we can get a sense of
what he was about purely by his gift to us.

CSW being  Satoshi just doesnt add up and the longer and harder he tries this
identity theft the greater the distance grows between the two persons.

Actually the Bitcoin whitepaper kind of paints an image of finance sucking
banks who want control of more and more of our funds, CSW is a representation
of everything which Satoshi created Bitcoin to combat.

[nullius]

I wonder if he is trying to crack satoshi's keys... I mean he definitely has got the resources to pull off an operation on this scale and he is maybe trying to get lucky...

OK.  If so, I hope he has fun.  Because that’s all he could get.  He doesn’t have the resources to “pull off” the attack:  Nobody does, and I am much more sure that he will not “get lucky” than I am sure I will not be killed by a flying fire hydrant today.

Seriously, think about it:  Being killed by a flying fire hydrant has actually happened to somebody, somewhere!  Whereas even for an attacker who can spend millions of dollars on an attack, to “get lucky” cracking Satoshi’s keys is still rather less probable than a plague of flying fire hydrants suddenly killing people all over the world.  Just won’t happen.

As a general point about the strength of Bitcoin’s cryptographic security, from an adapted self-quote, I hereby formally posit the Nullian Flying Fire Hydrant Rule:

You had better be worried about being killed by a flying fire hydrant than about bruteforce of Bitcoin’s cryptographic keys.  It has happened at least once somewhere that a man was killed by a flying fire hydrant.

Please.  You don’t worry about being killed by a flying fire hydrant.  Whereas to be killed by a flying fire hydrant is not only possible, but astronomically more probable than any cryptographic break of Bitcoin security.

In the topic to which you linked, OP combined a small, crudely-stated insight into batch attacks wrapped in a pile of misunderstandings about how Bitcoin works, how ASIC miner chips work, etc., plus some shoddy maths and general handwaving.  I think that thread received only small attention, because the Development & Technology forum gets so many of these crank posts by idiots who are so smug that they have found a brilliant new way to break Bitcoin’s security.  I should probably reply there sometime later.


Disclosure:  I myself have tried to crack Satoshi’s keys.  Indeed, it is a longtime hobby of mine—a stimulating intellectual exercise, not unlike my project to build a flying saucer out of empty beer bottles in my garage.  As Faust aspired to the infinite, I yearn for the impossible.

Of course, I am not so foolish as to ram my head into the astronomically large numbers involved.  Instead, I try to find practical attacks of the type I expect the NSA would probably attempt, if they wanted to break Bitcoin.

It is my heartfelt desire to create a Satoshi-signed message saying, “Craig Wright is not Satoshi, and neither am I!”, and then live off the proceeds of strategically flooding the BCH/BSV markets with my fork coins.  (Satoshi’s Bitcoins are sacred!  Spend!?  I think such holy relics deserve being swept into the world’s biggest UTXO at a beautiful bech32 address.)

Alas, I must report that thus far, the very best attack that I have been able to design is:  Magick.

I myself cracked Satoshi’s private keys by performing esoteric rites, and then quantum-meditating until my soul developed the power of sumperimposing all possible keys in all possible universes into a single O(1) bruteforce attempt that is mathematically guaranteed to succeed.  FOR REAL.  My soul makes Shor’s Algorithm as obsolete as doing point multiplications on an abacus.

With great power comes great responsibility; and I don’t want to inadvertently FUD the Bitcoin market by revealing any proof of my mystical achievement.  So sorry, you will must needs take my word for it.

Craig Wright has no magick.  He is only a charlatan doing cheap parlour tricks to bedazzle fools.  Therefore, methinks Satoshi’s keys are quite safe from him!


Good talking points:

It has been pointed out so frequently that the attention-seeking whore behavior of CSW and his various attempts to privatize, commercialize and even seeking self profits with bitcoin is so damned inconsistent with the whole presentation of satoshi, that there is almost NO possibility that narcissist CSW is satoshi - unless he had suffered from some kind of brain injury that had suddenly changed his personality (not wanting to provide any playbook for his next fraud claim attempt).

Actually the Bitcoin whitepaper kind of paints an image of finance sucking
banks who want control of more and more of our funds, CSW is a representation
of everything which Satoshi created Bitcoin to combat.

Well, no wonder he can’t even meet the threshold of signing with Satoshi’s private keys.

The part I rendered in bold is eminently quotable.

[Thekool1s]

I pretty much agree with you @aoluain and @JayJuanGee... There are somethings tho which I can't wrap my head around... Most of these people who support CSW claim he has the credentials for being Satoshi but what I fail to understand is why didn't he reveal himself right at the inception? Surely his credentials would have given the bitcoin's community a sense of stability. Why would a person who was so deeply focused on his privacy all of sudden want to give it away?... The Math doesn't add up to me at least... Imagine if someone published the general relativity theory anonymously and once it was proven correct, Einstein came forward to claim it was all him all along. It would appear it was him as he has the credentials but there would have been no way to verify his claims. But we all know Einstein stood by his theory and was proven just recently. I mean if CSW truly believed in his "Idea" why didn't he stick with it? Put your credentials on the line from the right go why hide behind an Alias... Thoughts like these will never make me believe CSW is Satoshi.

OK.  If so, I hope he has fun.  Because that’s all he could get.  He doesn’t have the resources to “pull off” the attack:  Nobody does, and I am much more sure that he will not “get lucky” than I am sure I will not be killed by a flying fire hydrant today.

I will trust your judgement on that @nullius as I clearly lack the technical knowledge of ACISs and cryptography.

[aoluain]

I pretty much agree with you @aoluain and @JayJuanGee... There are somethings tho which I can't wrap my head around... Most of these people who support CSW claim he has the credentials for being Satoshi but what I fail to understand is why didn't he reveal himself right at the inception? Surely his credentials would have given the bitcoin's community a sense of stability. Why would a person who was so deeply focused on his privacy all of sudden want to give it away?... The Math doesn't add up to me at least... Imagine if someone published the general relativity theory anonymously and once it was proven correct, Einstein came forward to claim it was all him all along. It would appear it was him as he has the credentials but there would have been no way to verify his claims. But we all know Einstein stood by his theory and was proven just recently. I mean if CSW truly believed in his "Idea" why didn't he stick with it? Put your credentials on the line from the right go why hide behind an Alias... Thoughts like these will never make me believe CSW is Satoshi.

OK.  If so, I hope he has fun.  Because that’s all he could get.  He doesn’t have the resources to “pull off” the attack:  Nobody does, and I am much more sure that he will not “get lucky” than I am sure I will not be killed by a flying fire hydrant today.

I will trust your judgement on that @nullius as I clearly lack the technical knowledge of ACISs and cryptography.

Satoshi was a true visionary, firstly to create Bitcoin, bring it to reality
[with the help of others] and then at an opportune moment step out
of the activity and dissapear knowing that to do so was the correct
action to take while the project is at a secure stage with the right
people guiding it.

The visionary thinking applys to the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto"
if you plan on abandoning your project and leaving it to others you
cannot use your own name, He/She/They knew as early as possibly
2007 and certainly early 2008 that Bitcoin would create major disruption.

Mike Hearn - February 25, 2013, 12:48:54 PM

He communicated with a few of the core developers before leaving.
He told myself and Gavin that he had moved on to other things and
that the project was in good hands.

CSW on the other hand cares little for the Bitcoin project, and doesnt
care about the potential damage he is causing to Bitcoin, and the
credability to himself and the embarrasment to his family, not to mention
the stress to the Kleiman family and others.

Satoshi would never create a rival technology to Bitcoin and have the
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.

CSW has shown to lack the class of Satoshi.

[Lauda]

CSW has shown to lack the class of Satoshi.

This is what a lot of people fail to understand. At this point in time, even if Craig actually had and used the keys, that would be far from any proof that he's Satoshi. To be clear: It has gotten to the point where it is impossible for him to prove that he is Satoshi because of the very same reason that you mentioned.

[DooMAD]

Connecting right dots, don't listen to fake news, read and understand sources

If anyone else had said that, I might give it greater credence.  But when you say it, it sounds like:

"Look for random coincidences that support your pre-existing biases, ignore empirical facts, treat the nonsense spread by all the shills who support CSW as legitimate and trustworthy sources."

Because that's clearly what you're doing.  You are in absolutely no position to lecture us on fake news, given the drivel you freely choose to believe.
 

[chaoscoinz]

Bilal Khalid, aka James Caan, Craig Wright, and Jörg Molt all have claimed to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto and have gone through great lengths to try to assume the role of the original Bitcoin founder and creator due to the real Satoshi
Nakamoto being M.I.A since Bitcoins original inception. These guys most certainly all can't be Satoshi Nakamoto so either one of these guys is the real deal holyfield or they all are simply imposters.
   Satoshi Nakamoto went through great lengths to keep his identity pseudonymous and they way he presented and carried himself and his project was in an altruistic manner, so their is no way that these others are Satoshi, because it contradicts Satoshi's whole character. Satoshi hasn't even cashed out his coins yet, why you might ask? Simple, so that his image and vision remains pure.

[nullius]

hv_’s latest post is hereby quoted fully without edits, and archived before deletion, so that people can see a textbook example of an attempt to divert the conversation by saying a whole lot of nothing—plus shifting of the burden of proof to everybody in the world, i.e. alleging that it is everybody’s responsibility to prove that Craig Wright is Satoshi (!), wrapped in nonsensically misapplied technical jargon “proof of work”:

CSW has shown to lack the class of Satoshi.

This is what a lot of people fail to understand. At this point in time, even if Craig actually had and used the keys, that would be far from any proof that he's Satoshi. To be clear: It has gotten to the point where it is impossible for him to prove that he is Satoshi because of the very same reason that you mentioned.

Nope.

Satoshi delivered way enough

Its up to us to do proof of work and find out.

Connecting right dots, don't listen to fake news, read and understand sources

KISS

Good idea, KISS:  Keep It Simple, Stupid.  I will take that advice.  Here is my reply to you, hv_:

[...]
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....

and the statement isnt being said, "if [Craig Wright] cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when [he] can"

Till then, on behalf of my esteemed brother /dev/null, I invite you to please enjoy the bitbucket. :-)


Meanwhile, a remark by Thekool1s set me about taking a closer look at some of what Craig Wright says about himself.  I will post on that later.  Spoiler:  He says nothing that makes his claim of Satoshihood in any way credible, but he says plenty that exposes his deeper agenda—a horrid agenda, even worse than greed for all that money he is trying to swindle out of the Bitcoin market.

[bitmover]

I don't know I you guys saw this news:

https://decrypt.co/16998/confirmed-craig-wright-doesnt-have-keys-to-8-billion-of-bitcoin

Craig Wright’s lawyer confirmed to Decrypt today that Wright does not possess—nor even claim to possess—the private keys that can be used to spend $8 billion of Bitcoin that Satoshi Nakamoto mined in Bitcoin’s early days.

That troll is just trying to fool newbies, who doesn't understand how things work: what is a private key, a bitcoin address and so on.

He doesn't even claim to have the keys: because he never had.

However,  he is certainly making a lot of money in thise BSV's  pumps....

[aoluain]

I don't know I you guys saw this news:

https://decrypt.co/16998/confirmed-craig-wright-doesnt-have-keys-to-8-billion-of-bitcoin

Craig Wright’s lawyer confirmed to Decrypt today that Wright does not possess—nor even claim to possess—the private keys that can be used to spend $8 billion of Bitcoin that Satoshi Nakamoto mined in Bitcoin’s early days.

That troll is just trying to fool newbies, who doesn't understand how things work: what is a private key, a bitcoin address and so on.

He doesn't even claim to have the keys: because he never had.

However,  he is certainly making a lot of money in thise BSV's  pumps....

"nor even claim to possess"

Does this surprise us at all? of course not.
There will be many [BSV & CSW supporters] who will ignore all the
history which is at odds with this.

[JayJuanGee]

Bilal Khalid, aka James Caan, Craig Wright, and Jörg Molt all have claimed to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto and have gone through great lengths to try to assume the role of the original Bitcoin founder and creator due to the real Satoshi
Nakamoto being M.I.A since Bitcoins original inception. These guys most certainly all can't be Satoshi Nakamoto so either one of these guys is the real deal holyfield or they all are simply imposters.
   Satoshi Nakamoto went through great lengths to keep his identity pseudonymous and they way he presented and carried himself and his project was in an altruistic manner, so their is no way that these others are Satoshi, because it contradicts Satoshi's whole character. Satoshi hasn't even cashed out his coins yet, why you might ask? Simple, so that his image and vision remains pure.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, chaoscoinz; however, it seems that Satoshi got out of bitcoin in order that the project can go without him, and likely the project is stronger without any leader, and by the time satoshi left the project in late 2010, there were a decent number of smart people working on it, and he had largely been able to tweak the early days of bitcoin and to communicate the fixing of the early bugs and the "trying it out" aspects.  I doubt that Satoshi left in order that "his image and vision remains pure."

Even though there are some people who proclaim to know who satoshi is/was and there are a decent number of people who have theories about who Satoshi is/was... Satoshi does remain a real wonderful demonstration of someone who seems to have been able to successfully use modern internet tools to preserve his actual identity... and if you identity is not known, it likely does not matter whether his image and vision were pure.. because the project now has its own trajectory, and no longer needs satoshi (even if we surely can appreciate his early efforts in what was planted during the nearly two-year period in which he was communicating about the project).

Maybe some day, we might find out who he is/was?  Maybe, perhaps?  Nonetheless, currently bitcoin has a lot of strength and success without any further known and clearly confirmed communications from Satoshi in more than 9 years..

[BitcoinFX]

Will Bitcoin SV Creator Acquire $8 Billion Bitcoin Fortune? | Interview With Craig Wright
- https://youtu.be/GS8DmU17E14

Q. Why do you commit to being Satoshi Nakamoto? What do you stand to gain?
- https://youtu.be/GS8DmU17E14?t=321

Q. Why do you care when people question your identity as Satoshi Nakamoto?
- https://youtu.be/GS8DmU17E14?t=516

9:09 CSW: "I was not sitting there going hey I'm Satoshi follow me..."

Erm yes you were ...
- https://craigwright.net/blog/math/jean-paul-sartre-signing-and-significance/

Dan Kaminsky's Blog ...
- https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/

Attempting (Failed) Verification of the Wright Signature ...
- https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification

...

9:18 CSW: "Here's the thing, you push me so far and, well I don't run ..."

Interviewer: "You don't run?"

9:28 CSW: "No. I fight and I fight and I fight and then you knock me down and I get up and I fight and you knock me down and then I knee cap you and then you maybe knock me down and then I take out your achilies and gradually I attack the corners and if I have to stab you a billion times before you f*'ng fall over, I win. I win or I die tying ..."

10:48 Interviewer: "To you, is this about winning"

CSW: "Err yes because what we have is we have my original vision for Bitcoin and a bunch of criminals ... that simple ... and I don't like criminals. Sorry ..."

...

- https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/identity-theft/identity-theft-and-identity-fraud ...

"What Are Identity Theft and Identity Fraud?

Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain."

...

- https://youtu.be/4MDr8CQDMuY

...

23:05 CSW: "Liberty Reserve was bigger than Bitcoin. Liberty Reserve had more nodes than Bitcoin ..."

Liberty Reserve wasn't even P2P, it didn't technically have nodes, only servers and a web site (much like PayPal), mainly based in Costa Rica.

...

Earlier in the interview CSW talks about other cryptocurrencies before Bitcoin, however Bitcoin was the first named 'cryptocurency' ...

Who coined the word "cryptocurrency" ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155348.0

 

[Dabs]

Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?

I think the demand should be all of Satoshi's addresses, not just one. Given the scenario above we can make it harder for people to steal satoshi's identity...

My personal opinion of the minimum requirements:

1. Sign bitcoin message using key from address in genesis block. Use proper sentence and grammar with today's date and a quote from any news headline from today. (We can fudge a bit and consider it if it's signed within this year I guess.)

2. Sign bitcoin message using key from address in block 170 (this is the block where Satoshi sent coins to Hal Finney.) Note: Sign the message using the address the transaction was sent from, not the coinbase address because it's possible Satoshi did not mine this particular block, just that his transaction is in it.

3. Sign bitcoin message using as many keys from as many addresses within the first 200 blocks, the more the merrier, but I think 10 should suffice. Satoshi himself would have mined at least 10 of the first 200 blocks.

4. Sign PGP/GPG message.

5. Send us all in this thread a bribe: 1 full BTC each is nice.

Then we can start talking.

[owlcatz]

I just realized... Last time, when Dorian got "outed", satoshi posted a message someplace saying it wasn't him.... Did he ever do that for CSW? (Not that it matters that much, but was curious).  

[Dabs]

I just realized... Last time, when Dorian got "outed", satoshi posted a message someplace saying it wasn't him.... Did he ever do that for CSW? (Not that it matters that much, but was curious). 

That was from some site, uh, .. Ning, I think. or P2P Foundation. I think that account has since been hacked or deactivated or something.

[Thekool1s]

@owlcatz Umm Cuz you don't feed the trolls? That's why Satoshi didn't bother responding? Just like @chaoscoinz said many people have claimed to be Satoshi but none have been outed by Satoshi himself. Does that mean they are all Satoshi by that logic?