I'll believe he's satoshi when he moves a single coin from any of those early blocks. He can't. Why not? Because he doesn't have access to them. It's really quite straightforward.
Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
11–20 of 23 posts
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#12Who cares. Nothing has ever been less consequential than crypto nonsense
I don't think you could be further from the truth. Just flat wrong. Look at DeFi. Look at all the apps that are being written on blockchains. Sure, there are scam projects, but a lot of genuinely great ideas are being developed. For example nobody used AMMs until Uniswap started doing it and now they are the norm.
There's nothing interesting about being able to write apps. That's what computers do, they run things.
What's interesting is being able to write an app that actually does what you wanted it to do.
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#13I totally agree with the skepticism that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. But the fact alone that he owns 1.1 million Bitcoin? How do we explain that? This make me curious, to say the least.
He doesn't own them, he's a fraud. He may own some smaller amount from mining, but even that isn't certain.
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#14I'll believe he's satoshi when he moves a single coin from any of those early blocks. He can't. Why not? Because he doesn't have access to them. It's really quite straightforward.
[flagged]
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#15Who cares. Nothing has ever been less consequential than crypto nonsense
Is bob332 also you? How many alt accounts do you have?
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#16I totally agree with the skepticism that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. But the fact alone that he owns 1.1 million Bitcoin? How do we explain that? This make me curious, to say the least.
I'm confused by this too. Sounds like he's only believed to be the owner of the original 1 million BTC. I think until he actually moves 1 coin, most people remain very skeptical. Can someone correct me? I guess that would bring into question what he was being sued for if there wasn't definitive proof.
It's pretty interesting for him because there's no way to prove that he doesn't own them (have the private key for those wallets), so it to dispel the court case he would have had to testify that he's a fraud.
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#17There is a massive PR campaign to misrepresent this verdict.
Wright was found to be civilly liable for stealing $100 million in intellectual property from his dead friend's company. Wright conducted the theft by suing the company and fraudulently presenting himself as a representative of the company in court, where he conceded the lawsuit. It's easy to see why the jury found against him on this mark.
The plaintiffs also attempted to demand billions from Wright, half of the value of the of the bitcoin that Wright claimed to own with his friend in a multitude of wright-provided (forged) documents. It appears that the jury wasn't tricked into thinking Wright had any Bitcoins at all so they awarded nothing there.
In any case, $100 million will be enough to completely bankrupt Wright many times over-- at least until he sucks some more funding out of his victims. So it's not clear that awarding billions would have really made any difference.
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#18I totally agree with the skepticism that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. But the fact alone that he owns 1.1 million Bitcoin? How do we explain that? This make me curious, to say the least.
He doesn't.
Wright has claimed to, but when the court ordered him to provide a list of his Bitcoin and it was made public parties owning thousands of bitcoin on his list produced a digitally signed message with those key stating that Wright was a fraud and did not control those keys.
https://cswarchive.info/csw-filed#145-Signings
Wright has also provided sworn statements in another court cases (COPA v Wright) that he does not have access to any early Bitcoin keys. He made a sworn statement in another court case (Wright v McCormack) that he is funding his activities by obtaining loans underwritten by his eventual access to early bitcoin.
...and he is currently suing a dozen former and current Bitcoin developers (including myself) demanding that they publish a backdoored version of bitcoin that reassigns bitcoins to him that he has "lost" the keys for, or -- failing that -- pay him about $7 billion in damages.
These are not the actions of a person that actually has access to a substantial amount of Bitcoin.
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#19I totally agree with the skepticism that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. But the fact alone that he owns 1.1 million Bitcoin? How do we explain that? This make me curious, to say the least.
He doesn't. Wright has claimed to, but when the court ordered him to provide a list of his Bitcoin and it was made public parties owning thousands of bitcoin on his list produced a digitally signed message with those key stating that Wright was a fraud and did not control those keys. https://cswarchive.info/csw-filed#145-Signings Wright has also provided sworn statements in another court cases (COPA v Wright) that he…
I think he can't move bitcoins because he has them in multisig wallet or Satoshi group has them in multisig wallet. So all or more than one member must sign
their keys in order to move bitcoins from joint wallet.
Re: Craig Wright wins dispute over $50B in Bitcoin
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
He doesn't. Wright has claimed to, but when the court ordered him to provide a list of his Bitcoin and it was made public parties owning thousands of bitcoin on his list produced a digitally signed message with those key stating that Wright was a fraud and did not control those keys. https://cswarchive.info/csw-filed#145-Signings Wright has also provided sworn statements in another court cases (COPA v Wright) that he…
I think he can't move bitcoins because he has them in multisig wallet or Satoshi group has them in multisig wallet. So all or more than one member must sign their keys in order to move bitcoins from joint wallet.
That is entirely inconsistent with his sworn statements in court proceedings. And if you're going to adopt the premise that he's lying in court, why accept any thing he claims?
Moverover, I think you missed my point: It's not just that he can't sign, but also that other people can sign addresses that he claims are his. There isn't just negative evidence (absence of expected proof) but positive evidence (conclusive proof he doesn't control at least some of the coins he says he does).