
Satoshi: “I am not Craig Wright. We are all Satoshi.” - maaku
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011936.html
======
Andrew_Quentin
Obviously this is fake. I can't imagine satoshi saying "we are all satoshi" \-
so much cringe...

Plus, we know that the gmx account was hacked and it seems it was hacked
through a simple guess of his birthday. As such, it seems reasonable to
suggest that satoshi wanted that (gmx) email to be hacked since it had such a
weak password. If that is the case I think we can assume that the vistomail is
probably hacked too for the same reasons satoshi would have wanted the gmx
email to be hacked.

Plus, I think it is now sort of obvious that Craig is not satoshi. There is
speculations that this guy does not even have a supercomputer:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3w5ro9/wright_not...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3w5ro9/wright_not_only_isnt_satoshi_but_hes_pretending/)

As such it may be the case that he conned the ATO out of a 45 million tax
"rebate" and then tried to claim he is satoshi to perhaps keep the scam going
or make it more credible (although his silence and even his apparent deletion
of his online presence is somewhat puzzling.)

Moreover, the "trust fund" smoking gun document reads like one of those
phishing emails you get - a puzzling misstated amount, an unended sentence,
peculiar "against my advice" comments and looks overall amateurish.
Furthermore, people have been trying to find peer reviewed journals from this
guy (he claims he has 100) with no success so there is much doubt of his
claims he has a PHD, well two PHDs and a dozen or more Masters.

Not to mention his seemingly inability to spell.

If, thus, it is somewhat obvious that this guy is not satoshi, I don't see why
the real satoshi would find it necessary to make the somewhat cringy comment
above which sounds like a "commoner". Same goes for the "I am not Dorian".
Neither is in anyway evidence or in anyway proves anything and in both cases
it is/was obvious the person was not satoshi so the comment was unnecessary.

Therefore, I think these accounts have simply been hacked and the real satoshi
never made such comments in either case.

~~~
mmortal03
If Wright wanted to make it look like he was Satoshi, it would seem a bit
absurd for him to try to claim that he would no longer be able to provide
financial accommodation to Hotwire due to losing a substantial sum of money
because of the Mt. Gox collapse (given that Satoshi is assumed to hold a lot
more, and also because Satoshi wouldn't have been so stupid as to store such a
large sum there, not being in control of the private keys):

"Hotwire hit problems in April of last year when it failed to receive another
expected tax rebate worth millions of dollars, killing its cash flow. McGrath
Nicol wrote to creditors in May 2014:

"The Directors have attributed the failure of the Company to:

– delays in receiving the $3.1 million GST refund for the September 2013
quarter; and

– Dr Wright, as the major shareholder no longer being able to provide
financial accommodation to the Company due to the collapse of the Mount Gox
Bitcoin registry where we understand Dr Wright had a significant exposure.""

[http://www.businessinsider.com.au/revealed-the-ato-hit-
suspe...](http://www.businessinsider.com.au/revealed-the-ato-hit-suspected-
bitcoin-creator-craig-steven-wrights-company-with-a-1-7-million-
penalty-2015-12)

------
aws_ls
So now that Satoshi has said he is not Craig Wright, can we take the other
path of the Wired story, that "he's a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us
to believe he did."

Sad.

Edit to add PS: Also what is Satoshi's original mail. I hope
satoshi@vistomail.com is the original, ans satoshin was created later on,
which was the _non evidence_ kanzure was so unhappy about yesterday?

~~~
kanzure
> Edit to add PS: Also what is Satoshi's original mail. I hope
> satoshi@vistomail.com is the original, ans satoshin was created later on,
> which was the non evidence kanzure was so unhappy about yesterday?

I feel that in the interest of disclosure I should inform you that I am one of
the moderators of the bitcoin-dev mailing list and I approved that email. I
regret it already. (Email is trivially forged, it's off-topic, etc. To my
credit, there's some nebulous moderation policy in effect, and hopefully we
will get that cleared up very soon.)

re: gwern stuff, i assume you are talking about
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001)

~~~
maaku
I think rejecting it would have been the wrong action. On what grounds?

~~~
kanzure
> I think rejecting it would have been the wrong action. On what grounds?

[http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-
dev/logs/2015/12/10#l144...](http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-
dev/logs/2015/12/10#l1449730961.0)

~~~
maaku
"i was told _not_ to moderate for signal-to-noise"

I am not a moderator, but that was my impression (and hope) for how the
moderators would act. To determine what is signal and what is noise would be
to inject subjectivity into the decision.

There is nothing about this new email that I would consider on-topic. But
under the circumstances I wouldn't consider it disruptive either (on-list
replies might be; watch out for them). And arguments could be made that using
a communication medium other than the one Satoshi has traditionally used would
be _more_ disruptive, even if this email would be more on topic at bitcoin-
discuss, due to the speculation that might ensue.

It is also worth pointing out that the system of moderation is that a person's
FIRST post to the mailing list is moderated. After passing that hurdle your
emails are auto-approved until such time as a moderator choose to re-enable
moderation. It is because we changed servers that the satoshi email address
was considered a 'new' user. This is also the case of everyone else, including
me. But I hope the irony of Satoshi being subject to moderation because he is
a 'new' user is not lost?

Anyway, the best reason for not moderating was that such a message had
potential to keep people from getting hurt. I can only speculate that to be
the reason Satoshi (if it is Satoshi) intervened at all. We don't know for
sure, and it may even be low probability, but interfering with the
distribution of that email could have gotten people hurt.

~~~
kanzure
> I wouldn't consider it disruptive either (on-list replies might be; watch
> out for them)

Already happened, but looks like the reject mailing list isn't configured
correctly: [https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-
moderation/](https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/)

> It is also worth pointing out that the system of moderation is that a
> person's FIRST post to the mailing list is moderated.

Hard to moderate for signal-to-noise with that, eh?

edit: for reference, this is also discussed over at
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_cr...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_craig_wright_we_are_all_satoshi_satoshi/cxtv3hn)

------
vbezhenar
How can one know that this message is from Satoshi?

~~~
c0bracommander
One can't. That's the whole point.

~~~
roywiggins
It could have been signed with Satoshi's PGP key.

~~~
maaku
Which key is that? He never used PGP...

~~~
whoopdedo
Aren't bitcoin addresses public keys? If it's good enough for signing a
blockchain transaction it should be good enough for signing a short email
message.

~~~
askmike
Yes they are, and that's definitely possible as well.

------
khgvljhkb
GPG or it didn't happen. Until then, this is just noise.

~~~
maaku
Satoshi never signed anything ever. How would a signature from a key Satoshi
never used prove anything?

~~~
khgvljhkb
Sorry for nitpicking. People _claiming_ to be Satoshi did so and didn't sign.
It could be the real deal, or not. Maybe I wrote all of those, and just typed
"Satoshi" in the "from" field?

I also want to believe, but as long as something isn't signed
cryptographically, it's likely just someone pulling things out of their arse
(or SMTP server)

~~~
maaku
Actually this is a case of people claiming to be Satoshi and signing with
back-dated, fraudulent keys.

------
rmason
Got in touch with a friend last night who is one the Bitcoin inner circle and
he said the PGP key used a different hash algorithm than the real Satoshi and
it's a hoax. That was a good twelve hours before that story was in the press.
I have a feeling if the inner circle doesn't know for certain who Satoshi
might be they've got a pretty good idea.

~~~
maaku
We don't. (And don't want to know.)

------
EwanToo
It's not signed with the one legitimate Satoshi key, its just another hoax

------
jpgvm
Well. That is the end of that. It did seem pretty unlikely that a rather
disheveled dude that seemed to have pretty bad opsec would be Satoshi.

Guy clearly wants to remain away from the public eye, no idea why it's so hard
for people to respect that.

