
The cryptographically provable con man - rdl
https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-provable-con-man/
======
apeace
The post linked to in the OP is an excellent explainer for those who aren't
familiar with the process of signing a message using a Bitcoin address'
private key:

[http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-
wrights-...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-
deception.html)

------
yongjik
<pedantry> Well, but he's not really "cryptographically provable" con man.
It's just that, if he were not a con man, his innocence would have been
cryptographically provable. Right? </pedantry>

~~~
spacehome
Maybe not just pedantry ... there were serious discussions on a previous
thread that he's really Satoshi but is intentionally deflecting so that a
close inspection makes it seem as if he's not. Doesn't seem likely to me,
though.

~~~
nurettin
Serious discussions with priors that could lead to anyone claiming to be
anyone and ending up being someone else on closer inspection?

May I have a link for that?

~~~
spacehome
Sure there's a prior for that, as 0 and 1 are not probabilities.

------
phasmantistes
Good on Dan for being a voice of reason and collecting the findings of
reddit/hn/#bitcoin into a central location. And as he says, good on Gavin for
being equanimical despite the vitriol being thrown his direction from some
quarters. The only thing to do now is to watch this play out... and I hope it
does continue to play out, rather than Craig just going silent again. That
would be much less exciting.

------
sametmax
Another theory:

Craig is Satoshi, and people were on the verge of discovering that. So, smart
as he is, he decides to reveal he is Satoshi, but in the worst way possible,
so people thinks he is a fraud, and hence making sure he is off the radar for
good and ever.

------
Animats
Maybe whomever started Bitcoin lost any record of their early mining efforts.
It's either that, or they're walking away from several hundred million
dollars. Or they're dead.

~~~
eru
Might have never stored the private key they mined to in the beginning. (I can
see why someone with a specific ethic might start the currency that way---
especially if they were still optimizing for bitcoin to take off at all,
similar to avoiding pre-mining.)

~~~
rdl
It would be better to transfer the money publicly later to destroy the key. I
think accidentally or non-provably losing the key to this is the worst
possible thing -- no one can believe you, so they have to act as if you have
the money, but you don't have control of it to do anything with it (including
verifiably destroy it.)

~~~
eru
Yes. Though hindsight is 20:20, of course.

~~~
rdl
Except everyone involved in Bitcoin's creation was aware of about 20 years of
precedent and discussion about these kinds of issues --
[http://cypherpunks.venona.com/](http://cypherpunks.venona.com/) \-- so it
wasn't really hindsight

~~~
dakami
Everything before Bitcoin was really obsessed with anonymity, whereas Bitcoin
was actually scared of centralization.

~~~
rdl
Not everything (hashcash, some of Wei Dai's stuff, etc.) -- but I was more
referring to how to do tests/proofs in mutually-distrustful environments, not
the protocols themselves.

Bitcoin was exceptional in a lot of ways -- most importantly, getting
traction! -- decentralization, the ramping up, etc.

~~~
dakami
I'm interested in more of your perspective here. I was around back in the Mojo
Nation era as something of an observer, but there's lots maybe I didn't see.

~~~
rdl
The good stuff was always buried deeply on threads, and mainly pre 1996. I
should do something better with the archives to pull out the specific good
stuff.

------
eric_arrr
What's puzzling here is that Wright proceeds with his charades as though he
somehow knows the real Satoshi will not emerge to call him out on it. (There
is some precedent for this: a long-dormant account controlled by the real
Satoshi stirred to disclaim the identity of Dorian Nakamoto in 2014.
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-c...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-
creator-returns-to-internet-to-say-i-am-not-dorian-nakamoto/#14954ae07f43))

If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he
disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today?

I do not believe, for an instant, that Wright is Satoshi. But given the
history, it seems plausible that Wright might have once been in the know as to
Satoshi's true identity. Should he know the real Satoshi(s) to now be absent,
it would likely embolden him to undertake this scam...

~~~
jere
>If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he
disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today?

One reason he might disclaim Dorian is that he simply wanted the poor man left
alone. The claim that Dorian was the creator of Bitcoin was not only
completely ridiculous on its face, but also a huge intrusion in the life of a
clueless old man.

Wright has brought a bunch of ridicule upon himself, but it's his own fault.

~~~
mod
Maybe it's just because nobody believes Wright. Not much to discredit.

~~~
jere
Yea, I agree with that.

------
__abc
Better than most shows on television at the moment!

~~~
shirro
I don't know. I think The Good Wife had a more plausible take on the Bitcoin
founder than this current story.

------
dzdt
The one theory I've seen that makes it make sense is that Dave Kleiman was the
real Satoshi Nakamoto. Kleiman died in 2013. Wright is trying to set up a
claim on hundreds of millions of dollars of bitcoins, if they can ever be
recovered from Kleiman's effects.

~~~
MertsA
Someone posted on his P2P Foundation account back in March 2014 during the
Dorian Nakamoto fiasco. I'd think it's very unlikely at best that Kleiman is
Satoshi based on that alone.

~~~
dzdt
That account was later found to be compromised. It wasn't clear when the
compromise took place, but quite possibly was before the email you mention was
sent. See
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/16/satoshi-n...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/16/satoshi-
nakamoto-email-hack/#2b5bcd735fec).

------
tempodox
Would the real Satoshi Nakamoto please stand. Thank you.

