Well, he either is Satoshi, or a genius conman. I would love for him to be Satoshi, it would be a great story. It's also ridiculous that people think they would be able to derive the personality of someone from a paper he wrote.
Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
221–230 of 289 posts
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#222Reposting my other comment: I think Wright is just a smooth-talking conman with some crypto experience. I'm betting he met Gavin and other (unfortunately, merely "supposed" at this point...) experts in person, talked shop for a while, then took out his laptop and staged verifying the signature of blocks 1 and 9 with dummy commands. (Edit: Gavin actually claimed it was a clean computer, not one that Wright brought. Di…
> information that allows us to go through the verification process independently was provided too late for us to do so fully "Too late" ? They are in charge of their publication schedule, I believe. The economist is a very weak publication. Anyone taking a lead from them on economics should think about how poor the above statement is and wonder about their rigor in other areas.
Most articles are written for their hard-copy weekly publication, which needs to be finalized and sent to the printers on Thursdays (I don't know what time nor which timezone) to make it to their customers' houses by Saturday.
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#223Reposting my other comment: I think Wright is just a smooth-talking conman with some crypto experience. I'm betting he met Gavin and other (unfortunately, merely "supposed" at this point...) experts in person, talked shop for a while, then took out his laptop and staged verifying the signature of blocks 1 and 9 with dummy commands. (Edit: Gavin actually claimed it was a clean computer, not one that Wright brought. Di…
[deleted]
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#224This guy > http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac... 1. Contradicts himself, privacy vs brokering a deal with major media outlets for a story. 2. Faking LinkedIn experience & degrees. 3. Associates believe he is 'crazy' and a 'conman' 4. Failed the writing syntax test comparing his multiple published works to the original posts and bitcoin paper and eventually... 5. ...Shifting blame or holes in…
Don't judge people by their looks when their actions speak far louder.
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think Wright is just a smooth-talking conman with some crypto experience. I'm betting he met Gavin and other (unfortunately, merely "supposed" at this point...) experts in person, talked shop for a while, then took out his laptop and staged verifying the signature of blocks 1 and 9 with dummy commands. I don't believe that anybody with the most basic understanding of cryptography would fall for that. I don't thin…
Note that the genesis block is block _#0_, not block #1 When Bitcoin was publicly released, only the genesis block existed, so every block after that point could have been mined by anyone.
Block #0 has a timestamp of 2009-01-03 18:15:05
Block #1 has a timestamp of 2009-01-09 02:54:25
So, does this mean there were 6 days separating the first block in the chain and the first block to be mined?
https://blockchain.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e...
https://blockchain.info/block/00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f41...
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#226I don't believe this for a second - and i'm more interested in figuring out how he duped two Bitcoin developers and some of the most notable news outlets in the world. When the link to Wright was first reported in Wired[0] and Gizmodo[1], after letting the news sink in for a day it was apparent that the evidence trail was an elaborate ruse. I don't know if Wright leaked the hack to the media (I think it was more like…
For me the Devil is in the behavior. Why would Satoshi go about proving his existence and identity is such a convoluted matter? Simply signing the genesis with a message and posting it pretty much anywhere (bitcointalk, /r/bitcoin, here) for people to verify is all it takes. Not a rambling blot posts full of screenshots and some back-alley interview. This is exactly the kind of 'slight of hand' that a conman utilizes…
Didn't Satoshi also sign his earliest messages with a PGP key? If this guy's really Satoshi, couldn't he just sign a new message stating so with that same private key?
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comment from Gavin Andresen on reddit: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_pl... But it could be that his account is compromised.
His statement sounds fishy: "I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement)." But also from reddit: "Evidence that Craig Wright is not Satoshi: he doesn't understand selfish mining" https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hfyoo/evidence_th...
Not to mention the slight of hand with "signature" and "signiture" http://i.imgur.com/IPDPXZm.png
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#228I don't believe this for a second - and i'm more interested in figuring out how he duped two Bitcoin developers and some of the most notable news outlets in the world. When the link to Wright was first reported in Wired[0] and Gizmodo[1], after letting the news sink in for a day it was apparent that the evidence trail was an elaborate ruse. I don't know if Wright leaked the hack to the media (I think it was more like…
Interesting evidence perhaps supporting your claim - the Wikipedia page for Nakamoto has been edited heavily and subsequently blocked in the last 24 hours by an ip address pointing to Wright, Australia, the location of Charles Stuart University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/180.216....
I don't know how to go any deeper than that, and I wouldn't call it a smoking gun, but I just think it's humorous to think of such a person frantically editing Wikipedia to try to temporarily change what the world accepts as truth. Wright is listed as a PhD student at Charles Stuart University here:
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#229I don't believe this for a second - and i'm more interested in figuring out how he duped two Bitcoin developers and some of the most notable news outlets in the world. When the link to Wright was first reported in Wired[0] and Gizmodo[1], after letting the news sink in for a day it was apparent that the evidence trail was an elaborate ruse. I don't know if Wright leaked the hack to the media (I think it was more like…
As soon as I saw GQ was one of the media he personally revealed his story to, my skepticism went through the roof. GQ (Gentlemen's Quarterly) is a magazine for image/fashion/style purposes, not tech breakthroughs.
Craig Wright seems to be wanting the fame, in a narcissistic way... That is the only reason I can imagine including GQ. Any other reasons for including such a media outlet?
Re: Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto
#230That looks like an extremely elaborated way to make a claim that could normally be done in a few lines.
And even if the claim would require a long explanation, for instance if Satoshi lost or destroyed the keys for the first few blocks, or the passwords to his accounts on several forums where he used to write, there would be no need for him to do this explanation himself. The burden of the proof his on him, but not the explanation of the proof.