Who is the brain of Craig S. Wright's crusade?

[AGD]

CSW might be smart enough to brabble some incoherent technical nonsense, but is he really intelligent enough to trick the (at that time) 2nd important developer of Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen) with a sleight like he did in London?

I don't believe that. Maybe there is somebody out there who did the planning and CSW was just the guy in the front?

Who were CSWs early helpers? I remember there were some people (I will add their names later) who introduced CSW at a bitcoin meeting and the 'rumour' was spreading, that this guy was Satoshi Nakamoto, but is there more info on how they came up with the idea to invite him and who was supporting him from early on?


Some names and stories:

Michele Seven (BitcoinBelle)

https://hackernoon.com/bitcoin-belles-ccme-the-woman-who-brought-you-craig-satoshi-wright-strikes-again-f74e4ef129a4

As one of the co-hosts on the show, she was introduced to Bitcoin by Gavin Andresen who had begun to promote Satoshi Nakamoto’s fledgling project to libertarian activists.

Here is a very quick rundown (for those of you that did not have the pleasure of being around in 2015) of the “version of events” that most people seem to believe:

    Craig contacts Bitcoin Belle in early 2015. Convinces her that he is Satoshi. The two begin a relationship of sorts.
    Bitcoin Belle introduces Craig to a bunch of other influencers and uses her own credibility in the space to get him onto panels and conferences. People like John Matonis, Roger Ver and Gavin Andresen believe Craig is Satoshi and risk their reputations to support him.
    Craig drops Bitcoin Belle once he has enough contacts and introductions. The two stop speaking until Bitcoin Belle arranges a panel event later that year with a host of big names including Nick Szabo, who until that point had not made a public appearance in forever.
    Craig takes the bait, accepts a place on the panel but does not use the conference to announce himself as Satoshi. Bitcoin Belle does not press further with her questions (perhaps still believing he might be Satoshi) and Nick Szabo only has a limited tussle with Craig much to Bitcoin Belle’s chagrin.
    Craig Wright once he has seduced enough of the community eventually announces himself as Satoshi … but as mentioned earlier, the proof he provides is found to be not sufficient and as a result the community turns on him and Bitcoin Belle for facilitating his introduction.

[1715112672]

1715112672

[1715112672]

1715112672

[1715112672]

1715112672

[1715112672]

1715112672

[1715112672]

1715112672

[dkbit98]

Gavin Andresen was the one who initially supported him and he was communicating with him, and we know that he later worked with Roger Ver aka MemoryDealers.
Wired and Gizmodo started spreading this bs propaganda circus back in 2015, but few years later they created new article claiming he might be a hoaxer.

I also believe there is someone else behind the scenes who was and still is helping him to keep up with this show for the masses.

This was one of the first posts about him in Bitcointalk forum:
You, Me, and BTC: YOUR Liberty + Bitcoin Podcast! E103: PGP Key or GTFO

[gmaxwell]

CSW might be smart enough to brabble some incoherent technical nonsense, but is he really intelligent enough to trick the (at that time) 2nd important developer of Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen) with a sleight like he did in London?

I don't believe that. Maybe there is somebody out there who did the planning and CSW was just the guy in the front?

Dunno why you'd assume it was hard.

Turns out Andresen had a contract with Wright-- it's one of the pieces of evidence in the florida trial, but Wright is trying to get it suppressed.   It will be interesting to find out what it says.

[AGD]

CSW might be smart enough to brabble some incoherent technical nonsense, but is he really intelligent enough to trick the (at that time) 2nd important developer of Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen) with a sleight like he did in London?

I don't believe that. Maybe there is somebody out there who did the planning and CSW was just the guy in the front?

Dunno why you'd assume it was hard.

Turns out Andresen had a contract with Wright-- it's one of the pieces of evidence in the florida trial, but Wright is trying to get it suppressed.   It will be interesting to find out what it says.

Thanks Greg, but you sure know why I'd assume it was hard to trick Gavin. We already had some discussions about this topic. I never read about that contract you are talking about and it is absolute news to me and also to many others interested in this topic. I guess you found it somewhere in the file jungle of this trial. Mind to direct link to the source file?

[gmaxwell]

I guess you found it somewhere in the file jungle of this trial. Mind to direct link to the source file?

Yeah, shame on me for being lazy and not linking it.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.647.1.pdf   Items 319, 341.

Hopefully the communication between Wright and Andresen gets made public.

Kinda crazy that Wright is objecting to it on grounds of it being inauthentic, among other things.

[suzanne5223]

Thank you gmaxwell for providing the contract information. Reading what you and dkbit98 said about the relationship between the three wild cat I think it could be the plan between them (Gavin, Ver and Craig) just to play with the mind of crypto currency enthusiast maybe they will succeed. Besides, Ver once make a statement this year that "I cant believe some people still think BTC is Bitcoin"  so it loom like a group plan and the last time I check Gavin is the only one I know that could have the knowledge to be yhe brain of Craig.

[AGD]

I guess you found it somewhere in the file jungle of this trial. Mind to direct link to the source file?

Yeah, shame on me for being lazy and not linking it.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.647.1.pdf   Items 319, 341.

Hopefully the communication between Wright and Andresen gets made public.

Kinda crazy that Wright is objecting to it on grounds of it being inauthentic, among other things.

Thanks! This S. Matthews guy is this one, right? https://www.taal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Stephen-Matthews-TAAL.jpg
At least there seems to be a decent group of people with the same agenda, which makes secret hiding difficult in long term. One day they'll tear each other to pieces and we will know more. Have a nice weekend everyone and don't forget to change your clothes.

[malevolent]

CSW might be smart enough to brabble some incoherent technical nonsense, but is he really intelligent enough to trick the (at that time) 2nd important developer of Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen) with a sleight like he did in London?

There is a possibility that either CSW or one of his associates were able to hack/take over Satoshi's email accounts and use the info to fool Gavin by referencing the messages the two exchanged in the past.

[gmaxwell]

There is a possibility that either CSW or one of his associates were able to hack/take over Satoshi's email accounts and use the info to fool Gavin by referencing the messages the two exchanged in the past.

I've considered that-- esp since we know the account was compromised at one point, but if that happened you would have expected gavin to say that Wright knew about that stuff and AFAIK he never did.

One thing people don't know is that the idiots at the bitcoin foundation named 'satoshi' a board member (without his consent, obviously) and as a result copied the satoshi mailbox on all their board communication.  So perhaps there was an opportunity for a hacker to exploit that information without directly showing that they were aware of it----

At least three BCF board members were bamboozled by (or complicit with) wright, now this might be because BCF's composition was unusually rich in idiots and scoundrels but it could also be because after monitoring years of their presumed private communication wright knew exactly which buttons to press for each person and was able to hack their confidence by echoing their own opinions back to them.

[AGD]

CSW might be smart enough to brabble some incoherent technical nonsense, but is he really intelligent enough to trick the (at that time) 2nd important developer of Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen) with a sleight like he did in London?

There is a possibility that either CSW or one of his associates were able to hack/take over Satoshi's email accounts and use the info to fool Gavin by referencing the messages the two exchanged in the past.

Not sure if CSW would write the message 'Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.' to @Theymos if he wanted everybody to believe that Satoshi is back. More possible that CSW (or one of his associates) bought the access to Satoshis emails later.

I've considered that-- esp since we know the account was compromised at one point, but if that happened you would have expected gavin to say that Wright knew about that stuff and AFAIK he never did.

One thing people don't know is that the idiots at the bitcoin foundation named 'satoshi' a board member (without his consent, obviously) and as a result copied the satoshi mailbox on all their board communication.  So perhaps there was an opportunity for a hacker to exploit that information without directly showing that they were aware of it----

At least three BCF board members were bamboozled by (or complicit with) wright, now this might be because BCF's composition was unusually rich in idiots and scoundrels but it could also be because after monitoring years of their presumed private communication wright knew exactly which buttons to press for each person and was able to hack their confidence by echoing their own opinions back to them.

Which mailbox are you talking about? You mean the gmx account? So you say at least one of the BCF board members had full access to Satoshis gmx mailbox, just by naming him a board member and he posted emails from this account on their internal board communication?

Thank you gmaxwell for providing the contract information. Reading what you and dkbit98 said about the relationship between the three wild cat I think it could be the plan between them (Gavin, Ver and Craig) just to play with the mind of crypto currency enthusiast maybe they will succeed. Besides, Ver once make a statement this year that "I cant believe some people still think BTC is Bitcoin"  so it loom like a group plan and the last time I check Gavin is the only one I know that could have the knowledge to be yhe brain of Craig.

I would think that Gavin is much smarter. I assume, he knows that claiming random addresses could be a problem and I assume he knows how signing a message with a Bitcoin private key works. If he was the brain behind this plot, he would choose different 'attack vectors'
I would be amazed if Gavin was part of the gang from the start. He must've had strong reasons to risk his image and position in the Bitcoin world.

[AGD]

I guess you found it somewhere in the file jungle of this trial. Mind to direct link to the source file?

Yeah, shame on me for being lazy and not linking it.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.647.1.pdf   Items 319, 341.

Hopefully the communication between Wright and Andresen gets made public.

Kinda crazy that Wright is objecting to it on grounds of it being inauthentic, among other things.

What could be the content of this contract? Payment to Gavin for supporting the story or maybe the revelation of something that would compromise Gavin? Does somebody else know the content? What could happen if the contract was broken by one party?
Interesting ...
I would pay a good price for a proven and authentic copy of that communication. Not to do something with it, but only to know.

[malevolent]

CSW might be smart enough to brabble some incoherent technical nonsense, but is he really intelligent enough to trick the (at that time) 2nd important developer of Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen) with a sleight like he did in London?

There is a possibility that either CSW or one of his associates were able to hack/take over Satoshi's email accounts and use the info to fool Gavin by referencing the messages the two exchanged in the past.

Not sure if CSW would write the message 'Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.' to @Theymos if he wanted everybody to believe that Satoshi is back. More possible that CSW (or one of his associates) bought the access to Satoshis emails later.

No, that would clearly mean another change of ownership, so they could have bought it, hacked it, socially-engineered customer support or used other means to get ahold of the email account.

OTOH, wouldn't Satoshi periodically delete emails anyway if he was really privacy-conscious?

[AGD]

CSW might be smart enough to brabble some incoherent technical nonsense, but is he really intelligent enough to trick the (at that time) 2nd important developer of Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen) with a sleight like he did in London?

There is a possibility that either CSW or one of his associates were able to hack/take over Satoshi's email accounts and use the info to fool Gavin by referencing the messages the two exchanged in the past.

Not sure if CSW would write the message 'Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.' to @Theymos if he wanted everybody to believe that Satoshi is back. More possible that CSW (or one of his associates) bought the access to Satoshis emails later.

No, that would clearly mean another change of ownership, so they could have bought it, hacked it, socially-engineered customer support or used other means to get ahold of the email account.

OTOH, wouldn't Satoshi periodically delete emails anyway if he was really privacy-conscious?

Maybe he did this until the time when he disappeared.

[jethro777]

It seems the intention is to bog people down in legal fees rather than having any legitimate claims. I have not seen him try to enforce patent rights, which I see he has got some US ones issued. I see he is trolling people with the copyright claims already on the White Paper. Some of this stuff does not seem novel.

Here are some method patent Craig now owns:
US1071533
Claim 1: A computer implemented method of encrypting data at an electronic device (S), the electronic device being associated with a key device (C), wherein the electronic device is further associated with a first asymmetric cryptography pair having a first electronic device private key (V1S) and a first electronic device public key (P1S), and the key device is associated with a second asymmetric cryptography pair having a first key device private key (V1C) and a first key device public key (P1C); the method comprising:
determining, at the electronic device, a deterministic key (DK);
receiving, at the electronic device, the first key device public key (P1C) from the key device;
determining, at the electronic device, a second electronic device private key (V2S) based on at least the first electronic device private key (V1S) and the deterministic key (DK), and
determining, at the electronic device, a second key device public key (P2C) based on at least the first key device public key (P1C) and the deterministic key (DK);
determining a secret based on at least the second electronic device private key (V2S) and the second key device public key (P2C);
encrypting the data at the electronic device using the determined secret or an encryption key that is based on the determined secret; and
sending information indicative of the deterministic key (DK) to the key device where the information can be stored.

US10659223
Claim 1:A computer-implemented method of controlling access to a resource, the method comprising:
    splitting a verification element into a plurality of shares;
    determining a common secret at two or more nodes in a network; and
    using the common secret to transmit at least one share of the verification element between the two or more nodes, wherein: the common secret is determined by first (C) and second (S) nodes in the network, wherein the first node (C) is associated with a first asymmetric cryptography pair having a first node master private key (V1C) and a first node master public key (P1C), and the second node (S) is associated with a second asymmetric cryptography pair having a second node master private key (V1S) and a second node master public key (P1S); and wherein the method further comprises: determining a first node second private key (V2C) based on at least the first node master private key (V1C) and a Generator Value (GV); determining a second node second public key (P2S) based on at least the second node master public key (P1S) and the Generator Value (GV); and determining the common secret (CS) based on the first node second private key (V2C) and the second node second public key (P2S), wherein the second node (S) has the same common secret (S) based on a first node second public key (P2S) and a second node second private key (V2S), wherein: the first node second public key (P2C) is based on at least the first node master public key (P1C) and the Generator Value (GV); and the second node second private key (V2S) is based on at least the second node master private key (V1S) and the Generator Value (GV).

US10579779
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method of verifying integrity of a computer software for installation using a distributed hash table and a peer-to-peer distributed ledger, the method comprising:
    determining a metadata (M) associated with a transaction record stored on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger;
    determining an indication of an entry stored on the distributed hash table from the metadata (M);
    determining a third hash value (H3) based on the computer software;
    determining a fourth hash value (H4) from the entry on the distributed hash table;
    comparing the third hash value (H3) and the fourth hash value (H4); and
    verifying the integrity of the computer software based on the comparing of the third hash value (H3) and the fourth hash value (H4).

I am not sure on Copyrights, but in the case of Patents it is actually quite common to get them "thrown out". The simplest way probably, in this case, is to show prior art existed on any of the said subject matter. Likewise, something that is already in the public domain could also invalidate a patent. He has gotten quite a few granted.

[DeathAngel]

I don’t think for one second Gavin believed CW was/is Satoshi. CW & Ayre probably paid Gavin to say he believed CW to be Satoshi. It’s amazing what money can make people do, abandon all principles. I reckon Gavin took a bribe for sure.

[Sterbens]

The players behind the scenes will be a question mark, and Gavin Andresen is the key to opening the blinds. but we all know that nothing can penetrate how the information was leaked. Regardless of who is trying to be the brains of bad ideas have just been tricked to big impact until now.
and to clarify all of these scams, Wright and Andresen had to open their voices in public. and we also need to know for sure.

[androyster]

As the World Turns.

[AGD]

I have some experience in non-traditional intelligence networks and financial investigations.

I also joined Liberty Dollar and Freedom Force International in 1999.  I later worked with the Denver RCO and Dallas RCO.  The Denver RCO also joined Liberty Dollar when he was young and met G. Edward Griffin.

I was involved in alternative currencies for years before bitcoin and later in libertarian circles in Colorado.  I discussed bitcoin-like ideas in early 2008 with people affiliated with the Sovereign Individual (1997) book.

In 2005, I created a website called UnitedElite.net where I promoted 5 steps to practical globalization.  This site was published in a question I sent to Thomas PM Barnett's newsletter in May 2005, which is widely read by the Intelligence Community-

http://web.archive.org/web/20050528005454/http://unitedelite.net/globalization.html

The 5th step: "Evolve the banking system to a global currency with intrinsic value and with individual economic value in the respective country."  

In January 2008, I met an interesting Japanese man at an ice cream social I was hosting for a Ron Paul campaign event in Colorado.  His friend and him were very into the Sovereign Individual.  And his friend had an interesting and radical view of consciousness.  A few months later, the Japanese guy read a blog I wrote on global currency in 2007 and emailed me asking me for detailed answers on "what is money" and other interesting questions.

He is the one who got me thinking about the issuance of currencies.  He was skeptical of gold and instead said the global currency should be volatile to showcase the threats from collectivist forces.  He also basically predicted decentralized finance and individual currencies.  But he said it would be perhaps a few hundred years before individuals would be able to issue their own currencies.  To be clear, we never discussed cryptographic-based currencies.


Before I continue, please read Gün's great article below.

Logical Fallacies in the Hunt for Satoshi by Emin Gün Sirer 5/4/16 https://hackingdistributed.com/2016/05/04/logical-fallacies-hunt-satoshi

The most likely scenario is that the BitCoin project emerged from a NSA/SAD project.  The purpose of the project has nothing to do with finance, banks, currencies or surveillance.  It has to do with gauge symmetries.

A potential reason for Joseph Vaughn Perline's statements and Gavin Andresen's endorsement is because they have been lied to by credible people with an ulterior motive.  Or they think they're aware of a 'secret program' involving bitcoin and the Intelligence Community.  But whatever information or program they think existed, is false.

As ridiculous as it sounds, the way Craig Wright talks is very much like a 'plausible denial intelligence asset'.  Or otherwise, a bombastic egotistical person who has a friend that works for an intelligence agency.  The intelligence agency can provoke the bombastic personality via other channels, and get them to misrepresent facts or disclose classified information, in a chaotic but completely independent way.

Craig Wright talking about NSA, intelligence and Ross Ulbricht  4/27/2019 https://streamable.com/9y4maa Craig Wright: Mentions Ross Ulbricht then says: "Unless you have the conspiracy theory that the government and the banks are conspiring to make me Satoshi.  Never know, that will come next, it's a CIA plot, [more seriously] I mean there's maybe a SAD group, Special Activities Division, it's a SAD group, just one Satoshi yeah, haha" https://streamable.com/642fnh

Craig Wright had no involvement in bitcoin or the Satoshi Nakamoto group.  Craig and David Kleiman's early knowledge of bitcoin was random luck-

https://twitter.com/jimmy007forsure/status/1141305547158724608

So who is Satoshi Nakamoto?  Who wrote the whitepaper, the emails and the posts?

And if bitcoin is a project of the Special Activities Center (SAC/SAD), what's the reason?

Interesting read. Why didn't you use your original account to post this?

[AGD]

I don't have another account.  Maybe one from 2011 but I can't remember the username.  Who do you think I am?

I worked on alternative currencies from 2007-2009 with cryptoanarchist and a famous bitcoin person who owns a jet -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=14775

In 2009, I went to Salt Lake City to visit a mine with cryptoanarchist and for the owner of Mulligan Mint (the Dallas RCO).  There I met a person who told me something related to gauge symmetries.

From Lex Fridman's podcast with Eric Weinstein, gauge symmetries and bitcoin 2/22/21-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifX_JnBfxTY&t=7411s

In March 2008, I responded to my mysterious Japanese friend's questions about what is the ideal money.  I explained standard philosophies, then I mentioned gauge symmetries. 

I just assumed by your writing that you are interested in Bitcoin for a longer time, than your date of registration on this forum might suggest. A big part of your posting is looking more like a self promotion, than a straight contribution to this CSW topic.
So you want to say, you believe that this

mysterious Japanese friend

was probably Satoshi Nakamoto asking you for help?

[AGD]

[removed]

Sorry dude. Your bs will stay here forever

I don't have another account.  Maybe one from 2011 but I can't remember the username.  Who do you think I am?

I worked on alternative currencies from 2007-2009 with cryptoanarchist and a famous bitcoin person who owns a jet -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=14775

In 2009, I went to Salt Lake City to visit a mine with cryptoanarchist and for the owner of Mulligan Mint (the Dallas RCO).  There I met a person who told me something related to gauge symmetries.

From Lex Fridman's podcast with Eric Weinstein, gauge symmetries and bitcoin 2/22/21-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifX_JnBfxTY&t=7411s

In March 2008, I responded to my mysterious Japanese friend's questions about what is the ideal money.  I explained standard philosophies, then I mentioned gauge symmetries. 

I just assumed by your writing that you are interested in Bitcoin for a longer time, than your date of registration on this forum might suggest. A big part of your posting is looking more like a self promotion, than a straight contribution to this CSW topic.
So you want to say, you believe that this

mysterious Japanese friend

was probably Satoshi Nakamoto asking you for help?

[TheGreatPython]

She made a mistake by accepting that he’s the real Satoshi Nakamoto without asking for enough proof that shows that he is what he claims to be. Things like this can get one into problems they know nothing and it can cause the community to hate her for doing such a thing, there are already lots of people who don’t like Craig White for playing such a foolish game with the cryptocurrency community, so when they get to know stories ,they are going to also despise those who started this lie by first introducing CSW and giving him the opportunity to make such a false claims about being the real Satoshi Nakamoto.

We have seen a lot of people wo have claimed to be the real Satoshi and none of them has been able to prove that they are really what they claim to be, just bunch of criminals trying to take credit for a work that they didn’t do.