"Text Analysis Confirms Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto."

[BitcoinFX]

"The snapshot below, taken from a summary sheet I made after the stylometric analysis, demonstrates in no uncertain terms how poorly Craig Wright scored in all key areas. A more professional analysis would no doubt reveal a very similar result."



- https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1322772201590808576

...

"Text Analysis Confirms Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto."
- https://www.ccn.com/text-analysis-confirms-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/

...

"My friend SeekingSatoshi is back. With a bang.

"Based on my findings the chance that Craig [Wright] was the author of Satoshi's emails/posts is absolutely zero." ... "
- https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1322768964057927681
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1322882523110715392

[20kevin20]

Interesting analysis, but I don't think one needs anything else other than a brain to realize it's all about bullshitting on a constant basis in a desperate attempt to earn a name he doesn't deserve.

Over time, with every word he said he only dug his grave deeper and deeper into the ground. A lie can't hold long, especially when you constantly try explaining it as if it was the truth. There comes a time when your BS doesn't make sense anymore. He tried his best, but unfortunately (for him), he lost and only completely destroyed his image in front of all of us. All these new things only further dig his grave deeper but, to me at least, it's a closed case. He's just a pathetic liar.

[BitcoinFX]

Interesting analysis, but I don't think one needs anything else other than a brain to realize it's all about bullshitting on a constant basis in a desperate attempt to earn a name he doesn't deserve.

Over time, with every word he said he only dug his grave deeper and deeper into the ground. A lie can't hold long, especially when you constantly try explaining it as if it was the truth. There comes a time when your BS doesn't make sense anymore. He tried his best, but unfortunately (for him), he lost and only completely destroyed his image in front of all of us. All these new things only further dig his grave deeper but, to me at least, it's a closed case. He's just a pathetic liar.

Indeed. This ^ ...

...snip...

Craig Wright is NOT satoshi nakamoto.

He has not provided any valid cryptographically assured proof, to-date, whatsoever.

He has attempted to falsify cryptographic 'proof' (and other documents) and failed, in a court of law ...

"The Faketoshi Fifteen (Times Two)
Craig Wright’s most epic lies, frauds and forgeries 2013 — 2020"
- https://medium.com/coinmonks/the-faketoshi-fifteen-times-two-76e8060905b4

- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html

...


- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1317195157851279360

...


- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1317203553367318528

...

"Imagine thinking that only Judges can figure this out.

Imagine thinking that Craig Wright would only do this INSIDE a court room. "


- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1318462839233925120

No further questions your honor !

... and This ^ ...

... and yet CSW and the BSV clown show are seemingly left unsanctioned to continue with the failed attempt to 'hijack' the original Bitcoin (BTC) protocol ...

"Corona has now delayed Kleiman v Wright for about a year. New jury trial date April 5, 2021."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1319688944959823877

...

Justice for none !?!

[Mandoy]

Thank you for posting this informative data in this forum. Craig Wright is really a funny person and that he is really making efforts to prove that he is Satoshi Nakamoto and even using false and fake evidences just so he can have a patent on bitcoin. The biq question for me is who is behind Craig Wright and why did he did such things? But luckily anyway he has proven anything and bitcoins future would be terrible if it falls on his hand.

[BitcoinFX]

Do we even need to analyze it? Even quick glance at text written by Satoshi and faketoshi is enough to tell it belongs to different people.
But at very least it'll make the proof thicker.

Yes we do and thicker 'proof' is continually required ...

These BSV asshats are constantly making unsubstantiated claims through 'fake news' outfits ... mixing (some) historical facts with total and utter fiction ... trying to change and/or to create a new historical narrative to fit with the BSV 'commercial' agenda ... it's despicable ...

- hxxps://coingeek.com/bitcoin-white-paper-day/

- hxxps://youtu.be/36MRO2izj6I?t=387

Quote CSW, 6:29 "... I didn't put a lot of detail in any section of the Bitcoin white paper ... "

and continues to speak 'technobabble' in regards to Digital Signatures, without being able to provide any cryptographically valid proof, to-date, whatsoever. Oh the irony! Funny how he seems to always be asking 'others' to do the 'work' for him. Word has it, he can't even code.

They are continuing with legal actions and legal threats against the original Bitcoin (BTC) community ...

- hxxps://coingeek.com/wright-victorious-peter-mccormack-abandons-libel-defence/

...

"Self-Proclaimed Satoshi Craig Wright Files US Copyright Registrations for BTC White Paper" ...
- https://cointelegraph.com/news/self-proclaimed-satoshi-craig-wright-files-us-copyright-registrations-for-btc-white-paper

Excerpt: "Registering a copyright is just filing a form. The Copyright Office does not investigate the validity of the claim; they just register it. Unfortunately there is no official way to challenge a registration. If there are competing claims, the Office will just register all of them."

...

"... "including the original Bitcoin whitepaper"

@CopyrightOffice might be interested in this. Craig Wright filed a false claim on the Bitcoin whitepaper over there last year." ..."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1323155680161923074



 

...

IMHO, where possible, this entire industry must boycott everything and anything BSV. The same applies to BCH and to every other Bitcoin chain fork.

The real satoshi did not want Bitcoin forks ...

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

...snip...

You can read every post that the real satoshi wrote on this forum (which is where some of the text based analysis in the OP is from) here;
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts

...

*Satire*
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The Final Duel (1966 HD)
- https://youtu.be/aJCSNIl2Pls

[Fundamentals Of]

I guess the burden of proof is on Craig Wright. It means the effort should be exerted not to prove that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto but to prove that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Of course it is better to have thick evidences to prove that CSW is indeed not Satoshi, but everything seems to be pointing to that fact already. And, on the contrary, there seems to be no single evidence to prove otherwise. So what is the reason for digging up some more evidences to prove to everybody that CSW is fake?

[BitcoinFX]

Seriously? Did anyone think otherwise? This was obvious from the beginning. Craig is not Satoshi.

Unfortunately, plenty of 'unknowing' BSV supporters do apparently think otherwise.

Newcomers to the 'Bitcoin' space also fall for this "nullity based on a sham".

Exchanges, BSV mining pools etc., are 'profiting' from this charade at the expense of original Bitcoin (BTC).

BSV and BCH are effectively financial derivatives of BTC. They quite literally 'steal' value and market share from the original.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)

SEC enforcement, anyone ?

Again, justice for none!

[NotATether]

It seems that all BSV people can do is troll their userbase about BTC. While Bitcoin developers are making BIPs, the BSV community isn’t doing anything productive with their time.

They are permanently stuck with debating about the 2008 whitepaper while we have advanced far beyond that with things like CoinJoin, LN and Segwit (and the latest feature in the works: Taproot). I don’t see BSV making comparable innovations.

[ChrisPop]

I never thought Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. I can't conceive a mind, that had the vision and the drive to create Bitcoin and all that it represents, is so self-centered and in-search for fame. The bees always come to the honey.. Let's not start this discussion again, though. I am 100% sure that Craig is not Satoshi. It is an interesting analysis, though.

[BrewMaster]

I never thought Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. I can't conceive a mind, that had the vision and the drive to create Bitcoin and all that it represents, is so self-centered and in-search for fame. The bees always come to the honey.. Let's not start this discussion again, though. I am 100% sure that Craig is not Satoshi. It is an interesting analysis, though.

although it is annoying to see this scammers name here every now and then but i think it is a necessary evil because if we who know for a fact that he is a scammer stay silent then the large campaign of misinformation will convince the newcomers otherwise, and that is dangerous thing to let scammers do whatever they want.

[acquafredda]

Do we even need to analyze it? Even quick glance at text written by Satoshi and faketoshi is enough to tell it belongs to different people.
But at very least it'll make the proof thicker.

Yes we do and thicker 'proof' is continually required ...
...

IMHO, where possible, this entire industry must boycott everything and anything BSV. The same applies to BCH and to every other Bitcoin chain fork.

The real satoshi did not want Bitcoin forks ...

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

...snip...

You can read every post that the real satoshi wrote on this forum (which is where some of the text based analysis in the OP is from) here;
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts

Great job BitcoinFX! I agree these clown have already cause too much damage to bitcoin.
 I am a nobody but I never supported/used BCH/BSV and I always discouraged people who asked me to even think to getting any close to those projects. As you wrote, we now need to wait April 2021: that is very annoying.

[electronicash]

i think craig already realized that no one will ever believe him which is why he already had stopped appearing on media. this text analysis i guess will push him down under.

that twitter link belongs to a user whos dedicated to look for satoshi. i'm curious if it will really point him to a person or probably a user in the forum that passed the analysis. although it won't be 100% but a probability is going to be interesting.  

[mk4]

Man, like come on, it's 2020 and we're still talking about this irrelevant dude? It's not like we need extra proof to confirm that he isn't the real Satoshi.

[carlfebz2]

Man, like come on, it's 2020 and we're still talking about this irrelevant dude? It's not like we need extra proof to confirm that he isn't the real Satoshi.

Expect on 2021 which this again to be discussed. Its not really that needed for more analysis yet this had been prove out or pretty obvious that CW isnt satoshi
but i do agree on what said above that this do really make those proof thicker but it isnt really that needed actually.

[sheenshane]

Interesting to know the analysis which is results all negative but isn't necessary to discuss especially appearing the Bitcoin hater and impersonator of real Satoshi.

As always Craig Wright won't stop claiming himself as Satoshi Nakamoto because he still hopes that one of these days someone will believe in him but I'm pretty sure that day will not come any more for lots of evidence are now being laid in the court that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto.  Right now what I'm thinking is why Craig Wright keeps on claiming this, because I know for a fact that if there is smoke then there is fire, so chances are there are still reasons behind for doing this.  I don't think it is only because of the fame since he is now for claiming to be Satoshi yet never he was able to prove it.

[BitcoinFX]

Perhaps we could get a body language expert to analyze this ...

- https://youtu.be/xVeoixuHQUw?t=1530



...

"Chillax man! ... Best of luck with decentralized on-chain yottabyte data storage and all that law stuff ... geez!" - SWIM

ROTFLSHMSFOAIDMT  

[BTCappu]

Meehn are we all not already tired of talking about this Craig Wright, I thought everybody has forgotten about this guy, why bringing him up now lolz? Even without all these proof of a thing, we all are aware that he’s not the real Satoshi.

There has already been so many things to disprove his claims of being the real Satoshi Nakamoto and we have all got it, and the court has also said he’s not the one and he will likely be punished for it (if not already). Many of them have claimed to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto, this Craig Wright is not the only one, they don’t even have access to the wallet that stores Satoshi's coins.

[hatshepsut93]

Even if text analysis, which might fundamentally not be very reliable, said that CWS is Satoshi, I still wouldn't believe it, because the evidence against it is just overwhelming - no keys, acting against Bitcoin's interests all the time, saying things that Satoshi would never say, like that Bitcoin is bad because it's used by criminals, his lack of actual technical knowledge. If some cultists still believe that CWS is Satoshi, this text analysis evidence is not going to change it.

[yazher]

I don't need to have this analysis to know that he was a crook. from the first glance, you will know he was just blabbering about rubbish claiming about the person he was not. But hey, some people actually believe him but those are only from those who follow him maybe got some payment or false promises from him. The least we can do is expose this crook every time he gives some claim about his identity cause he is just completely fake.

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

This 'evidence' just shows that no way CSW could be Satoshi as it was proven in court that he is not. Yeah, we shouldn't give him attention here, but it's better that from time to time we have this kind of thread so that newbies here will really know what kind of fraud and self centered CSW is. Not just CSW but those individuals who claim that they are Satoshi.