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

[xtraelv]

One thing I have to say here is that we don't know real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto,
so in fact we can say that Craig Wrong created new fake identity, and community named him Faketoshi.

In case of Anastasia we knew her identity, and that is not the case here.
Craig Wrong is still a thief and a liar,  don't get me 'Wrong'

The similarities are there:

Fake Anastasia claims were made before DNA. DNA ultimately proved it to be a lie.

Fake Satoshi claims were made before chain analysis. Chain analysis ultimately will prove the lie.

[1713889473]

1713889473

[1713889473]

1713889473

[1713889473]

1713889473

[1713889473]

1713889473

[gmaxwell]

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

[Wind_FURY]

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

Hahaha that term. That would suggest some sort of knowledge of Bitcoin technology".

Plus I believe Gavin Andresen wouldn't go public if he had no selfish motivations, and if he actually believed Craig Wright to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

[nutildah]

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.

[FanatMonet]

The idea is good and extremely useful, but only in the case of Romanova, a DNA test was possible to confirm the identity, but how to confirm the identity of Satoshi?
Suppose that some kind of injury happened, and the person who is him has lost his memory, how can he prove that he is Satoshi?

[amishmanish]

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.

Maybe he isn't accusing Gavin of being outright dishonest. Gavin's ambivalence is being touted in that tweet(and countless other places) as "proof" that CSW is Satoshi. The sheer damage potential of such misinformation closes any case to give him the benefit of doubt.
Gavin is not being "morally neutral" when he chooses not to call CSWs bluff but rather take the chance of being labeled by history as Satoshi's first apostle or something.

[AGD]

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

In his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things.  It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.'
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.

I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back.

[gmaxwell]

I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.

Both dishonest (how would he expect anyone to fall for this) and honest (how would he fall for it) really don't make a ton of sense in my view.

It's not that I view him as extremely honest-- I recently ran into some evidence that convinces me that Gavin was being wilfully dishonest when it came to the block size drama--  but rather it's too stupid a lie to play along with,  and it's not that I think he's totally immune to smoke and mirrors (I think even far more capable people are not immune) but I have not encountered anyone else who knew almost anything about the technology and wasn't explicitly on Wright's payroll that expressed a public belief in it for more than a second.  At least to technical experts (and I think many other people) wright is just that transparently a fraud.

Unfortunately, we know relatively little about the scope and progression of his interactions with Wright, because other than detailing a bit about the proof ceremony (e.g. that it was via a computer provided by wright) he pretty much clammed up and stopped answering questions.

So... Sorry, I can't explain the inexplicable. I wish I could.

Some people say that it's not a big deal that he hasn't issued a clear and emphatic retraction, or shared publicly his electronic communications with wright which he claimed convinced him before they met. I might even buy an argument that it was all just too much for him and he can't take dealing with it if he'd disappeared from the public light entirely-- rather than showing up periodically to toss shade at bitcoin and promote competitors. ... but he hasn't and it's really easy to find real people who are being exploited by Wright that cite Gavin's endorsement as a primary justification.

I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time.

I'm fairly confident that both of them communicating with "Satoshi" (not satoshi) after the account was compromised. -- both because the account was leaking messages it got from them to others, e.g. about mike and gavin talking about planning to fork bitcoin long before they did anything public... and also because they claimed to have heard from satoshi long after it would have been consistent with other evidence.  But I don't now what, if any, roll this played in setting up the wright circus. 

[nullius]

A Beautiful Tweet

"Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against ID Theft

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0

Any ID claiming to be #satoshi #nakamoto must put up a publicly verifiable signed message or shut up!

This is how identity works in #Bitcoin =#BTC

#SNTrustChain #ProjectAnastasiaBTC #LNTrustChain3"

- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1231979635589701633

Excellent, thank you.  That’s how it’s done, folks!

I did not make Project Anastasia for the Bitcoin Forum only.  I made it as a message to be built on Satoshi’s own forum, and spread by a cadre of Bitcoiners to every other venue of discussion.

We each have our strengths and weaknesses.  I recently tried to set up a Twitter account, for the exact purpose of Bitcoin advocacy.  Couldn’t figure out how to use it. ;-)  I may try again, sometime...  But regardless of what I do, if you are already on Twitter and similar sites, I encourage you to spread the word!


An Ugly Tweet

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

Ugh.  Thanks a lot.

Twitter now totally requires Javascript; so in case anybody wants to see it without kowtowing to that, this is what we’re dealing with:

“I had regular meetings with him (Gavin
Andresen) when I was writing Life After Google & Gavin was absolutely firm that Craig was Satoshi. He (CSW) then went out and got a 1000 patents or something!
That would suggest some sort of knowledge of Bitcoin technology.” #Bitcoin #BSV

If Gavin Andresen had even a shred of honesty, he would be shouting from the rooftops and fighting tooth and nail to try to undo what he did.  —Not only would now, but would have been already, for the past four years!  Equivocation doesn’t cut it.  No way.


This bears repeating from the other thread:

Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?

This is not a matter of “opinion”.  (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.)  Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact.  Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?”

So no, he shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.

Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored.  That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.

...he exploits the fact that people are usually unprepared to deal with such an audacious liar.  ... the sort of person who will go literally red faced screaming at you that NO, IN FACT THE SKY IS GREEN NOT BLUE THE SKY IS GREEN.  When faced with behaviour like that some people just start wondering if maybe its legit because they'd personally never act that way unless they were telling the truth and were absolutely sure of it.

Damn.  You made me look outside at the sky, just to double-check!  And then, I started wondering if maybe, just maybe, I am colourblind—protanopia often does cause difficulty distinguishing green from blue!—or perchance, I went slightly insane, and I confused the meanings of basic English words blue and green in some Twilight Zone style psychosis...

I encourage readers of this thread to learn more about Blackhat Mindhacking 101: Exploiting Wetware Insecurity.  That is what we are dealing with here.


Quod Vide

Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289

I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.

Of course, I don’t speak for gmaxwell; and I dislike quoting myself from just the last page of this same thread.  But in case you didn’t see it, he already addressed that question [pre-posting edit: and whilst I was previewing and adding a reply to AGD below, he addressed this again here]:

And yet, as we are today Gavin has still never fully retracted his endorsement. He left it at an 'I'm not sure what happened, maybe I was fooled. It doesn't matter anyways'-- something which wright's promoters continues to use to promote wright's legitimacy.

Probably the most significant thing I can say on this subject is that *none* of the core-devs upon hearing Gavin endorsed the guy thought this was at all evidence of the claims-- even before seeing the publication of the obviously faked signature.  The idea that Gavin was hacked, was being coerced, was being paid off, was a scammed idiot, or was attempting a desperate attempt at taking over Bitcoin after he was unable to convince people through the merit of his arguments were all considered serious possibilities. We discussed the possibility that wright got his hands on of an early block private key that was mined by someone other than satoshi, and was planning on exploiting the ambiguity about who mined what-- and that Gavin fell for that because of one of the might have fallen for it due to the aforementioned reasons. The only people that thought his endorsement was persuasive were people that hadn't worked with him on technical matters. The people who would know best how to weigh the evidence of that endorsement didn't find it remotely persuasive. And in the aftermath, when Wright's public signature turned out to be fake Gavin's response wasn't to adopt complete transparency and help take out and protect the Bitcoin community from the guy that had supposedly conned him. Take that for what you will.

That was posted on a thread where I replied to another part of his post, and your reply to me was this:

Gavin has done massive actual harm:  Bitcoin Foundation, XT, Faketoshi “verification”, Btrash shilling...  You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?

If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.

Eh...

http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-22_Sat_06.05h/976210.html

~nullius's judgement is Distrusted by:
[...]
10. NEW nutildah (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (14) 1763 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

For my own part, I stand by my negative trust feedback on Gavin Andresen (Reference).  Three-digit UIDs who visit the CIA are not immune to being called out for what they have done.  For my part.


Insecure E-mail

In his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things.  It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.'
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.

I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back.

Was that before or after this?

Control of a forum account is not cryptographic evidence of identity.  Control of an e-mail address is also not cryptographic evidence of identity.  With my large boldface supplied:

Topic: satoshin@gmx.com is compromised

Today I received an email from satoshin@gmx.com (Satoshi's old email address), the contents of which make me almost certain that the email account is compromised. The email was not spoofed in any way. It seems very likely that either Satoshi's email account in particular or gmx.com in general was compromised, and the email account is now under the control of someone else. Perhaps satoshin@gmx.com expired and then someone else registered it.

Don't trust any email sent from satoshin@gmx.com unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)

I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on p2pfoundation.ning.com. (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another p2pfoundation.ning.com post.)

* nullius asks, “But what is Satoshi’s PGP key fingerprint?  If I download that key from your link, how do I know it is the same key that Satoshi used before?”

The email said:

Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.

Not exactly Satoshi's normal style.

That is from something that I recently posted in the Beginners & Help forum:  A hands-on lesson on why you should check PGP fingerprints!  I encourage others to read it, and to learn how to verify that you have the right key.

This was created today.  It could have said anything that I wanted it to:

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

Signed,

Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQS5YZTT/ZVbiFIrBW8228A4i3SciwUCXkcnOQAKCRA228A4i3Sc
ixUGAJwJP2WaRtRRQoH2oRuib6SxiitnpACfdpOP4PzmLqAOJgM5Ly9HYNzu8lI=
=HmWH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Verify it!

[...the fake key, how I made it, etc...]

Always make sure that you have the right key.  Check PGP fingerprints!

My thanks to others for the interesting discussion of this important issue.

[nutildah]

I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.

Both dishonest (how would he expect anyone to fall for this) and honest (how would he fall for it) really don't make a ton of sense in my view.

It's not that I view him as extremely honest-- I recently ran into some evidence that convinces me that Gavin was being wilfully dishonest when it came to the block size drama--  but rather it's too stupid a lie to play along with,  and it's not that I think he's totally immune to smoke and mirrors (I think even far more capable people are not immune) but I have not encountered anyone else who knew almost anything about the technology and wasn't explicitly on Wright's payroll that expressed a public belief in it for more than a second.  At least to technical experts (and I think many other people) wright is just that transparently a fraud.

Unfortunately, we know relatively little about the scope and progression of his interactions with Wright, because other than detailing a bit about the proof ceremony (e.g. that it was via a computer provided by wright) he pretty much clammed up and stopped answering questions.

So... Sorry, I can't explain the inexplicable. I wish I could.

Some people say that it's not a big deal that he hasn't issued a clear and emphatic retraction, or shared publicly his electronic communications with wright which he claimed convinced him before they met. I might even buy an argument that it was all just too much for him and he can't take dealing with it if he'd disappeared from the public light entirely-- rather than showing up periodically to toss shade at bitcoin and promote competitors. ... but he hasn't and it's really easy to find real people who are being exploited by Wright that cite Gavin's endorsement as a primary justification.

Thanks for the reply, it is appreciated. Perhaps there's an element that Gavin wanted Wright to be Satoshi that clouded his judgment. I would just hope that people who consider taking Gavin's assessment into account also consider the rest of his final words on the topic (I know I've posted this a couple times already but its worth repeating):

Now that six months have gone past, I’m being asked if I still think Craig Wright was Satoshi.

I think there are two possibilities.

Either he was Satoshi, but really wants the world to think he isn’t, so he created an impossible-to-untangle web of truths, half-truths and lies. And ruined his reputation in the process.

If he was Satoshi, we should respect his wish to remain anonymous, and ignore him.

The other possibility is he is a master scammer/fraudster who managed to trick some pretty smart people over a period of several years.

In which case everybody except the victims of his fraud and law enforcement working on behalf of those victims should ignore him.

So, either he was or he wasn’t. In either case, we should ignore him. I regret ever getting involved in the “who was Satoshi” game, and am going to spend my time on more fun and productive pursuits.

What's clear is that either way he was telling people to ignore Craig, yet a lot of BSVites just didn't seem to get that portion of the message, for whatever reason...

[AGD]

....

I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time.

I'm fairly confident that both of them communicating with "Satoshi" (not satoshi) after the account was compromised. -- both because the account was leaking messages it got from them to others, e.g. about mike and gavin talking about planning to fork bitcoin long before they did anything public... and also because they claimed to have heard from satoshi long after it would have been consistent with other evidence.  But I don't now what, if any, roll this played in setting up the wright circus. 

To me it's pretty much clear, that this is all linked to the Wikileaks story and Gavins visit to the CIA. Satoshi knew what was up to come after Wikileaks accepted Bitcoin payments.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2216.msg29280#msg29280

It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context.  WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.

Somebody at the 3 letters must have been called out Bitcoin as a national security threat. This would probably lead to meetings, where countermeasures are being discussed. Taking over an email account is not a big deal for them. Deanonymizing people is also easy. They also have a long history of 'convincing' people to play their game.

The fact, that the real satoshi could anytime cross these plans by appearing and using a valid PGP signature, makes me think, they have silenced him somehow.

...

In his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things.  It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.'
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.

I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back.

Was that before or after this?
...

It was way before that. About 4 month after satoshis last forum post

https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET

[gmaxwell]

What's clear is that either way he was telling people to ignore Craig, yet a lot of BSVites just didn't seem to get that portion of the message, for whatever reason...

Because it's extremely weak.  It's not too dissimilar from the language roger ver used ("it's not important, he should have his privacy") when he was in full on belief mode, and paling around with Wright.   It sounds agnostic.  How common are 'master scammers'?
 
This was probably not his intent, but it's the effect. It's just too uncommon for people to be that mealy-mouthed unless they're trying to hedge, and trying to hedge is in fact a really strong signal.

Consider, if instead the situation were that virtually every bitcoin tech expert (eliminating the potentially for personal corruption, and mitigating individual virtually) were saying that kind of "well maybe but it's not important"--  I think if I were a non-tech expert I'd view that as a farly strong signal that at a minimum the possibility hasn't been contradicted.

... and yet it has been.   The big lie about Wright isn't about him being Satoshi it's that his claims of being Satoshi have even the slightest air of credibility.  Once a vicitims accepts that false position, start ignoring the good info and start swallowing the firehose of bad info and down the rabbit hole they go.

Somebody at the 3 letters must have been called out Bitcoin as a national security threat.

This sort of explanation fails occams' razor. Not as badly as some things that many people believe, but you don't need to go there. All sorts of perfectly ordinary explanations work fine.

There are a number of early Bitcoiners (and Bitcoin businesses) who view the whole decentralization thing as a regulatory dodge and childish security theatre. They believe things like in the long run Bitcoin would be regulated by as 'serious organization' like the ITU (lol) and that mining would go away or be relegated to a secondary role.  That Bitcoin's purpose is basically just a launching pad to create a big trustworthy centralized asset to unify the money of the world.  I've heard more than a few say these things explicitly.  

From that perspective, anything that stood in the way of the hockey-stick projections on transaction volume was a strike against that vision of success.  From there, most other things follow logically.

So essentially,  the question is why is bitcoin valuable in the first place?  Is it for the reasons Satoshi gave explicitly?-- money that can't be overridden by political whim, even if well motivated?  Or is it because of some real politik regulatory dodge reason? If you believe the latter then cranking growth as fast as possible at any and all cost while cozying up to spooks sounds like a reasonable strategy.  This alternative view even comes pre-made with a ready explanation you can use to dismiss people who disagree with you-- they're childish and don't understand how the world works.

It was way before that. About 4 month after satoshis last forum post

If you believe the dates provided by Hearn. I saw no indication of that until many years after its claimed date. Especially if you're going to believe that there is some conspiracy of state actors to take out Bitcoin you probably should be pretty skeptical of any instances of "hey guies! I tots got dis email 5 years ago and didn't mention it till now!".

[DooMAD]

references a quote from 2018. about conversations with gavin in 2017
thus not relevant to todays status of gavins opinion.

But is there a more recent quote?  The impression I get is that Gavin doesn't seem amenable to talking about the matter now.  As others have already said, it would be ideal if Gavin removed any ambiguity and came out firmly against Faketoshi.  For reasons that only he can know, he hasn't chosen to do that.  That's the part we're finding inexcusable.  Because all the time there's ambiguity, Faketoshi gains an audience, people listen to what he has to say and start to use his bullshit arguments as if they were truth.  I can see how you, of all people, might be oblivious to the danger there.  


//EDIT:

As franky1's subsequent posts are likely to be deleted, I'll add my response to this post to avoid cluttering the thread:

3. seems the topic creator prefers to believe a troll that thinks that i got scammed.. posts of the troll were kept where as posts that actually had content about things involving CSW scams and the topic got deleted..

by deleting posts that clearly show that i have called CSW a scammer many times. i also have not interacted directly with CSW or used any altcoins associated with him and never got scammed by him..

You pay lip-service to calling Faketoshi a scammer, but you continue to use his so-called arguments to attack Bitcoin.  You could call Trump a misogynist, but if you then extolled the virtues of "grabbing them by the pussy", I would still think you were influenced by him and were just as shitty a person as he is.  You have absolutely been scammed because you genuinely believe what Faketoshi says and try to convince others of the same.  Are you familiar with the phrase "useful idiot"?  Here's a quote from wikipedia to help you out:

In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders.

That's you.

[DooMAD]

*drivel*

The absolute nerve of it.  You've got some balls on you, I'll give you that.  

Don't think for one second that you can come into a topic like this to twist the narrative.  You will be crucified.  I suggest you go find another topic to troll.

You are one of the ones who got scammed and you are keeping the false narrative alive.

[AGD]

This sort of explanation fails occams' razor. Not as badly as some things that many people believe, but you don't need to go there. All sorts of perfectly ordinary explanations work fine.

That one day Bitcoin will be called a national security threat lies in the principles of the Bitcoin code. It was created to be a competitor to government issued money and therefore poses a risk to it. It is not even important if, at the time the CIA invited Gavin, the threat to the Dollar has been already discussed (which I strongly believe esp. after the Wikileaks issue), but if Bitcoin can stand against any countermeasures governments will be firing sooner or later. I guess we have to wait for the answer, until countries begin to coorporate on this issue.

So essentially,  the question is why is bitcoin valuable in the first place?  Is it for the reasons Satoshi gave explicitly?-- money that can't be overridden by political whim, even if well motivated (http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source)?  Or is it because of some real politik regulatory dodge reason? If you believe the latter then cranking growth as fast as possible at any and all cost while cozying up to spooks sounds like a reasonable strategy.  This alternative view even comes pre-made with a ready explanation you can use to dismiss people who disagree with you-- they're childish and don't understand how the world works.

To me there are several reasons why Bitcoin is valuable and I think that both you stated are legit. Bitcoin seems to be successful standing against these. I see the attempts to overide in these forking attempts by Gavin, Hearn, Ver and CSW, which by now have been more or less unsucessful. And regulations by now seem to only affect centralized exchanges and mixers, but not Bitcoin itself.

Another value of Bitcoin comes from its potencial inconfiscatability. It is the first time in history, that people are able to refuse to give up their savings.

There are many more valuable sides of Bitcoin, like decentralisation, open source, worldwide P2P transactions without a middle man.

If you believe the dates provided by Hearn. I saw no indication of that until many years after its claimed date. Especially if you're going to believe that there is some conspiracy of state actors to take out Bitcoin you probably should be pretty skeptical of any instances of "hey guies! I tots got dis email 5 years ago and didn't mention it till now!".

I agree with you here. No proof, that these emails were actually from early 2011. Assuming that satoshis GMX account was under control of the 3 letters, it could have happened anyway or they also could have been backdated. There were enough reasons for both.

Edit: The satoshi quote from the Hearn emails

Since Google is trusted, couldn't users pay a token deposit to Google and Google pays them back when they close the account?

makes it easy to me to believe, that this was not the original satoshi.

[dkbit98]

The similarities are there:

Fake Anastasia claims were made before DNA. DNA ultimately proved it to be a lie.

Fake Satoshi claims were made before chain analysis. Chain analysis ultimately will prove the lie.

Identity of a person is NOT based only on DNA.
It is construct of many things that are connected to life of specific person.

We know almost nothing about life of Satoshi Nakamoto.
A lot more things are known about life of Anastasia.

[nullius]

Of “What” and “Why”

Somebody at the 3 letters must have been called out Bitcoin as a national security threat.

This sort of explanation fails occams' razor. Not as badly as some things that many people believe, but you don't need to go there. All sorts of perfectly ordinary explanations work fine.

I think the big danger there is when people get obsessed with knowing “THE TRUTH” about some real or imagined secret, and then they wind up chasing phantoms made of their own confirmation biases.

The most important facts about Gavin Andresen are that he abused his reputation to give Faketoshi instant credibility in the mass media, and also that he supported XT and BCH fork attacks on Bitcoin (and also that he mishandled the “Bitcoin Foundation”, and also...).  These are easily verifiable facts—verifiable without fine parsing of minute details.  It is unnecessary to know why he did it, to assess the damage of what he did.  The “why” is an interesting question in its own right—but the “what” is the important part, and there are no questions there.


A Small Datum

If you believe the dates provided by hearn. I saw no indication of that until many years after its claimed date.

I just noticed a small datum to add to the balance of probabilities, with an eye toward some oddly effective heuristic about happenstance and coincidence.

It was way before that. About 4 month after satoshis last forum post

https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET

From: Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 3:40 PM
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>

[...]

I've moved on to other things.  It's [Bitcoin is] in good hands with Gavin and everyone.

So, this unauthenticated e-mail was allegedly sent by Satoshi to Mike Mr Surveillance & Taint Hearn four days before Gavin Andresen publicly announced his visit to the CIA:

Subject: Gavin will visit the CIA

I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories:  I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community.

If Satoshi actually sent that e-mail, then its timing would raise the question of whether he knew about Gavin’s upcoming announcement.  (I would presume not; but that would mean considerable active deception by Gavin.)  Whereas if Satoshi did not send that e-mail, then the timing would be an awfully big coincidence if it were produced on its alleged date—and an even bigger coincidence, if Hearn cooked it up later and backdated it.

I think that’s interesting for those delving into the details and potential “whys”—however, this thread is more about the “what”.  I request that the discussion be kept more focused there.

[xtraelv]

The similarities are there:

Fake Anastasia claims were made before DNA. DNA ultimately proved it to be a lie.

Fake Satoshi claims were made before chain analysis. Chain analysis ultimately will prove the lie.

Identity of a person is NOT based only on DNA.
It is construct of many things that are connected to life of specific person.

We know almost nothing about life of Satoshi Nakamoto.
A lot more things are known about life of Anastasia.

DNA proves corpse of Anastasia was found
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-mar-11-sci-romanov11-story.html

Fake Anastasia claims proven false by DNA
http://www.legacy.com/news/explore-history/article/anna-anderson-the-great-imposter


Blockchain chain analysis evidence shows fake claims by faketoshi

1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF first MTGox theft address that was claimed by CSW in court documents presented to the Supreme Court of NSW
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5223884.0

[dkbit98]

Blockchain chain analysis evidence shows fake claims by faketoshi

1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF first MTGox theft address that was claimed by CSW in court documents presented to the Supreme Court of NSW
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5223884.0

True, his claims are fake and I agree,
but I ask simple question:
- How can you know exact identity of Satoshi Nakamoto?

You need to know someones identity to say that stated identity is stolen or not.

[nullius]

I think that this is the key point:as for Gavin Andresen—one worth repeating anywhere that his lukewarm semi-“retraction” is brought out (usually followed by a plea to please stop talking about this, for it is embarrassing to Gavin):

This is not a matter of “opinion”.  (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.)  Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact.  Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?”

So no, he shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.

Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored.  That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.

As to Craig Wright, of course, the only question worth addressing is the threshold question of a verifiable signed message from Satoshi.  Gavin’s significance here is that he abused his reputation falsely to boost Faketoshi over that threshold—then later, much equivocated.  He has never come clean about the whole affair—and at this point, after nearly four years of massive, ongoing actual damage caused by his false “verification”, it is long past too late for him, in my opinion.


Moderation note: franky1

*drivel*

Don't think for one second that you can come into a topic like this to twist the narrative.  You will be crucified.  I suggest you go find another topic to troll.

You are one of the ones who got scammed and you are keeping the false narrative alive.

Indeed.  For reference:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53908498.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53908793.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53909145.html


An Unnecessary Condition

You need to know someones identity to say that stated identity is stolen or not.

Not so.  It is not necessary to identify Satoshi to prove by clear and convincing evidence, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, that a given individual is not Satoshi—and moreover, that false claims of Satoshihood are just that.

I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.  I don’t need to identify Satoshi to reach that certainty.