Gavin Andresen calls it a "mistake" to trust CSW

[o_e_l_e_o]

An additional paragraph appeared this morning at the top of a blog post Gavin Andresen wrote back in May 2016 about his meeting with CSW.

Feb 2023: I don’t believe in rewriting history, so I’m going to leave this post up. But in the seven years since I wrote it, a lot has happened, and I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did. I regret getting sucked into the “who is (or isn’t) Satoshi” game, and I refuse to play that game any more.

There has been a lot of discussion over the years about why Andresen never came out and formally denounced CSW, since it beyond any doubt that he is categorically not Satoshi. This is a step in the right direction, but it's a bit weak for my liking. Obviously it was a mistake to ever trust CSW, but Andresen needs to go further and categorically say "Sorry, I was wrong. CSW is obviously not Satoshi."

[1715686428]

1715686428

[1715686428]

1715686428

[1715686428]

1715686428

[1715686428]

1715686428

[1715686428]

1715686428

[BitcoinPanther]

True, recent statement of Gavin Andresen does not deny or oppose the idea of CSW being Satoshi nor support the fact that CSW's is not Satoshi and is a fake.  The statement somehow states that they had some business deal and later he found out that CSW is cheating him.  Gavin Andresen should have clearly stated and put a stand that CSW is cheating people  when CSW is claiming to be Satoshi.  

I agree that it would be a lot stronger to say that CSW is not Satoshi than saying it was a mistake trusting CSW.  Since the statement can branch out anywhere instead of the issue about CSW being fake Satoshi.

[franky1]

GA signed some NDA's before and during the visit with CSW. some he disclosed publicly but..
the logical explanation(my opinion)
.. i believe that GA had some other NDA he did not disclose. which put him into silence for X years, which has possibly expired allowing him to now say more

either way no one trusts CSW. the only fangirls he has are BRIBED/sponsored/blackmailed/contracted into saying positive stuff. even the ones that tweet saying they trust him dont. but they toe their party bus line for greed or fear of loss of income.. not trust

[NeuroticFish]

There has been a lot of discussion over the years about why Andresen never came out and formally denounced CSW, since it beyond any doubt that he is categorically not Satoshi. This is a step in the right direction, but it's a bit weak for my liking. Obviously it was a mistake to ever trust CSW, but Andresen needs to go further and categorically say "Sorry, I was wrong. CSW is obviously not Satoshi."

This is long overdue and I agree that the only reasonable explanation is that he has signed a legal paper and was bound to stay silent.
Still, better late than never, hence I salute this move.

[DooMAD]

Feb 2023: I don’t believe in rewriting history, so I’m going to leave this post up. But in the seven years since I wrote it, a lot has happened, and I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did. I regret getting sucked into the “who is (or isn’t) Satoshi” game, and I refuse to play that game any more.

I'll take it.  Perhaps it could have been more explicit, but it's easy enough to read between the lines and take the inferred meaning.  Pride is probably a factor too.  It's not always easy to admit when someone has made a fool of you.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You can read the (a?) NDA agreement that Gavin signed which was submitted as part of the Hodlonaut trial. It's available on Twitter here: https://nitter.it/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1575785115061432320. There is of course the possibility of a second, still confidential, NDA existing.

I of course agree that everyone with any sense is already in complete agreement that Andresen was fooled by CSW. But this statement may be relevant to any upcoming CSW trials, where he relies heavily on witness testimony, since he is unable to provide any hard evidence of any sort, cryptographic or otherwise.

[franky1]

You can read the (a?) NDA agreement that Gavin signed which was submitted as part of the Hodlonaut trial. It's available on Twitter here: https://nitter.it/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1575785115061432320.

i know and i have. but thats not the point or what i am on about(not that one(pre-visit NDA))..

There is of course the possibility of a second, still confidential, NDA existing.

exactly and thats the point
from the stories said between GA and CSW
GA signed something before getting on plane
GA signed something at the visit before CSW got "assistant to buy a fresh laptop"

and like any good lawyer HR firm would ask. to have another thing signed after event to re-enforce the previous contracts

I of course agree that everyone with any sense is already in complete agreement that Andresen was fooled by CSW. But this statement may be relevant to any upcoming CSW trials, where he relies heavily on witness testimony, since he is unable to provide any hard evidence of any sort, cryptographic or otherwise.

CSW now relies on the ayres buddy witness .. you know the one
"i trust CSW because i spoke with his mom"

[Z-tight]

I am just finding out that Gavin Andresen was in support of Faketoshi being Satoshi the real creator of BTC. I know it has been a very long time, since 2016, and maybe Gavin has now found out all of Faketoshi's lies, but i still think this new additional paragraph doesn't totally dismiss Faketoshi's claims, he only regrets and refuses to be involved anymore in who is Satoshi and who isn't anymore.

I don't know too much about legal matters, but if you have signed something that means you have to stay silent on an issue, what if you later find out that the person actually lied to you, are you still bound to stay silent and will you face legal charges if you decide not to stay silent again?

[Doan9269]

An additional paragraph appeared this morning at the top of a blog post Gavin Andresen wrote back in May 2016 about his meeting with CSW.

Feb 2023: I don’t believe in rewriting history, so I’m going to leave this post up. But in the seven years since I wrote it, a lot has happened, and I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did. I regret getting sucked into the “who is (or isn’t) Satoshi” game, and I refuse to play that game any more.

There has been a lot of discussion over the years about why Andresen never came out and formally denounced CSW, since it beyond any doubt that he is categorically not Satoshi. This is a step in the right direction, but it's a bit weak for my liking. Obviously it was a mistake to ever trust CSW, but Andresen needs to go further and categorically say "Sorry, I was wrong. CSW is obviously not Satoshi."

It will never be too late for others as well to come out and speak up their minds towards Craig Wright, the bad side of him is that he has taken the old and famous relationship he had with great personalities in the past to lure and depict the truth ftom them about the whole thing since he thinks he had a reputation already with them, this gives him more wings to continue the attack when the whole thing started about claiming to be Satoshi, he know they will all support him financially towards winning the case even though he knew from within himself that he lacks every jurisdiction to do so.

Sometimes we found those we trust never to have been the the place of pedigree he left them in the past because they were no more whom we used to know, Gavin Andresen have seen another version of live perspective with Craig Wright and have seen the truth and things behind the veil, when you see an old friend, don't trust them, ask first who they are now, they might take your old relationship as your weakness to entrust in them.

[franky1]

NDA's are a contract not a visit to a surgeon to stitch your mouth
NDA's come with conditions:
compensation (payment for agreement/ payment to say certain things/not say other things)
punishment(usually financial threat if breached)
they can come with deadlines/expiry

seeing as CSW done a NDA in the uk
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-disclosure-agreements/non-disclosure-agreements#what-to-consider
usually NDA last 3-5 years(but its defined by whatever term is signed for in the contract)

so again logic is if GA is now talking. it must have been under 7 years

as for if GA even actually truly believed in the CSW crap...
i personally think it was a 'payment for speech' contract. he was paid to say he believed it and paid to not say it was a lie/fake..
obviously even a non techie guy can see that the games CSW was playing in 2016 were not believable so i dont think GA was fooled.. but paid off, sounds more likely

[jackg]

I am just finding out that Gavin Andresen was in support of Faketoshi being Satoshi the real creator of BTC. I know it has been a very long time, since 2016, and maybe Gavin has now found out all of Faketoshi's lies, but i still think this new additional paragraph doesn't totally dismiss Faketoshi's claims,

I wasn't really taken seriously by the crypto community at the time and they seemed a lot like they didn't care. There might also have been a mod/dev or two on here that knew more about what was going on because discussions didn't seem to gain much traction.

I don't know too much about legal matters, but if you have signed something that means you have to stay silent on an issue, what if you later find out that the person actually lied to you, are you still bound to stay silent and will you face legal charges if you decide not to stay silent again?

This is likely dependent on where the contract was signed, where the contract was enforced and how explicit the contract was. Also considering this might've been potential identity theft on the part of the faketoshis it's possible something like that wasn't valid in Australia to begin with (CSW was from aus iirc).

[Flexystar]

Good, at least someone openly stated their mistake about the involvement in game of who is and who isn’t Satoshi. This should be lesson to all those who keep digging deep down the history and try to impersonate the name of Satoshi.  I think it’s really disrespectful to get started over that conversation. I know there is curiosity since the beginning but if Satoshi never wanted to be visible then why the heck world cares about it. Let him be in piece and enjoy his millions of bitcoins that are in his wallet. There could be sad news about his life, why we should even try to get the matters in our hands. It would have been different if they were present and were open to discuss the bitcoin agenda.

[mendace]

I cannot give a personal assessment on the matter, but I can tell you that the blockchain and cryptography community has examined the evidence presented by Craig Wright regarding his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto and most of the community does not consider it sufficient. Additionally, many experts and members of the community have expressed skepticism about his claims. Thus, Gavin Andresen's position of no longer believing in Craig Wright's claims seems to be in line with the majority of existing opinions in the community.

[Z-tight]

as for if GA even actually truly believed in the CSW crap...
i personally think it was a 'payment for speech' contract. he was paid to say he believed it and paid to not say it was a lie/fake..
obviously even a non techie guy can see that the games CSW was playing in 2016 were not believable so i dont think GA was fooled.. but paid off, sounds more likely

I know every human being has a price, but it sounds hard to believe that someone who worked very close with Satoshi and also helped with the development of BTC was paid to say that Faketoshi was the real Satoshi even when he knew he wasn't. Gavin also gave out BTC to people for free, i know it was in the early days, but he would have so much of it even now; i don't think a payment for speech is most likely.

Also considering this might've been potential identity theft on the part of the faketoshis it's possible something like that wasn't valid in Australia to begin with (CSW was from aus iirc).

Yeah CSW is from Australia. Signing an NDA to not speak on the basis of a potential identity theft should be invalid because it should be a crime in itself, but as far as i know the court hasn't officially proven CSW to be an identity thief, even if all of us and any sane person knows he is one, so maybe that doesn't count.

[franky1]

as for if GA even actually truly believed in the CSW crap...
i personally think it was a 'payment for speech' contract. he was paid to say he believed it and paid to not say it was a lie/fake..
obviously even a non techie guy can see that the games CSW was playing in 2016 were not believable so i dont think GA was fooled.. but paid off, sounds more likely

I know every human being has a price, but it sounds hard to believe that someone who worked very close with Satoshi and also helped with the development of BTC was paid to say that Faketoshi was the real Satoshi even when he knew he wasn't. Gavin also gave out BTC to people for free, i know it was in the early days, but he would have so much of it even now; i don't think a payment for speech is most likely.

back in those early days)(2010-11-12) GA said he didnt want to be lead maintainer for ever and was thinking he may give it 5 years before retiring and such
which also kinda lined up to the events where by it was about time for him to fall on the sword and take a payday exit.

you find that many people when they want to retire early give up their reputation in the role they sat in for a good exit pay or a back hander from a side gig, politicians do it all the time

thats why i think common sense and logic leans more to a back hander pay day/golden retirement handshake as his farewell party exit gift.. more so than believing/being duped

[un_rank]

To put it all in contrast, after one meeting with CSW, it led to a 4 paragraph endorsement of him being Satoshi, six if you count the opening and closing sentence. But with 7 years between that and lots of evidence suggesting that SCW is full of crap and is out to ruin bitcoin, we get a one paragraph which does not debunk that earlier statement, but only mildly suggests it could be wrong.

I would have expected a more defined statement, confirming that CSW is not Satoshi and the earlier statement was made erroneously.
But maybe this would suffice for mow, since CSW has ridden on that earlier endorsement for a long time now.

- Jay -

[dkbit98]

An additional paragraph appeared this morning at the top of a blog post Gavin Andresen wrote back in May 2016 about his meeting with CSW.

Gavin posted this only because many people recently started to post on social media that Faketoshi is still using Gavin old posts everywhere as some kind of ''proof'' that he is the real Satoshi  
Now I guess he finally saw everyone mentioning his name so he decided to update his old post... but he didn't wrote that he made a mistake of thinking CSW is Satoshi, he made a mistake only for trusting him as much as he did.
Game is not over, just Gavin is not playing it anymore... until his new blog post.

[AverageGlabella]

Gavin Andresen has always been someone with integrity but why did it take them so long? You should have known that a lot of people are being tricked by CSW and that is causing harm not only to those people but the greater cryptocurrency community. I like Gavin and he is someone I have looked up to because he was very important in the early development of btc but I wish he acted on this earlier.

[Captain Corporate]

I am not entirely sure why we need Gavin Andresen to call him not satoshi? First of all, to start things with the fact that, who is Gavin Andresen? I have never heard of him before, but I am assuming that he is someone that matters to some people, he is someone who has influence over some people and known by some people. I do not know him, but since there is a topic about him, that means he must be known. But even in that case, isn't it obvious that, me, as someone who has been in crypto for nearly 10 years now, never heard of him, should say something about how unimportant he is? And even if he was somehow important, isn't it better not care about what others say, and realize that dude is not satoshi anyway, so who cares what others say?

[pooya87]

It means nothing if you ask me since it is already too late. It's not like he needed that much time to figure it out! It takes a second to know if someone is lying when they can't provide any kind of proof not this many years. I don't buy the NDA thing either since he could have not-say he is Satoshi in first place!

Something definitely shady is going on behind the scene between Andresen and Wright and in my opinion the only reason why Gavin went back on his words is the fallout between them, possibly Craig scammed him or refused to pay the money he promised Gavin after his support or something similar.

I don’t believe in rewriting history

My ass. You can't rewrite history, specially on the internet that is "written in ink". Nothing is going to wash the following shame from Gavin's forehead:

I believe Craig Steven Wright is the person who invented Bitcoin.

The only important question we should ask is "what was the benefit of supporting a clear scammer in 2016 and what is the benefit in going back on his words today?
Was it money? Position? Government favor? Threat of prosecution by government? Something else?