Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I’m Sorry

drcraigwright.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: I’m Sorry

#141

Post by woodman »

michael2l wrote: post #133

It's amazing to me how everyone is drinking the koolaid here on him being a fraud. I really don't think Gavin got duped. And I'm pretty sure they had enough private email discussions over the years that there were things they discussed/shared privately over those years that could be used as a reference point for Gavin to be sure he was talking to the same person. People are more willing to believe that Gavin was hack…

> Why talk about the negotiations with Australian tax authorities when those authorities could very easily come and say that he was lying.

Like he did with the unearned degrees, the nonexistent business partnerships, and key signing slight of hand?

Re: I’m Sorry

#142

Post by vizzah »

michael2l wrote: post #133

It's amazing to me how everyone is drinking the koolaid here on him being a fraud. I really don't think Gavin got duped. And I'm pretty sure they had enough private email discussions over the years that there were things they discussed/shared privately over those years that could be used as a reference point for Gavin to be sure he was talking to the same person. People are more willing to believe that Gavin was hack…

Based on your considerations, if it were true, he wouldn't need to write such a confusing post for coming out and use fake block-9 signature.

Re: I’m Sorry

#143

Post by justsaysmthng »

nyolfen wrote: post #60
justsaysmthng wrote: post #48

I believe the guy is Satoshi. People were expecting the next Jesus Christ and now everyone's so disappointed that "Satoshi" is just an average geek with human weaknesses - not the messiah everyone expected. Had he started a Unicorn startup, nobody would have even thought to question it, but now that the myth of Satoshi has been blown to astronomic proportions, people refuse to believe that their guru is just a "simpl…

Look at discussions about Wright from earlier this week. He has an established reputation as a scam artist.

Too much noise - all of them opinions and speculation...too many emotions.

The fact that Gavin Andersen (and others?) met him and talked to him and then said that he is "the father of Bitcoin"... means that either Wright is a very good con artist, good enough to convince the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, or he is the real deal.

I've also watched the interview... if he is a con artist then he is also a very good actor too.. to me Wright looked like a person in deep emotional turmoil.

Compatible with what one would experience if he were holding the private key to billions of $ worth of bitcoin, while the public were pushing him to use it.

Re: I’m Sorry

#144

Post by kilre »

daturkel wrote: post #2

The home page of http://www.drcraigwright.net/ currently just displays this image. Linked straight to it so that it wouldn't get flagged as a duplicate submission. edit: Here's a mirror of the image, in case it comes down: http://i.imgur.com/7lhU0mr.jpg And here's the OCR'd text: I'm Sorry. I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of…

Note the rate he begins sentences with I.

Re: I’m Sorry

#145

Post by vph »

dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

>One speculation is that Wright was able to ...

Apparently, he was able to prove, but did not allow others to keep copies of the evidence. At best, you can suspect. But how can you conclude so strongly that this was a "scam"?

Re: I’m Sorry

#147

Post by biswaroop »

Geekette wrote: post #103

As I said on the other related thread[1]: Given his history as a prolific liar, I find his post to be utter bullshit. Note how he's still lying about things he was caught at: "When the rumours began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false". NO - it was established (with confirmation from the schools in question) that he lied about having a PhD from Charles Stuart U. an…

Serious question, but why are we all so serious? Maybe he's a pathological liar; maybe he wants fame; maybe he's just a conman. Does the bitcoin or tech community gain something from hoping for his arrest?

Re: I’m Sorry

#148

Post by chrisfosterelli »

vph wrote: post #145
dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

>One speculation is that Wright was able to ... Apparently, he was able to prove, but did not allow others to keep copies of the evidence. At best, you can suspect. But how can you conclude so strongly that this was a "scam"?

The argument is that there is no legitimate reason for Wright to not allow them to keep copies of the proof, aside from the reason that the hardware/software he provided was a tampered version and the proof would not actually work on any machine not provided by him.

Re: I’m Sorry

#149

Post by nikcub »

michael2l wrote: post #133

It's amazing to me how everyone is drinking the koolaid here on him being a fraud. I really don't think Gavin got duped. And I'm pretty sure they had enough private email discussions over the years that there were things they discussed/shared privately over those years that could be used as a reference point for Gavin to be sure he was talking to the same person. People are more willing to believe that Gavin was hack…

> What's the end game? Where's the pile of money he's after?

He made multiple tax refund claims to the Australian authorities - including one for $54 million as part of a program where 45% of each dollar invested into R&D are refunded. Another was a $3.5 million refund on sales tax.

The funding source in these transactions were Bitcoin. It adds up to over $150 million invested. The tax authorities asked Wright where this money came from, he told them in an interview that he was Satoshi Nakamoto.

I go through some of this in a blog post:

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nak...

His explanation didn't work, they rejected the claim and penalized him for another and were investigating him further. He fled to London.

Why he continued to press on with the Nakamoto identity nobody knows - but based on character assessments from multiple people I know who have worked with him and know him well he is a person who strives for recognition and has a history of deception (see his LinkedIn profile).

It was 2 years ago that he started showing up at Bitcoin conferences and left strong hints that he was Satoshi - he wanted people to come to this conclusion on their own (and some did). Watch these videos from a conference in Australia:

https://vimeo.com/149035662

https://vimeo.com/149115042

(specifically skip to 9:30 in part 2)

Also see this panel discussion, which is now well-known:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE

Re: I’m Sorry

#150

Post by Pitarou »

vph wrote: post #145
dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

>One speculation is that Wright was able to ... Apparently, he was able to prove, but did not allow others to keep copies of the evidence. At best, you can suspect. But how can you conclude so strongly that this was a "scam"?

Because there is no plausible narrative that can account for the known facts and account for the private proof as anything more than smoke and mirrors.

In particular, the person best placed and best motivated to produce such a narrative -- Wright himself -- offers no explanation.

Post reply on HN