
The Satoshi Affair - grw_
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair
======
moyix
It's worth your time (and extremely entertaining) to read Sarah Jeong's
twitter commentary on this piece. She does a really nice job of highlighting
all of the places where basic journalism, asking for outside expertise, or
really any shred of skepticism and tough questioning would have killed the
story:

[https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/744950977090838528](https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/744950977090838528)

~~~
grw_
On the contrary, you'll get a lot more out of reading the article without
preconceptions. I don't think it's really worth reading someones comments
about an article made before they had even finished reading it.

~~~
moyix
Sure, you should absolutely read the article first! But I found that even
after reading the article it was very valuable to read a journalistic
perspective on the reportage.

It's also really interesting to contrast this story with the recent piece in
The Atlantic about the provenance of a papyrus that mentions Jesus had a wife:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-
unbe...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-
tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/)

The reporter does outside research, solicits opposing points of view, and
generally is very diligent about trying not to be snowed. And, tellingly, he
doesn't use unfamiliarity with the field as an excuse not to investigate
Compare with this article: "From time to time during those months, I wondered
what if, in some brutally postmodern way, the true identity of Satoshi could
never be fully ascertained? What if Wright had every single element necessary
to prove himself, but somehow couldn’t? Anonymity – or at least pseudonymity –
is an essential part of the cryptographic world."

------
CookieMon
> "the palm trees were throwing summer shade onto the concrete walkways –
> ‘Tailor Made Office Solutions’, it said on a nearby billboard – and people
> were drinking coffee in Deli 32 on the ground floor. Wright’s office on
> level five was painted red, and looked down on the Macquarie Park Cemetery,
> known as a place of calm for the living as much as the dead."

Ugh, it's like wading through a New Yorker article. Less paying by the word
please.

~~~
Falcon9
There have been plenty of terse short form blog entries about the saga, if you
don't like the style of this piece you're free to close it and walk away
without shitting on it.

I spent the afternoon reading this piece and thoroughly enjoyed the writing,
including the flavor and detail you call out.

~~~
stangeek
I enjoyed it a lot as well. This piece is a story about Wright, not cold, raw
news about whethers he's Satoshi or not. Quite fitting, given that the Satoshi
persona is fictive by construction...

------
acqq
For those who don't know, this long article was announced by LRB exactly at
the time Wright successfully fooled BBC (1) (2) O'Hagan had actually spent a
lot of time with Wright, believing he'll be able to report about historically
important moment and person. I'm glad O'Hagan kept the courage to finish it
and publish it for it surely gives some insight on how the scam developed,
even if he doesn't understand the details of it, he can report on the human
side. May 2016 it was:

[http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/05/02/josh-stupple/satoshi-
ba...](http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/05/02/josh-stupple/satoshi-baby/)

"Andrew O’Hagan has had exclusive access to Craig Wright for the last six
months. His forthcoming piece in the LRB will look at the myth of Satoshi and
the journey of the man who claims to be him."

1) How Wright never proved anything: [https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-
cryptographically-pro...](https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-
cryptographically-provable-con-man/)

2) In detail: [https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-
nak...](https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto/)

------
gtrubetskoy
Here is the most plausible explanation of who Satoshi is IMO: a team of people
tasked by (most likely) a government agency with developing a crypto-currency
as an experiment.

The project is over, the people involved in it are probably bound to secrecy
because the work was classified. They cannot spend a satoshi of the original
bitcoin because that would be theft, probably a felony, possibly treason, who
knows - either way that bitcoin and all the keys belong to their employer, not
them, so you will never see anything signed by "Satoshi" to prove who "he" is.

~~~
kiba
_Here is the most plausible explanation of who Satoshi is IMO: a team of
people tasked by (most likely) a government agency with developing a crypto-
currency as an experiment._

I don't know why the hell the government would spend money and time on a
project like this.

What in it for them?

~~~
mschuster91
> What in it for them?

A nice way to transfer money to clandestine operations world-wide, risk-free,
for example.

For example, to fund a spy in China, you'd need to pay him in Yuan but the
Yuan is a highly controlled currency... and guess what e-currency is highly
popular in China? Bitcoin.

Just transfer your spy a couple of btc and have him trade the btc for local
currency, in an eyeblink. Prior to btc, e.g. the CIA and other spy agencies
had to fly in (and hand over!) literal bags of cash.

Guess this is why the Chinese government tried to crack down on BTC so hard,
aside from the fact that BTC allows bypassing their currency controls and an
outflow of money.

~~~
linkregister
Is there any evidence the CIA and other spy agencies don't still use bags of
cash? There are some arbitrary things that spy agencies are pretty low-tech
about.

~~~
milesokeefe
Bitcoin is much easier to smuggle than cash.

------
sgnelson
Nobody wants to believe they were conned.

Check this out: the link in which Wright uses to say he can't prove he's
Satoshi or risk going to jail, appears to be completely fraudulent:
[http://bitcoinist.net/uk-law-enforcement-sources-hint-at-
imp...](http://bitcoinist.net/uk-law-enforcement-sources-hint-at-impending-
craig-wright-arrest/)

"Editor’s Note (5-6-2-16, 2:43 AM EST): The SiliconAngle piece cited in this
article was produced by an impostor site posing as the real SiliconAngle. This
source article does not appear on the real SiliconAngle website, and was not
written by SiliconAngle reporter Collen Kriel. Bitcoinist would like to
apologize to SiliconAngle and our readers for any confusion. To ensure that
you are reading articles produced by the real SiliconAngle, make sure you are
using the correct URL: www.siliconangle.com."

------
joeyspn
I stopped reading in the 4th line... _" They were looking for a man named
Craig Steven Wright"_. I'm not going to spend more minutes of my life reading
about an scam artist... Enough is enough.

~~~
cossatot
The various layers of scamming are exactly what makes this article worth
reading. I couldn't care less about Satoshi or Bitcoin. However, so many
people and institutions suspending their own disbelief and putting their time,
money and reputations on the line, only to watch it end how it did... That's a
much more interesting story to me. Greed and desperation are like diesel fuel
and fertilizer.

------
cm3
I still don't understand why people so desperately want to find out who or
what is behind Satoshi. It could be a person, it could be multiple persons,
but what's to gain by identifying someone who gave the world something that's
generally found useful, and all they asked for was privacy? Either you trust
it or you don't. If you do not, what secret entity could be useful to be
discovered behind the Satoshi identifier for you to trust it more or less?

I mean, for instance, I'm unaware of people trying to identify all members of
the PaX team.

EDIT: For a community that asks for privacy in many instances, it's
interesting we support the search to uncover what's behind the Satoshi
identifier.

~~~
bdcravens
What makes Satoshi unique is that he/she/them sits on premined Bitcoins worth
hundreds of millions of dollars, that while 100% transparent, hasn't moved or
been cashed in. That alone is a peculiarity and makes for an interesting
person.

Add to that the fact that once those coins start to move, it has the potential
to affect the wealth of those who hold Bitcoin, for better or worse.

Future changes to Bitcoin are hotly contested, and often Satoshi's intent is
thrown in to the discussion, and these changes will likely affect many. Were a
verified Satoshi to weigh in, it would carry significant impact.

~~~
kneel
I'm sure Satoshi has coins that others don't know about, the early blocks were
all Satoshi but later blocks were mined by dozens of enthusiasts. Satoshi
could have easily made an anonymous fortune in the early days.

I imagine Satoshi is out there keeping a close eye on the cryptocurrency
scene. Maybe one day if action is needed (funding infrastructure, adoption of
a bitcoin successor, destroying bitcoin??) he will put the early blocks into
motion.

~~~
jonathankoren
Or he lost the password. Or the coins were in cold storage on a disk that
crashed. Or maybe he simply deleted the first few because in the early days
they were worthless.

Those are just some scenarios that strike me as a hell of a lot more plausible
than someone sitting on a fortune for the hell of it. Why? Because we've all
experienced those things.

------
statoshi
An entertaining read if you're into the cryptocurrency space, but all of the
claims contained within must be viewed with extreme skepticism.

~~~
grw_
Unsure if you referring to the author's claims or those of the people quoted-
could you expand with some examples?

------
forgotpwtomain
Sign with the genesis block key or fuck off - seriously the articles and
claims aren't novel anymore. The breadth of delusion and nonsense is
staggering - it's impossible to imagine that anyone of significant name in the
field (e.g. Diffie, Hellman, Chaum, Shamir, Rivest, Adelman, Zimmerman etc.)
would propose any other kind of proof.

------
kirrent
There are so many believable candidates for Satoshi, it's hard to know which
one to pick. For another just as credible example:
[http://hackaday.com/2006/06/08/i-just-invented-
bitcoin/](http://hackaday.com/2006/06/08/i-just-invented-bitcoin/)

~~~
Nadya
Another favorite proof of mine is screenshots! :)

[http://i.imgur.com/uoRncry.png](http://i.imgur.com/uoRncry.png)

------
rwbhn
Towards the end of the 1st section we find an interesting strategy for getting
through airport security - have an accomplice just behind you who causes a
fuss at just the right moment.

~~~
chadcmulligan
A similar device was employed in the Mel Brooks movie - High Anxiety.

------
arisAlexis
I think what people need to understand is that he can both be satoshi and fail
to provide proof, its not a binary. Factors affecting the outcome could be
sociopathology, mental illness, ulterior motives and others.

~~~
cantrevealname
Yes, exactly. People are yelling fraud. I'm also very skeptical, but the
following is not a correct deduction: "he didn't move any original Bitcoin" ->
"he's a scam artist".

I remember a TV reality-type show in which people took their heirlooms to be
assessed for auction. One woman had what she thought was a priceless
Stradivarius violin. The appraiser took one look at it and _immediately_ said
it was a fraud. The violin was stamped "Made in China" somewhere inside. The
guy says to her, "Strads are not made in China -- you've been scammed."

A funny thought occurred to me at that moment. Suppose that for some
unfathomable reason, you stamped your Strad with the words "Made in China".
Now, everyone calls you a fraud without a second look. Why would you do
something so dumb? Maybe you were trying to make your treasured violin less
tempting for thieves, maybe you were trying to hide its value from the tax
authorities, maybe you forget to take your meds and were acting irrationally
that day.

~~~
Sacho
Interesting - this story came up last time I read a thread about Satoshi on
HN. Here's my reply to it:

The appraiser did not do his work properly - after all, anyone can place a
sticker on a Strad, but that doesn't make it any less of a Strad. It's also a
poor analogy to use in the current situation. Multiple people did appraisals
of Wright's claims and his show with Gavin Anderson, and found it lacking.
They also noted the "Made in China" stamps - all the gotchas along the way -
but they were only part of the analysis.

------
kriro
Strangely opinionated intersection in an otherwise pretty entertaining
article:

"""(Like the governments they despise, bitcoiners deal – when it comes to
ideas – in ‘white papers’, as if they were issuing laws.)"""

Not sure if the author read it but the original paper is structured more like
a regular journal paper than a traditional white paper.

------
qwertyuiop924
Is Craig Satoshi? Maybe. To say that he definitely is is to be an idiot. But
to say that he certainly isn't is equally dumb. If it's a con, it's a pretty
good con. If it's not, than this story is accurate. But the people who are
saying a complicated a complicated situation is as black and white as "sign
the block or fuck off, you're not Satoshi" isn't thinking. In a world of
lifeless robots, it would be that simple. But it's not, and we don't. A man
who has the identity may not want to prove it. But a con artist would do the
same.

~~~
um_ya
No, it really is that simple. He showed an interest in saying he is Satoshi,
but didn't prove it. He's not "trying to hide his identity", he's trying to
hide that he isn't Satoshi.

~~~
Falcon9
He showed an interest in not proving he is Satoshi as well, and didn't prove
it. This isn't a negative you can prove (certainly not in the way you're
saying.)

------
nxzero
Given people appear unable to let go of the desire to find Satoshi, maybe it's
for the best that the media believes they've found Satoshi.

------
Mendenhall
Satoshi needs to launch bitcoin 2.0 with appropriate changes. That would
kickstart a whole new era and with his cred it would carry massive adoption.

------
zuzun
This might be part of the reason he still wants people to believe he invented
all of this:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-wright-patents-
idU...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-wright-patents-
idUSKCN0Z61GM)

------
fredgrott
Satoshi whoever you are and wherever you are..please never ever be found..your
gift to the world does not need for your life to be under the spot light..the
gift speaks for itself, quite well.

------
dash2
George Orwell said there are some people you can fool all the time. What he
didn't mention: those people are all LRB readers.

~~~
retsibsi
In what way do you think LRB readers are being fooled here? What false claims
does the article make? If you just pattern-matched it as a 'Craig Wright =
Satoshi' piece, you're mistaken -- it is really a (somewhat) behind-the-scenes
story of how the whole affair played out. Although he doesn't come to any
definite conclusions, the author is nowhere near as credulous as some
commentors seem to have assumed.

------
Aqueous
It seems like Wright is attracting more and more (overly credulous)
journalists to perform fawning bio pieces on him in lieu of the only evidence
that will ever actually conclusively convince anyone. This evidence, unlike
the several hundred thousand extraneous words here, also happens to be
something that is extraordinarily simple to provide: cryptographically sign a
message that we can all verify. He has not provided this single, legitimate
proof to the public and worse yet he has provided fake proof that shows a
deliberate willingness to deceive. Moreover, he seems to have demonstrated a
willingness to exploit journalists' and the general public's lack of
understanding about cryptography. This seems diametrically opposed to the
spirit of the technology he allegedly gifted to the world - Bitcoin.

~~~
T-A
This is not a fawning bio piece. If it's too long (it IS very long), skip to
Coda, and start reading at "Do you want to know what I think?".

BTW, the author's hypothesis is not half bad. In order to behave the way he
did, Wright must have been sure the real Satoshis would not show up and ruin
the show. How could he be so sure? Knowing that they are dead would be a
pretty good way.

~~~
rbobby
He's a con man... we just don't know who he's trying to con. From a confidence
game perspective impersonating a recluse like Satoshi is a great choice, in
fact a classic choice. Especially after that other fellow was incorrectly
identified as Satoshi by national media and Satoshi didn't do anything to
correct those claims.

~~~
aab0
You mean Dorian? Satoshi _did_ correct it. That's how anyone knows he's still
alive.

~~~
HappyTypist
Satoshi did NOT correct it. His P2P foundation account was hacked, just like
his gmx email.

~~~
aab0
His P2P Foundation was hacked afterwards and then locked for good; but P2P
Foundation confirmed at the time that as far as they could tell, it was
Satoshi.

~~~
rboyd
Was it signed? I was following pretty closely and my version of history also
had that as being fake. This is one instance where I would love to be wrong
though.

~~~
aab0
It was not signed, because Satoshi has never signed anything ever. But it was,
as far as it's possible to tell, genuine.

