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

151–160 of 189 posts

Re: I’m Sorry

#151

Post by hackuser »

teraflop wrote: post #64
spdustin wrote: post #17

Sounds like a suicide note from a distraught individual to me, leaving aside the lack of Satoshi's grammar. I do not know enough about his background to contact the police for a well-being check; does anyone here?

At face value, I would agree. But given that he's clearly lying about being Satoshi, and therefore also lying in this note, I figure it's likely that the "suicidal" tone was deliberately chosen. It's just another attempt to stir up controversy.

> it's likely that the "suicidal" tone was deliberately chosen

That's a very serious thing to say in regard to something you know very little about.

Re: I’m Sorry

#152

Post by hackuser »

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #148
vph wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That raises serious questions, but is not at all conclusive.

Re: I’m Sorry

#153

Post by hackuser »

racoonear wrote: post #15
coldtea wrote: post #3

>" as (...) I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot ". And I call BS, with BS on top. How convenient...

Yeah, kind of angry after reading that.

> kind of angry after reading that

What do you and I have to be angry about? Isn't that just playing into online mob behavior?

Re: I’m Sorry

#155

Post by hackuser »

StavrosK wrote: post #88
joshmanders wrote: post #49

Forgive me as I'm a newbie to bitcoin and only ever seen it from the outside and watched a few things. I only know who Satoshi is because of the mass amounts of people wanting to know who this mysterious man really is. But my question is, why does it matter if Craig Wright is or isn't? I mean I can understand being upset that he lied about it if he really isn't for attention, but what if he is? The dude is literally…

> what if he is? The dude is literally being ripped apart left and right by everyone and anyone. Because he's the guy who, when asked for ID to prove he's 21 when entering a bar, shows a piece of paper with "Date of birth: 21 years old" sharpied on it, and when the bouncer says "yeah this isn't actual ID" the guy goes "WOE IS ME! IF I GET THIS TREATMENT AT THE DOOR, IMAGINE WHAT THE ACTUAL BAR WOULD BE LIKE! I DO NOT…

His behavior has no affect on me. Why should I care? Even if your analogy is accurate, that guy at the bar doesn't affect me either.

What is dangerous and does affect me, indirectly in this case, is the online mob behavior and bullying. That does real harm to people and to our society. For example, whoever the real Satoshi is, would they ever want to be subjected to this?

Re: I’m Sorry

#156

Post by chrisfosterelli »

hackuser wrote: post #152
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That raises serious questions, but is not at all conclusive.

Sure, but then you consider the undeniably faked proof published on his blog, and now this inability to meet his recent promise to provide real proof today. For someone who actually had Satoshi's keys, all of this is probably more work than just publishing real proof in the first place.

If he was actually the creator of Bitcoin, this is the worst possible way he could convince people of it. That's were the extreme doubt comes from.

Re: I’m Sorry

#157

Post by sleepybrett »

biswaroop wrote: post #147
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?

Less conmen in the wild?

Re: I’m Sorry

#158

Post by Geekette »

biswaroop wrote: post #147
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?

What exactly is unacceptable about hoping that an established liar and conman is made to account for his actions? At the very least, getting millions of dollars from fraudulently claimed tax credits is certainly not a trivial issue.

Also don't understand why it would be acceptable to anyone that he should get away with falsely claiming an identity despite contradictory evidence and potentially smearing the image of bitcoin/community via his actions.

Re: I’m Sorry

#159

Post by fallingfrog »

Here is one hypothetical explanation for this behavior: maybe Craig is not Satoshi, but he wants to know who the real Satoshi is. So he fabricates some evidence, and goes public claiming to be Satoshi, hoping that the real Satoshi will contact him. Once that contact is made, if he figures out Satoshi's true identity he can then blackmail that person, or if not he can extort money from them in exchange for dropping his claim. Probably farfetched..

Re: I’m Sorry

#160

Post by hackuser »

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #156
hackuser wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That raises serious questions, but is not at all conclusive.

Sure, but then you consider the undeniably faked proof published on his blog, and now this inability to meet his recent promise to provide real proof today. For someone who actually had Satoshi's keys, all of this is probably more work than just publishing real proof in the first place. If he was actually the creator of Bitcoin, this is the worst possible way he could convince people of it. That's were the extreme do…

I think you greatly underestimate the real harm done to people who are victimized by online (and offline) mobs; people become objects of the sport of public vitriol. Just look at the remarks in this discussion; it's not a rational discussion, it's people acting out in anger - because it's become acceptable to hurt this person.

I can completely understand someone not wanting to deal with it any longer. Also, it doesn't matter what he does or says at this point; nobody will look at the evidence (even now, likley few in this discussion know more than what others in the mob have told them) and he will be lynched. Anything he does only will fuel the fire.

Post reply on HN