
Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto - rdl
https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto/
======
amluto
Something else that stinks about all this that I haven't seen commented on:

Supposedly, Chris Wright did his ridiculous laptop dance with Gavin Andresen
because he didn't want Gavin to leak the signature early.

What a load of crap. These are supposedly real cryptographers we're talking
about here. If you ask a cryptographer (including, presumably, Satoshi) how
they would prove their identity to someone else such that the other person
couldn't leak the proof, the answer doesn't involve airplanes and fishy
laptops running dubiously authentic Windows programs. The answer is _deniable
authentication_.

In the bitcoin case, it's trivial. Satoshi's public key is g^p for some p that
only Satoshi knows (using multiplicative notation) on a well-known and
hopefully secure elliptic curve. You can use this key for ECDSA, but you can
also use it for, drumroll please, Diffie-Hellman. Gavin picks a random scalar
b and tells Craig Wright g^b. Chris replies with (g^b)^p [1]. Gavin checks
that the result is the same as (g^p)^b.

This is deniable: Gavin can trivially make up the transcript of the protocol,
so Gavin can't use it to prematurely convince anyone of anything. No airplanes
needed.

There are plenty of other ways to do this. Pretty much any zero-knowledge
proof of knowledge would work.

[1] In practice, this should be blinded to avoid cross-protocol attacks and
relay attacks. Craig could send something like H("Hi Gavin, I am Craig Wright,
aka Satoshi Nakamoto" || (g^b)^p). A real cryptographer could double-check me
here.

~~~
Atheros
Even easier: Gavin could ask Satoshi which public key he still has the private
keys for and then encrypt a message like "Gavin
dfHte48FswdeIgre35VGFqwOIhedds" using the public key and ask Satoshi to send
him back the text. This proves to Gavin that Satoshi is Satoshi and Gavin
can't turn and take that proof to anyone else.

~~~
0x07c0
That would be the rational thing to do, but you assumes Wright is sane. Witch
he probably is not. Also has someone look into the claim that he has the 17.
fastest Super Computer? This things draw a loot of power (4,499.87 kW he
claims) and produces a loot of heat. You cant hide it in your mothers
basement.., local authorities will know about it. So will the power company!
So there should be a paper trail there? (also SGI denied selling him the
system) Wright's alleged system, was 15. now 17. fastest in the world:
[http://www.top500.org/system/178468](http://www.top500.org/system/178468)

~~~
acqq
I assume Wright is sane and clever. His "magic" (as in "smoke and mirrors")
presentations, a sample of which we saw online on his blog clearly demonstrate
his talent and the invested time to research, plan and organize the events.
The only thing he underestimated is the speed with which the old and existing
signature was recognized to be part of his public "proof." Without that if
would stay long at "he said, she said" which would perfectly suit him. He
planned that kind of development and he knows very well how he'd use his
status of "claimed but not-fully-confirmed Satoshi."

An example:

"About six months ago, before he was publicly outed in the technology press,
he approached Andrew O’Hagan, a Scottish novelist who wrote an “unauthorised
autobiography” of Julian Assange, the founder of the whistle-blower site
WikiLeaks. Since then the author, whose most recent novel, “The
Illuminations”, was longlisted for the 2015 Man Booker Prize, has had complete
access to Mr Wright and his family, as well as to his research and business
colleagues. Mr O’Hagan is writing a long article for the London Review of
Books(2) on Mr Wright and “his journey towards revealing his work.” (Mr
O’Hagan, too, has come to be convinced that Mr Wright is Mr Nakamoto.)" (1)

1) [http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-
steve...](http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-
wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin)

2) [http://www.lrb.co.uk/2016/05/01/andrew-ohagan/the-search-
for...](http://www.lrb.co.uk/2016/05/01/andrew-ohagan/the-search-for-satoshi)
"Online exclusive · 1 May 2016: The full, long-form account will be published
here later this month." "In a world exclusive for the London Review of Books,
Andrew O’Hagan spent many months with Craig Wright, the man responsible for
what Bill Gates has called ‘the technical tour de force of this generation’."

I can't wait reading O’Hagan's story. He should publish it even if he
understands that he'll thus show how credulous he was.

~~~
0x07c0
You may be right, but some people start believing there own delusions.. This
can make them much more believable. I was thinking something like:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions)

~~~
acqq
> but some people start believing there own delusions

Like the belief that there "must be something more" than a clever trickster
doing what's reasonable for him to do. For thousands years, always a good
start of the new religions.

------
devishard
This is ridiculous.

If Craig Wright came to me and said he was Satoshi Nakamoto, I'd say, "Sign it
with the genesis block's private key or GTFO." This is crypto, bitcoin is
built on incontrovertible, mathematical proof. Why the hell would Satoshi do
anything else?

If it ever comes to light that Craig Wright is trying to use this lie for some
monetary advantage, he should be arrested for fraud, which is what this is.

~~~
state
Right. And Wright and everyone involved must know that. So can anyone explain
their motives? I truly can't figure that part out.

Edit: alain makes a good point. It's not the 'motives' I want to know. I want
the whole story.

~~~
alain94040
Megalomaniacs will keep lying and dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves.
You start with a small lie, and just can't stop, you have to keep going.

What's surprising though is the lack of judgment from BBC and other major news
media. That same person made the same bogus claim 6 months ago. How does that
not trigger major red flags? The only story worth writing about here is how he
pulled off such a trick.

This is like God's existence. There is a simple way for God to tell us He
exists, and which religion is right. But He never does. Instead, we must rely
on testimony from various people, contradicting each other, and none of it is
reproducible. Sure, you can believe... </controversial statement>

~~~
clarkmoody
> lack of judgment from BBC and other major news media

Probably got more clicks / views that any other story today, so good business
move to print the story, even if it's totally false.

I can't understand Gavin's angle though. It's amazing that he agrees that
Wright is Satoshi. I would like to know his motivations in this whole thing.

> There is a simple way for God to tell us He exists, and which religion is
> right. But He never does.

Many religions would argue that this is a false statement :-)

From the Christian view, the existence of God is self-evident in Creation. And
when it comes down to it, I think it takes _more_ faith to believe that life
exists because of random chance than because of a creator.

But God does not fit into a scientific proof framework whereby you can prove
or disprove the existence of God, which is why it boils down to having faith.

On the other hand, there is a way for Satoshi to prove his/her/their
existence.

~~~
devishard
> And when it comes down to it, I think it takes more faith to believe that
> life exists because of random chance than because of a creator.

If you have two alternatives you're considering, and both require faith for
you, then _you don 't know which is right_. So instead of arbitrarily choosing
to have faith in one based on ignorance, it would be much more respectable to
_admit you don 't know_ and either investigate, or just be satisfied with not
knowing. Pretending you know something when you don't is just arrogance, and
"faith" is not an excuse.

> But God does not fit into a scientific proof framework whereby you can prove
> or disprove the existence of God, which is why it boils down to having
> faith.

The "God is too hipster for the rules that apply to everything else" argument.

~~~
croon
There is actually a sound argument behind it, regardless if you agree with it
or believe in it.

Let's pretend that god exists and the bible is true. Under that assumption god
wants humans to have faith and _choose_ to follow him/her/it, colloquially "if
you love someone set them free". If god presents irrefutible evidence to
his/her/its existence there would be no room left for choice/faith.

Regardless of your view on the rationality of that, it is part of the
true/false teachings of that particular denomination, and within those set
parameters I think the logic checks out.

~~~
devishard
Knowing a god existed would not remove the choice to follow him. If I were
presented with irrefutable evidence that the god of the bible existed, I would
absolutely not choose to follow him/her/it. The god portrayed by the bible is
a petty narcissist who demands that people worship him, while using literally
unlimited power to torture and kill people instead of doing anything helpful
or responsible. He's also insane, as the only way he can forgive people is to
send his son to be brutally murdered. I would not follow such a being even if
it existed. Proving a god's existence would definitely not remove the choice
of whether to follow a god.

Irrefutable evidence would remove faith (which is not the same as choice). But
faith is just pretending you know something instead of admitting you don't
know. So again, a god that wants you to pretend to know things you don't is
not a being I care to follow.

At best, you've provided a picture of why an insane being might hide its
existence, but that doesn't prove whether that being exists or doesn't exist.

------
IgorPartola
I see two dimensions to this situation: is Wright actually Satoshi or does
Wright know who the real Satoshi is, and does Satoshi want to be found.

Condition A: Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi wants to be found. In this
condition, Wright's actions make no sense. Why publish an obviously fake
proof? I suppose if Wright/Satoshi lost the original private keys this would
make some sense, but is really unlikely.

Condition B: Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi does not want to be found. Here
things actually make perfect sense. Wright/Satoshi is trying to discredit
himself by publishing fake proofs. This is a sort of hiding in the open thing
that might work.

Condition C: Wright is not Satoshi but knows who the real Satoshi is, and
Satoshi wants to be found. In this condition, Wright is trying to prevent
Satoshi from being found for some reason, and he is doing this by trying to
muddle the waters and throw doubt. If the real Satoshi shows up and provides a
proof, non-technical people can now say "well Wright provided proof, but that
turned out to be fake. Do we trust that this is real?".

Condition D: Wright is not Satoshi but knows who the real Satoshi is, and
Satoshi does not want to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow
capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi, or is trying to protect
Satoshi from being found.

Condition E: Wright is not Satoshi and does not know who the real Satoshi is,
and Satoshi wants to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow
capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi, or is trying to muddle the
waters for the real Satoshi.

Condition F: Wright is not Satoshi and does not know who the real Satoshi is,
and Satoshi does not want to be found. In this case Wright is trying to
somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi.

Thoughts?

~~~
joezydeco
Condition E/F seem most likely, but the most confounding.

Why would you want to publicly tell everyone you're worth $200MM in Bitcoin
when you aren't? Aside from the bad actors that will try to wring the key out
of you (politely or violently), you also have the Tax Office to deal with.

~~~
astronautjones
he's bulletproof on the taxes for the coin - he'd never be taxed on it until
he withdrew it, and if he actually owns that much, he could never withdraw
that much without causing a massive selloff

~~~
joezydeco
My point was this: if you owned $220MM in anonymous cash, why would you attach
your name to it? Now everyone will know when and where you liquidate, even if
you don't liquidate the entire amount.

~~~
astronautjones
100% - and for the record I think he's full of shit

------
jgrahamc
This all could have been so simple. Publish a single signature to a very
recent news story signed using a key Satoshi controlled.

Instead we get this mess.

The mess makes me believe Satoshi is still out there.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
As a complete outside observer entirely disconnected from Bitcoin, I had a
thought that the way in which it's being done is intentional. I like the
possibility that this guy actually _is_ Nakamoto, and he did it in a very
suspicious way to draw all the people out of the woodwork who will yell about
it on blogs and knee-jerk revoke commit access (lol) and accuse people of
things and so on, then he'll offer the incontrovertible proof everybody is
after.

The entire Bitcoin community practically shit itself when this news dropped
and everybody tripped over themselves to deny it's the truth. People are, at
length, ascribing more difficult computer science problems such as _subverting
cryptography itself_ to this guy in an aim to conclusively say that he could
not possibly have invented Bitcoin. (So he didn't do something really
cryptographically cool, and your theory is that he can compromise cryptography
to prove that he did something cryptographically cool. Huh.) Some of the
theories involve like three MITM attacks on services and extensive planning
with million-to-one odds. Some of the theories describe things that are
_impossible_. It is absolutely hilarious to watch people rail against this for
something that, let's be honest, they can't possibly know. (Including OP, who
is oddly authoritative without hedging in a quite-libelous world.)

Imagine if it's _true_. God, that'll be awesome. If I were coming out as
Satoshi Nakamoto, that's how I'd do it. Let the frothers froth to lose
credibility, then checkmate them a couple days later.

Again, no stock in this, don't care, just an amusing thought. I will say,
watching the community tear itself apart over the block size and now this
reinforces for me that I _never_ want to run software with a community.
_Ever._ Bitcoin's community is terrifying in a number of ways (no disrespect,
just an outside observation). Another angle on that is that if this guy
actually is Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin community has done a pretty good job
of kicking their beloved founder in the teeth. I _really_ want it to be true
to see the pieces of _that_ picked up.

This'll be a good third act of the Bitcoin movie, by the way, and I look
forward to the stinging Sorkin dialogue.

~~~
Aqueous
There's evidence of deliberate deception, alongside a suspicious lack of
evidence about what transpired out of view of the public. So there are grounds
to believe this guy is full of shit.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
To play devil's advocate, this guy might be adept at deception because he's
deceived people regarding his pseudonym for many years. (Just a thought.)

I don't know, Nic doesn't know despite many words to convince you otherwise,
you don't know, we all don't know. I choose the fun explanations and wait to
see if I'm right, with the completely reasonable position that I, nor anybody
else, cannot possibly know if the theory is correct with the data available.

The alternative is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards, which most
folks seem to be doing. Who cares? Seriously, why does it matter? He is or he
isn't. Wait and see.

To me, Gavin Andresen's position on this is the fly in the grand conspiracy
ointment, and it's funny how all of the theories involve Andresen being
incompetent or compromised to work around that problem. I saw people start
referring to the possibility that one of the highest folks in Bitcoin is
autistic and easily fooled by a con man, and I was just laying in bed last
night reading it and shaking my head. This thread is doing it, too, discussing
a person they've never met and how he's lost his senses or accepted payment to
lie.

Giant mess. John upthread is right.

~~~
osweiller
No one is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards. You do a disservice
to your argument when that sort of caricature has to be the only alternative
to your arguably gullible "prove a negative" attitude towards this.

 _Nic doesn 't know despite many words to convince you otherwise_

While you claim that you have no stake or position in this, your other post
borders on the bizarre, with you seemingly completely misunderstanding the
arguments made and then, having carefully constructed an absurd strawman, you
confidently knock it down.

Anyone can be tricked by a con man with no shame. This includes very smart
people. Anyone who controls the hardware and the network can render virtually
any proof useless without moving outside of their control (which is extremely
easy to do), and it can be a fun parlour trick. In this case we have someone
with a long history of casual trickery (if not fraud) who, while under an
impending cloud of peril, and with months to contrive a magic trick, convinced
a single person.

------
aerovistae
Just checking: by show of hands, how many people here really understand what
bitcoins are or how the system works, beyond knowing they're a new form of
currency, cryptography is involved, and anonymity comes into play somehow?

I am just now beginning to try to research it to really understand it, because
despite being a developer and having a decent understanding of public-key
cryptography, I am at a total loss to understand how this system works or
achieves its apparent purposes.

My impression is that it's actually quite complex, and that the press (and
developer community at large) is failing to really explain it in any
meaningful way to people who don't already get it. Not that this is out of the
norm with tech topics, but this is very flagrant.

~~~
nicpottier
I think you are overstating the complexity for someone who basically
understands signing, or even just hashes. Yes, it is rather clever and takes
some time to wrap you head around, but the core structure of Bitcoin is
certainly not beyond reach for an average software engineer. Some of the more
esoteric pieces like the runtime machine.. etc not withstanding.

I haven't seen the recent crop of materials, but I grocked it watching a 60
minute or so video presentation which I think was from someone at Mozilla. Oh,
here it is: [https://vimeo.com/27177893](https://vimeo.com/27177893)

~~~
aerovistae
I never said it was out of reach, I'm saying the community that already
understands it isn't doing a very good job making it so that others can reach
it without standing on a chair.

I'll check out the video when I have time tonight.

~~~
miscellaneous
> The community that already understands it isn't doing a very good job making
> it so that others can reach it

Where I disagree is that I don't believe that all ideas/concepts can be made
"easy to understand" to a general audience. Many concepts - especially those
technical in nature - simply require a large amount of background knowledge to
understand.

You can be the best mathematics teacher in the world, but you won't be able to
(and no one expects you to) make the Riemann hypothesis widely understood to
the general public. It's just not feasible. And I posit that Bitcoin (whilst
maybe not as technical as the Riemann hypothesis) similarly requires a large
amount of background knowledge and is not an "easy" concept to understand in
30 minutes.

The good news is that there are millions of things that people use every day
that they don't understand - cars, computers, TVs - in fact, due to the
specialization of knowledge, most things people encounter they do not fully
understand. I don't think this is a big deal.

------
miander
Theory: Wright made promises that he would use his weight as Satoshi to
overcome current political conflict within the Bitcoin community in a way that
would satisfy Gavin. Gavin sees him as an ally and has vouched for him. A
distasteful ally, but for the greater good.

Given how swiftly people are attacking Wright, chances are this would fail
before the political situation can be resolved.

~~~
TillE
This seems extremely unlikely for several reasons, not least of which is that
of course the bitcoin community would demand simple cryptographic proof of
identity.

As others have pointed out in previous threads, citing James Randi, you don't
have to be stupid to fall for a con. It's quite easy to be tricked even when
you think you're being skeptical.

------
outworlder
> On his LinkedIn profile, Wright claimed to hold two Phd’s from Charles Sturt
> University. The University told Forbes that it never granted Wright those
> Phd’s.

My goodness. At which point does it become possible to press charges? Can one
just go around faking that they have degrees?

~~~
eng_monkey
He also claims to have about 8 master degrees, which is ridiculous by itself.
Plus tens of certifications including the 'prestigious' Microsoft ones. Just
red flags all over the place.

Cached Linkedin profile: [https://archive.is/Q66Gl](https://archive.is/Q66Gl)

~~~
cromulent
According to that link, he is the CEO of a company called DeMorgan, which is
listed on that page as "DeMorgan Ltd (Panama)".

I wonder if there is any connection to the Panama Papers leak. Time will tell,
I guess.

------
Ileca
The perfect proof: a guy whose blog is titled _Dr._ Craig Wright and has a
huge picture of his ugly face as a banner (look at that "about" section >
pretty hard to fix those pictures more than two seconds) can't be a guy who
used a pseudo for years and created something that would give the fame he
seeks.

Psychology > cryptography.

~~~
roywiggins
The thing that convinced me of his insincerity is that his website has right-
click "protection." And it alert()s if you press ctrl-C in another hamfisted
attempt at "copy protection". What genuine computer expert does that, let
alone in 2016? Especially one who has thought seriously about cryptography.

------
dineshp2
FYI, Electrum has stated that there was no download of a signature file of
Electrum from a UK IP address on April 7 [1].

This in itself does not prove that there was no download of an Electrum
signature file to the laptop that Gavin was given. He could have connected
using Tor or other services through which the real IP address is hidden, but
this could be another reason to suspect there was some kind of MITM hack that
Wright used. Also worth mentioning that the laptop was supposedly a factory
sealed unit [2].

[1]
[https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/727366861592076288](https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/727366861592076288)

[2] [http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi](http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi)

------
cantrevealname
You have a priceless Stradivarius violin. For some unfathomable reason, you
stamp your violin with the words "Made in China". Now, no one believes it's a
Strad. You take it to an appraiser, and he _immediately_ says it's a fraud.
"Strads are not made in China and you're a con man," he says.

Why would you stamp "Made in China" on a treasure like that? Maybe you were
trying to make it 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.

It is a defaced Stradivarius, but still a Stradivarius. It doesn't matter
because no one believes you.

Craig Wright does some silly things. Now, no matter what he says, ...

~~~
Sacho
Your analogy doesn't really exemplify what actually happened. I think this is
a better one:

Craig brings a set of high-resolution pictures of a Stradivarius violin to an
appraiser. The appraiser(Gavin) goes over them - they all look exactly how a
Stradivarius violin would look. However, his colleague(public commentators, in
this case) says the only way to really appraise a Strad is to see it in
person, and that going through all the trouble of getting high-res pictures
when you could just bring it over was pointless. Further, the colleague notes
one of the pictures shows a "Made in China" stamp on the Strad, and as such
guesses that Craig is trying to con them.

If a "Made in China" stamp _in itself_ made an appraiser instantly discard the
violin, then they haven't done their job. Similarly, if Craig had provided a
strong crypto proof that he was Satoshi(the physical violin, in this
scenario), but people disregarded it _just because it 's him_, then we would
match your analogy.

The analogy still doesn't really match reality - the reason why Gavin was
convinced is because he used tools that gave him a high confidence that he
wasn't being conned. Still, the way Craig decided to demonstrate that he was
Satoshi was long-winded and complicated, for no discernible reason.

------
alcio
Electrum verifies signatures offline
([https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/5ae2f30fa52ebcec37...](https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/5ae2f30fa52ebcec3773958fee45b462dd12c04e/lib/bitcoin.py#L407)).
So the `fake server` theory is wrong.

~~~
mortehu
Whence does it get the public key with which it verifies the signature? How is
the public key verified?

~~~
chjj
That piece of code likely gathers all the key recovery candidates it can from
the signature, hashes and tests each one against the hash in the address to
find the correct key. Then it performs the verification. Obviously the
verification would fail if none of the keys hash to the hash contained in the
address.

------
bunkydoo
People are still asking the question? The story is obvious. He didn't pay his
taxes since '08, he needed an excuse, he can't move original coins. End of
story. It ain't him

------
spriggan3
Hard to say. Gavin Andresen says he is, but Wright didn't publish an
unquestionable proof. Why would Gavin risk his reputation on that without the
confidence that he really is Satoshi ?

~~~
Buge
Not just that he hasn't published good proof. It's that he published fake
proof. I don't see any reason satoshi would publish fake proof besides trying
to troll people or something like that.

------
dc2
It is beyond me that anyone would actually try to fake such a significant
identity. Does this man have any self-respect?

~~~
mizzao
People don't have self respect in a lot of situations. For example:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-
ironma...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironman-
triathlon-cheat.html)

~~~
danielweber
"and that the only thing she did wrong, besides winning too often, was to lose
her timing chip in a couple of races."

Geeze.

------
macinjosh
As I see it, it is pretty clear to me. If I add together that Wright had the
means, motive, and opportunity to pull a con like this and the fact he hasn't
done the one simple thing that could absolutely prove it really is him it adds
up to Wright clearly not being Satoshi.

------
machinelearning
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet. From Gavin's reddit account,

"Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW"
if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1. That
signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and
then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of
electrum. I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak
before Official Announcement). I don't have an explanation for the funky
OpenSSL procedure in his blog post."
src:[https://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen](https://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen)

------
ekiara
If this is a hoax, I really don't understand what a Craig Wright can
materially gain from claiming he is Satoshi. Unless he's playing some sort of
long con, where he claims he doesn't want publicity or to profit from it, but
then accepts a deal from someone to trade his non-existent genesis block
Bitcoins for real hard currency. It'd be like a grifter in Las Vegas claiming
he was a Sheikh or a Saudi Prince and refusing all inquiries from public, but
then allowing one person to reach him and then swindling that person in a
deal.

Or maybe the 'real' Satoshi Nakamoto offered Craig Wright a big chunk of
bitcoins if he would claim to be Satoshi, so that his true identity would
never be revealed.

~~~
ageofwant
Or maybe he is just taking the piss. As an Australian, I'd applaud that.

------
timmytokyo
This is getting old.

Given the frequency of these fraudulent or mistaken Satoshi identifications,
it's probably time that someone puts together a simple, publicly visible
procedure for verifying Satoshi's identity. Make a web-site, call it something
like satoshi-test.com, and include a step-by-step procedure for journalists to
follow. If they can't get their Satoshi claimant to complete the test, then
they shouldn't write the story. If they ignore the test, then we should ignore
their story.

~~~
csomar
Here it is:
[https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017#.1t...](https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017#.1tcqn0urw)

Many journalists will jump on the opportunity even if they know that it is
100% fake.

~~~
ihuman
Could you explain what is going on in that post?

~~~
timmytokyo
I somehow doubt a typical journalist would be able to do anything with that.

~~~
rdl
We need better journalists, then.

I'm pretty comfortable with the technical competence of a subset of tech
journalists -- nikcub is one of them. Other fields often get fairly competent
journalists; tech journalism deserves the same.

The key thing here isn't necessarily technical competence but skepticism,
which is the thing journalists are supposed to be oversupplied with.

~~~
devishard
> Other fields often get fairly competent journalists;

That's... not really true, especially when it comes to stuff like Bitcoin,
which even a lot of experts don't understand (remember, people in our field
are still struggling to write CRUD web apps). Medicine, for example, has
equally complicated areas (cancer, epidemiology). I can't speak from personal
experience (I'm not an expert in that field) but I have friends who are
medical researchers and they are equally frustrated with medical journalism.

Ultimately, what we need are people who are actual experts in fields to be
writing about those fields for a general audience, and get rid of journalists
who aren't experts.

One thing that medicine does better is regulation. With odd exceptions like
abortion, regulation of how doctors do their jobs is managed by other doctors.
I would love if that was how things were done in computer fields.

~~~
rdl
The thing about journalism is you don't need all of them to be good, or even
the median or mean journalist to be good -- just the top few to be amazing.

I agree -- we need people who are actual experts in the field, but also good
at communicating, when communicating about topics where expertise is valuable.
There are some _amazing_ war correspondent journalists who go into harm's way
and have both shared experience and a reasonable background.

------
keypusher
Here's the thing. Craig Wright was probably there, he may have even had the
original idea, but it was his coworker/friend David Kleiman that actually
implemented it. Or perhaps contracted someone else to implement it, as he was
involved in the security industry and may have known players heavy enough to
develop such algorithms. Either way, it was Kleiman that had the keys. It has
become painfully obvious that Wright does not possess the technical skills to
have created Bitcoin, and it also should be very obvious that he does not have
the coins. He may have even written or at least contributed to the original
paper. He might even be as close to a living "Satoshi Nakamoto" as there is,
because David Kleiman died of MRSA in 2013. At this point, I don't think
anyone alive has those keys, and Craig is trying to parlay his former role
into something that he can actually turn into cash.

------
lordnacho
The whole thing seems to be handwaving that only a non technical person could
believe.

Because when you're not a technical person, you won't have good priors for
what constitutes proof. You'll be falling back on the same intuition you use
when reading a detective story. Who has motive, who has skill, and so on. None
of which take you out of the zone of doubt (say between 10 and 90 percent
certain) which is why detective stories are fun.

If you're a technical person, you can see how big a deal being able to sign
is.

For me, it's pretty easy. If someone says they're Satoshi, we ask him to move
some BTC from one of his addresses to another. They'll still be in trust
(crappy excuse). If you can do that, you're either him or he essentially gave
you his identity by giving you the key.

------
jay_kyburz
This whole thing is like some 90's cyberpunk novel.

~~~
nolta
More like The Grifters:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFBajRQIpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFBajRQIpg)

------
atomical
After Newsweek named Dorian Nakamoto as the bitcoin creator I remember reading
a post on Hacker News where a coffee shop owner's wife remembered seeing the
same man use bitcoin to pay for a coffee. Was there any truth to this story?

~~~
jonah
Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad. Confirmation Bias. Power of
suggestion. etc.

------
msowygqogd
Warning: hate speech ahead.

Sad fact: a single impostor clown wasted millions of hours of experts' and
other smart people's time that could have been spent productively otherwise.

Real question: has Gavin got insane or what game is he playing?

Speculation: I lost my faith in Gavin in 2014 in Amsterdam where I could
observe him joining The Bitcoin Foundation while it was already clear that TBF
was full of shit, pedophiles and nonentities focused on self-promotion and
earning a quick buck (with few exceptions). So my bet is on Gavin's
gullibility. He's got tricked by the con artist to the level that he is going
to defend his position against the evidence.

------
nickysielicki
Who cares?

Put the whole lore of bitcoin on the backburner for a moment and think about
what this would really mean if he was Satoshi. Pretend that the proof was more
than adequate, and pretend that Satoshi-signed messages started popping up on
the Bitcoin mailing list again.

What should that matter? He's got millions of dollars of Bitcoin. He dropped
out of the bitcoin world 5 years ago. If Satoshi came out on the mailing list
with a signed message talking about the block size, would it matter at this
point?

~~~
reddytowns
Of course it would matter. It would be like George Washington being somehow
magically resurrected and chiming in on the 5th amendment and the controversy
of the government coercing people into revealing their password.

------
afro88
Another theory: he destroyed the genesis block signing key and everything else
that could prove he's satoshi in the beginning. Because, well, he didn't want
to be linked to Bitcoin in case of unsavory government or corporate
interactions.

But now Bitcoin has more or less gone mainstream and it's safe for him to
reveal his identity, his human is kicking in and he's trying everything he can
to claim the fame

------
return0
If this individual can pull these shenanigans, is it fair to conclude that the
real satoshi does not exist (or is not alive), and mr Wright knows it?

~~~
jonny_eh
Reminds me of the Howard Hughes hoax autobiography:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Irving#Fake_autobiogr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Irving#Fake_autobiography_of_Howard_Hughes)

------
ajonit
Forget any of the crypto stuff, just ask Mr Wright to open another thread here
([http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto](http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto))
or any of the other forums he used to interact or edit one of his own forum
posts! This should be trivially easy for the real Satoshi.

------
partycoder
What if he presented a fake proof, so people can refute it, and in this way he
can finally stop people from accusing him from being Satoshi?

What is the benefit of having people know you are Satoshi? probably none. Any
money he can make from being recognized as the creator of Bitcoin is not
comparable to the money he could have made from early bitcoins.

------
jernfrost
Man this is turning into something like the Kennedy assassination or Jack the
ripper. There will be endless speculations and theories. At some point we will
be all so confused that even if the real Satoshi stepped forward we wouldn't
be able to believe it.

------
johnmoore
plot twist - Satoshi Nakamoto is Keyser Söze

------
damian2000
A lot of Craig Wright's presence on the Internet - wikipedia, linkedin, etc.
is full of ego-inflating hyperbole. To go to these lengths though, for the
sake of publicity (or notoriety) is pretty incredible.

------
jbrambleDC
What are the chances that Gavin is Satoshi, or knows who Satoshi is and wants
to corroborate Wright in order to protect Satoshis identity.

------
mouzogu
Why did he lie?

Is he a serial liar trying to take credit for someone else's work or is this
an elaborate attempt to get the real SN to reveal himself?

------
iamgopal
I don't know much about cryptography, but can his keys be recreated with all
the computing power all Bitcoin miners have ?

~~~
xseven
Bitcoin would be useless if that were possible.

~~~
gruez
To answer the question directly, no.

------
redcalx
Another option to consider: Craig is being pressured to make this claim to
flush out the real Satoshi.

------
rasz_pl
"administrative assistant working with Wright left to buy a computer from a
nearby store, and returned with what Andresen describes as a Windows laptop in
a “factory-sealed” box."

suckers, every day

~~~
rbobby
Really though.

I wouldn't even trust going to the nearest computer shop myself and picking
out a computer.

Presumably the assistant was believable because they weren't dressed in
spandex and sequins.

------
maverick_iceman
I searched for Craig Wright's Linkedin profile. It's not available any more.
Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine doesn't track Linkedin. Does anyone have a
cached copy of his Linkedin profile?

~~~
ino
It was linked above: [https://archive.is/Q66Gl](https://archive.is/Q66Gl)

------
dunkelheit
I am starting to think that all this is a postmodernist spectacle designed to
instill the thought that searching for Satoshi is a lost cause.

------
known
I think
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer)
is Satoshi :)

------
therealmarv
We are seeing the Apprentice/Padawan here which does a good but not excellent
magic illusion show in proving he is the one. Meanwhile the Sith-Master
himself is hiding in the shadows and has probably an evil grin on his face.

------
fao_
I do not think that Wright is Nakamoto.

However, posting in the form of a screenshot could be a smart move generally,
because of the possibility of the text being changed[0], or people cutting and
pasting code that does not present as malicious, but is embedded in the
website to be so.

[0]: Of course, this can still happen with an image!

------
nostrademons
Plot twist: Wright as Satoshi isn't the con. Bitcoin is the con.

After all, what better con is there to convince millions of people that you've
_invented a currency_ , and that they should hand over real money for bits and
bytes on computers you don't even control. Wright had recurrent run-ins with
Australian tax authorities, so he has a strong motive to shelter his wealth in
a virtual currency. The article admits that all his business relationships say
Wright is the best con-man they know. And the Bitcoin con has netted Satoshi
over a billion dollars.

Double plot-twist: Bitcoin isn't the con. _Money_ is the con. All the reasons
why Bitcoin is a hoax apply to the U.S. dollar and other forms of currency as
well.

~~~
dguaraglia
Dude, you better be careful. Don't diss the idea of Bitcoin on the internet or
you'll get embroiled in a flamewar of epic proportions. The Bitcoin-acolytes
are few but extremely vocal.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
I have never once commented upon Bitcoin without being immediately downvoted
on any forum, this thread included. Not once.

Watching the community fight is kind of depressing, because that's a lot of
energy that could be channeled into positive endeavors.

~~~
cc81
Have you written a well thought argument or was it just "bitcoin is a con"?
I've seen plenty of criticism of bitcoin get upvoted.

Just naming it as a con seems odd as it actually works and people buy things
with it every day.

