
I’m Sorry - daturkel
http://www.drcraigwright.net/homepage.jpg
======
dzdt
He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access
to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two
scam-proofs of this.

One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text
with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input
text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to
replicate would assume their problem was an incorrect source text. And there
was proof that the given hash value was signed by the key. But that did not
survive internet scrutiny; it was noticed that the signature came from an old
bitcoin transaction. Instead of signing the hashed Sartre text as claimed, it
signed the old transaction.

The other scam proof was presented in private to reporters and bitcoin
developers Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen. Here Wright supposedly demonstrated
the ability to sign arbitrary messages using keys from bitcoin blocks 1 and 9.
This scam succeeded: both Andresen and Matonis were convinced. But they were
not allowed to keep copies of the evidence, to prevent the trick from being
exposed. One speculation is that Wright was able to substitute a doctored
version of the Electrum software used for the verification. But without
evidence to examine outside of Wright's control, the exact details of the scam
are still hidden.

But now Wright is out of ideas. His public-consumption scam failed, and his
private controlled-scenario scam can't be more widely replicated.

So this message is his way of backing out, trying as much as possible to save
face and keep open the possibility of claiming the Satoshi Nakamoto identity
again later.

~~~
ryao
I had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would
have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not
want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things
develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity
while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the
line for him. By acting the way that you are acting, you are acting exactly
like he intended for you to act. There is simply insufficient public evidence
to say whether he is or is not. He is in that pesky excluded middle that gives
rise to pseudo-Boolean logic.

That being said, people should realize that the creator of Bitcoin does not
want to be found and honor that.

~~~
dzdt
So you expected the real Satoshi to keep his anonymity by announcing his
identity to the world and then backing up the announcement with "proof" that
is clearly false?

~~~
sandstrom
This. And the way he did it. Why would he run to GQ and BBC instead of simply
posting online, as with previous communication.

------
ablation
This is not an apology or admission of guilt for conning people with his
ridiculous stories. This is an enigmatic exit, complete with him still tacitly
claiming to be Satoshi. Quite pathetic.

~~~
kbart
_" This is an enigmatic exit, complete with him still tacitly claiming to be
Satoshi. Quite pathetic."_

Agreed. "I won't prove that I'm Satoshi anymore, but I am". It's getting more
and more like religion -- we don't get to know for sure, we have to _believe_
now.. And I'm sure a herd of idiots will do just that.

~~~
eric001
We are supposed to care about privacy, yet people can't stop trying to find
out who is the creator of bitcoins, even though this person clearly doesn't
want that to be known. I think we are all naturally hypocritical beings or
something.

~~~
33W
Are people actively trying to find the creator of bitcoin? Personally I don't
care enough to actively find out. If someone presented themselves, then I'll
have a passing interest - a few articles, HN comments, etc., but I'm not going
to change my day-to-day at all.

~~~
eric001
Good point.

------
Geekette
As I said on the other related thread[1]: Given his history as a prolific
liar, I find his post to be utter bullshit. Note how he's still lying about
things he was caught at: "When the rumours began, my qualifications and
character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false". NO - it
was _established_ (with confirmation from the schools in question) that he
lied about having a PhD from Charles Stuart U. and he definitely does not
possess 8 masters degrees. Not to mention other lies about having super
computers and partnership with SGI to build more with fake reference letter
(all clarified by company as false), etc.

Now, because he knows he can't successfully claim Satoshi's identity and in
light of possible charges based on ongoing police investigation (fraudulent
use of tax credits), he wants to dramatically disappear. I hope the
authorities have his passport(s). His thirst for fame is _unreal_.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11635471](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11635471)

~~~
biswaroop
Serious question, but why are we all so serious? Maybe he's a pathological
liar; maybe he wants fame; maybe he's just a conman. Does the bitcoin or tech
community gain something from hoping for his arrest?

~~~
Geekette
What exactly is unacceptable about hoping that an established liar and conman
is made to account for his actions? At the very least, getting millions of
dollars from fraudulently claimed tax credits is certainly not a trivial
issue.

Also don't understand why it would be acceptable to anyone that he should get
away with falsely claiming an identity despite contradictory evidence and
potentially smearing the image of bitcoin/community via his actions.

~~~
biswaroop
I hope he's held accountable too; it's just the vitriol in the threads that
surprised me.

------
daturkel
The home page of
[http://www.drcraigwright.net/](http://www.drcraigwright.net/) currently just
displays this image. Linked straight to it so that it wouldn't get flagged as
a duplicate submission.

edit: Here's a mirror of the image, in case it comes down:
[http://i.imgur.com/7lhU0mr.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/7lhU0mr.jpg)

And here's the OCR'd text: I'm Sorry.

I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of
anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I
prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do
not have the courage. I cannot.

When the rumors began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When
those allegations were proven false, new allegations have already begun. I
know now that I am not strong enough for this.

I know that this weakness will cause great damage to those that have supported
me, and particularly to Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen. I can only hope that
their honour and credibility is not irreparably tainted by my actions. They
were not deceived, but I know that the world will never believe that now. I
can only say I'm sorry.

And goodbye.

~~~
daturkel
Strangely, he's replaced the homepage and every subpage/file with an HTML
version of the note, rather than the image. I'm not sure why.

~~~
sixdimensional
Is there any steganography going on here?

------
woodman
Just to save anybody else the effort of pulling times from the jpg:

    
    
      20160503T16:00:03Z  First Internet Archive snapshot of extraordinary proof post [0]
      20160505T10:57:08Z  homepage.jpg created [1]
      20160505T11:13:52Z  homepage.jpg saved
      20160505T11:35:21Z  homepage.jpg saved
      20160505T12:11:46Z  First Internet Archive snapshot reflecting change [2]
      20160505T13:30:26Z  Image replaced with text [3]
      20160505T13:52:40Z  homepage.jpg is now an html file
    

I wouldn't be very concerned about this being a suicide note, I don't think it
is common for suicide cases to make bandwidth saving changes to the note hours
after the the initial release...

[0]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160503160003/http://www.drcrai...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160503160003/http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-
claims-require-extraordinary-proof/)

[1]
[http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=c37a7368be70afd35ef...](http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=c37a7368be70afd35efc49e9a660a45c0b7d71a4.207446)

[2]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160504140906/http://drcraigwri...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160504140906/http://drcraigwright.net)

[3]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160505133026/http://www.drcrai...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160505133026/http://www.drcraigwright.net)

~~~
comboy
Is this a log from some command line tool? If yes, what is it?

~~~
woodman
Sorry, no - everything I touch looks like it came from a TUI... BSD King
Midas.

------
spdustin
Sounds like a suicide note from a distraught individual to me, leaving aside
the lack of Satoshi's grammar. I do not know enough about his background to
contact the police for a well-being check; does anyone here?

~~~
teraflop
At face value, I would agree. But given that he's clearly lying about being
Satoshi, and therefore also lying in this note, I figure it's likely that the
"suicidal" tone was deliberately chosen. It's just another attempt to stir up
controversy.

~~~
hackuser
> it's likely that the "suicidal" tone was deliberately chosen

That's a very serious thing to say in regard to something you know very little
about.

------
coldtea
>" _as (...) I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I
broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot_ ".

And I call BS, with BS on top.

How convenient...

~~~
racoonear
Yeah, kind of angry after reading that.

~~~
hackuser
> kind of angry after reading that

What do you and I have to be angry about? Isn't that just playing into online
mob behavior?

------
cisstrd
If he is not Satoshi and just wanted the attention:

Narcissists have an incredible high rate of suicide, because when they fall
from their high horse, the floor is quite some way down and the landing is too
hard for them. Rather than being found out as fake, go with a bang... I fear
the bang coming...

This note kind of worries me a little bit... no matter what he did wrong, I
hope he will be okay.

~~~
e40
But if he's a sociopath, this might be his gambit to exit with the least pain,
and suicide would not be very likely.

~~~
cisstrd
(still speculating on the basis that he is not Satoshi and did it for reasons
of getting attention)

Also a possibility of course... his method to safe at least some of his self-
image, depends on how good he is at self-manipulation, people are often very
good at it.

------
mootothemax
At this point, this is bordering on performance art.

(For what it's worth, I'm torn on this note: on the one hand, it's deeply
upsetting that someone is writing that they're feeling such torment; on the
other hand, should it turn out to have been written insincerely, he's just
made it a tonne more difficult for anyone else who _does_ legitimately express
feelings like this. No winners.)

~~~
TillE
Honestly, I'm shocked anyone is taking it seriously. Every shred of evidence
(from the past few days, and from last year) suggests he's a con artist.

I certainly believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but it's
laughable to think this guy is actually Satoshi, and therefore impossible to
see this note as sincere.

~~~
mootothemax
Yeah, honestly I agree with you, I doubt any part of it is real.

I do feel uneasy about discounting a potential cry for help, though, however
unlikely it may be.

------
joshmanders
Forgive me as I'm a newbie to bitcoin and only ever seen it from the outside
and watched a few things. I only know who Satoshi is because of the mass
amounts of people wanting to know who this mysterious man really is. But my
question is, why does it matter if Craig Wright is or isn't? I mean I can
understand being upset that he lied about it if he really isn't for attention,
but what if he is? The dude is literally being ripped apart left and right by
everyone and anyone.

Whether Satoshi is finally identified or not, what difference will it make? I
honestly don't understand the deafening attacks at Wright at first for being
"outted" as a potential to be Satoshi and now when he says he is.

~~~
StavrosK
> what if he is? The dude is literally being ripped apart left and right by
> everyone and anyone.

Because he's the guy who, when asked for ID to prove he's 21 when entering a
bar, shows a piece of paper with "Date of birth: 21 years old" sharpied on it,
and when the bouncer says "yeah this isn't actual ID" the guy goes "WOE IS ME!
IF I GET THIS TREATMENT AT THE DOOR, IMAGINE WHAT THE ACTUAL BAR WOULD BE
LIKE! I DO NOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO WALK PAST A DOOR SUCH AS THIS, ALAS,
HORATIO" and feigns fainting.

~~~
hackuser
His behavior has no affect on me. Why should I care? Even if your analogy is
accurate, that guy at the bar doesn't affect me either.

What is dangerous and does affect me, indirectly in this case, is the online
mob behavior and bullying. That does real harm to people and to our society.
For example, whoever the real Satoshi is, would they ever want to be subjected
to this?

~~~
roywiggins
Bullying probable conmen is a reasonable way to try and discourage future
conmen. Come 'round our town selling snake oil, and you get run out on a rail.
It's disproportionate; that's the point. It's a sort of social control.

~~~
hackuser
But the bullies often get it wrong. Vigilante justice is not justice at all,
just abuse of random people.

~~~
roywiggins
I never said it was a good idea, but that's why people care about people like
Wright walking in and appearing to try to take them for a ride. The response
can be completely maladaptive, and cause more harm than good, but that doesn't
mean it's completely unreasonable. It's the same reason people get steamed at
companies like Theranos.

In this case, it's nuts because everyone agrees on what the standard of
evidence is, including him, and he's refused to provide it and acting hurt
that people are sceptical. Many people gave him the benefit of the doubt when
Gavin et al vouched for him; it's entirely his behavior afterwards that has
turned people against him.

------
tcoppi
The worst part about this is he is playing so loose with words that it gives
no closure at all. For years there will be people, especially newbies, that
will believe Craig and will treat circumstances surrounding the whole affair,
like the "leaked" and "hacked" documents alleging his involvement, as at least
potentially true. In my view, anyone or anything that lends any legitimacy to
Craig as far as bitcoin goes should not be trusted at this point.

For that matter, I believe most public people involved with bitcoin should not
be trusted at all either, but that is incidental.

~~~
mbmott
Bitcoin definitely attracts fraud, but it's also teaching many people an
important lesson in trust. Trust code and math as these things are ultimately
verifiable.

~~~
GrinningFool
It's a hard lesson for many, and it'll likely need to be learned many times
over. Any number of individuals are willing to take advantage of the
trustworthy nature the technology to imply that the things they do are also
trustworthy.

And too often, it works - because the technology is secure, not enough people
question those who are using it and proclaiming "secure" in a loud enough
voice (mt gox, cryptsy, mintpal, and countless others).

------
michael2l
It's amazing to me how everyone is drinking the koolaid here on him being a
fraud. I really don't think Gavin got duped. And I'm pretty sure they had
enough private email discussions over the years that there were things they
discussed/shared privately over those years that could be used as a reference
point for Gavin to be sure he was talking to the same person. People are more
willing to believe that Gavin was hacked or suddenly forgot how bitcoin
worked.

I understand the technical proofs put forth have been spurious. I wouldn't be
surprised if Craig had an under-qualified underlying who didn't really
understand what they were doing who was responsible for some of that. People
are forgetting the human part of this equation though. His interviews with the
BBC don't strike me at all as someone looking to cash in. I think he is a bit
of narcissist and wants to claim some credit for inventing bitcoin, but I also
see a very deep fear of being in the public eye that comes through as well.
Perhaps because he has done quite a few things he's not proud of and doesn't
want to have people publicizing those. But the idea that he's a scammer
looking to cash in here just play doesn't out at all. What's the end game?
Where's the pile of money he's after? People aren't thinking through the
motivations here thoroughly enough. He's risking quite a lot by doing this
with the absolute certainty that he would be found out if he was a fraud. You
could say maybe he's an idiot and doesn't understand that. No one could watch
that interview though and believe the man isn't intelligent though. Why talk
about the negotiations with Australian tax authorities when those authorities
could very easily come and say that he was lying. None of this makes any sense
from the scam angle. There has to be something else going on here.

~~~
nikcub
> What's the end game? Where's the pile of money he's after?

He made multiple tax refund claims to the Australian authorities - including
one for $54 million as part of a program where 45% of each dollar invested
into R&D are refunded. Another was a $3.5 million refund on sales tax.

The funding source in these transactions were Bitcoin. It adds up to over $150
million invested. The tax authorities asked Wright where this money came from,
he told them in an interview that he was Satoshi Nakamoto.

I go through some of this in a blog post:

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

His explanation didn't work, they rejected the claim and penalized him for
another and were investigating him further. He fled to London.

Why he continued to press on with the Nakamoto identity nobody knows - but
based on character assessments from multiple people I know who have worked
with him and know him well he is a person who strives for recognition and has
a history of deception (see his LinkedIn profile).

It was 2 years ago that he started showing up at Bitcoin conferences and left
strong hints that he was Satoshi - he wanted people to come to this conclusion
on their own (and some did). Watch these videos from a conference in
Australia:

[https://vimeo.com/149035662](https://vimeo.com/149035662)

[https://vimeo.com/149115042](https://vimeo.com/149115042)

(specifically skip to 9:30 in part 2)

Also see this panel discussion, which is now well-known:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE)

------
kennell
If the real Satoshi is still around, he musst be cringing at all this. The man
can't even accurately describe how SHA256 works, yet claims to be the
mastermind behind all this.

Geee Craig, stop playing silly games. Sign the message or simply stfu.

~~~
rasengan
He is.

~~~
philippnagel
Could you elaborate?

~~~
celticninja
He is going to stfu.

------
andrewla
The only scenario wherein Craig Wright could actually be Satoshi is if Satoshi
had burned his bridges -- in the process of abandoning the Satoshi identity,
he had deleted all cryptographic evidence of the identity; all private keys
and credentials for online accounts.

In that case, if he later (now) decided to assert the identity, then he might
be tempted to cobble together fake proof to get his foot in the door far
enough that he could begin to assert various forms of social proof with people
that he had interacted with while using the Satoshi identity.

It's worth noting that the "scorched earth" elimination of the Satoshi
identity is another possible theory as to why nobody has credibly claimed the
identity -- because even the individual (or group) that assumed the identity
no longer has the ability to cryptographically assert that identity.

~~~
hatmatrix
People have suggested it's possible that the real Satoshi could have destroyed
or not kept the original private key, or it belongs with one of the other, now
deceased team members. Is there anything to gain by not admitting to it if
this were the case?

Even if a message were to be signed with the original key, people suggest that
it would still not be proof as it could have been stolen or extorted. It seems
there is no way to prove anything at this point.

CSW's backing by "experts" suggests he is not an ordinary conman.
Surprisingly, none of the experts have so far backed down on their support of
CSW. Even GA's statement does not withdraw support, only expresses regret for
posting support too soon. Also CSW's boldness to assume that the real Satoshi
would not out him at this point makes it likely that he was involved with the
Satoshi team and has some knowledge about his identity (deceased or
otherwise). Or, he is gambling.

CSW's writing style in his blogs and elsewhere suggest it cannot be the same
person as the author of the white paper, and yet I've heard another say that
his academic papers contain a writing style close to the white paper (I have
not verified myself).

All of this is obviously bizarre - the backdating of evidence, fraudulent
cryptographic proof, etc. Either he severely underestimates his audience, or
he wants to be be discredited. There has been a suggestion that CSW wants to
discredit himself to throw off extortionists (reported 6 months ago).

~~~
danielweber
The Satoshi coins can be publicly destroyed so they will never be spent.
Transfer them all to an address like 1BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB. This
is much more trustworthy than leaving it in doubt whether the coins can ever
be recovered or not.

~~~
andrewla
Well, in the "scorched earth" scenario, it would be more accurate to say that
they "could have been" publicly destroyed. It's not clear to me why public
destruction is necessarily a part of abandoning the identity. I don't
understand what you mean by "trustworthy", though; if the identity is
abandoned, then what's to trust?

------
emmet
Is this a suicide note?

~~~
pboutros
How is this not the first thought people had? Poor guy, with a lot of signs of
mental instability. The amount of animosity people have had towards him on HN
(and elsewhere) isn't tempered by how obviously imbalanced he is. I think it's
because of the disproportionate amount of media attention he's received for
something he didn't earn.

~~~
emmet
I did not expect to be the first one to bring it up. People are being very
clinical here.

~~~
anoonmoose
To be fair to people here, we're discussing a new message by a person who is
widely perceived to be running some type of scam. I hadn't considered the more
serious subtext of this message but given the history here you have to
consider that that might have been intentional to try to engender sympathy.

~~~
bpchaps
Yeah, but it still sounds like a _legitimate_ suicide note and some semblance
of worry makes sense.. I understand the desire fore fairness, but this was
_just_ posted without much followup context. Have a bit of heart for a second.

If this whole story is the a result of a mental health issue, well - mental
health is a serious mother fucker.

~~~
throwanem
> it still sounds like a legitimate suicide note

"Sounds". Let's not forget the guy's a con man.

------
DonHopkins
"They were not deceived" \-- yeah, that's the ticket! [1]

Nice use of passive voice to obscure the subject of the sentence. He just
couldn't bring himself to say "I did not deceive them." It's technically true
that there's somebody in the universe who didn't deceive both of those people.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4)

~~~
agumonkey
I just saw his BBC interview
[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213580](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213580)
and his body language (for whatever this is worth) is worse than most
politicians. Rhythm, eyes.

~~~
cynthiar
I thought he was quite convincing in that performance. In fact, what tipped me
off was just how convincing he was, the way a conman would be. What about his
body language tipped you off?

~~~
agumonkey
The convoluted way to answer 'Satoshi, is you'. Long pause, look away, answer
sideways, pivot back eyes still close, still no eye to eye contact.

Feels like a lot is going on in his mind. Maybe he can't express everything he
wants too. Maybe he's just acting over its abilities.

------
4e1a
What a load of shit! He can't cryptographically prove something without
courage?! WTF

~~~
cooper12
"Your skepticism prevented me from providing evidence to allay those
concerns".

~~~
jjuel
The thing is if he uses actual proof like the community wanted him to there
would no longer be any skepticism. So the only reason to not do it is because
you can't do it.

~~~
danielweber
If only Satoshi had created a way to publicly prove ownership of Bitcoins. :(

------
gedrap
Well, simple way to stop most of it would have been to prove it. That's all.

But holding the proof and then such a dramatic exit, playing the victim? Wow.

------
wbillingsley
Cryptography, a transaction system that tracks the flow of money around the
world, coming out a few years after money laundering measures were on the
security agenda, working under a pseudonym to keep their identity secret, not
looking to convert much of the hundreds of millions to cash when the price
went up, total silence on whether or not somebody else is Satoshi...

... something makes me wonder if Satoshi has the initials GCHQ.

Of course, on the other hand, it'd be ironic if it turns out the real Satoshi
just didn't expect it to turn into such a big thing, lost the keys on a USB
down the back of a sofa, and is hiding out of the sheer embarrassment of it
all.

------
zaroth
I wonder if Craig was hoping that the real Satoshi would move a coin to
implicate Craig as Satoshi in order to actually remain hidden.

------
calebm
I'm pretty sure Craig Wright is not the real Satoshi, but if he was the real
Satoshi and didn't want anyone to know, he would be going about it in exactly
the right way :)

~~~
danieltillett
This has been my thought exactly. The best place to hide a needle in in a pile
of needles.

------
mladenkovacevic
His true aim of writing an auto-biography titled "I am Satoshi" will have to
be renamed to "How I fooled nobody that I am Satoshi"

------
daturkel
BBC has now written Wright's "backing out" of providing proof:

[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213580](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213580)

------
sergiotapia
Basically: "I'm sorry you don't believe me, I am too weak to give actual
proof."

------
roosterjm2k2
I feel like this whole thing belongs on TMZ, not Hacker News...

------
noxToken
I know what cryptocurrency is but I have hardly followed what goes on. I am
somewhat familiar with the recent event involving Wright.

Could someone tell me, in plain English, if there are any challenges in Wright
divulging the information needed to verify that he is Satoshi?

~~~
c22
There are only challenges if he doesn't have the key. If he has the key he
should trivially be able to sign anything with it or decrypt anything
encrypted to it.

~~~
pgrote
Is there a reason he hasn't or won't spend some on the original bitcoins to
prove his claim?

I don't think spend isn't the proper technical term.

~~~
ChristianBundy
The reason is that he's "too weak", supposedly. The _real_ reason is that he
isn't Satoshi.

------
DyslexicAtheist
what's the reason for him showing us a screenshot though?

1) so search engines don't index and remember the text? I suppose search
engines only read meta data from images and not OCR them when crawling?

2) if one grants him deeper technical knowledge of information security (I
don't) then you could argue he has done the image/screenshot after creating
the text in his WYSIWYG editor then after publishing the article, ... so that
he could switch off any backend cgi or rdbms capability to reduce his attack
surface (from lot of people who are currently digging for ways to poke around
his internet facing system for ways of getting in)

~~~
anoonmoose
Some wild guesswork: his website used to disallow right-clicking with a
message that said he didn't want to share his images. Obviously people can get
around that but whatever, this shows what type of person we're dealing with on
a technical level. He might have thought that posting an image would prevent
people from...copying the text or something? Searching for it? Who knows.

Of course, now it's HTML again, probably because he realized his website was
getting hammered on bandwidth. Which makes me feel a little better about his
health and well-being, since being concerned about bandwidth implies long-term
thought processes.

------
fallingfrog
Here is one hypothetical explanation for this behavior: maybe Craig is not
Satoshi, but he wants to know who the real Satoshi is. So he fabricates some
evidence, and goes public claiming to be Satoshi, hoping that the real Satoshi
will contact him. Once that contact is made, if he figures out Satoshi's true
identity he can then blackmail that person, or if not he can extort money from
them in exchange for dropping his claim. Probably farfetched..

------
SyneRyder
Worth pointing out that the BBC has followed up with another post. Wright
asked them to send a small Bitcoin amount to the address used in the first
Bitcoin transaction, and he would send it back to the BBC to prove he is
Satoshi. The BBC sent their Bitcoin, and then Wright deleted his website.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588)

------
Schwolop
If I were Satoshi, and I thought people were sufficiently close to discovering
that, a ridiculous media circus showing me claiming and failing to prove that
I _am_ Satoshi might well be a good way to throw people off my trail for a few
more years...

------
nurettin
All this ruckus because people dislike others being wrongly credited. Well, so
what if he gets a cult following? So what if a portion of people want to
believe something without empirical evidence?

Not like it hasn't ever happened before. And it will continue to happen no
matter how many call bullshit.

------
tacos
Flounce level 1000, a new high score.

[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flounce](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flounce)

------
brunomarx
he has some serious issues

------
hasch
best counter "proof" that he isn't satoshi is the source code. compare this
html5-masterpiece to the first bitcoin.org website:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org...](http://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/)

I doubt the real satoshi would have started to learn sophisticated html in the
past 7 years

------
nickpsecurity
That's right, Craig. It's time to end your troll of the most gullible people
in tech and HN. It's time to end it with one more scam: a fake confession of
the broken man... who really is honest... who society just couldn't come to
grips with. A cliff-hanger that should ensure any book or business deals will
still be profitable if merely dependent on a few believing in his con.

Red flags and bullshit from start, especially presentation style in conference
interview, to finish. Craig, if you see this comment, please aim for a Darwin
Award next as you'd be doing humanity a favor.

------
sixtypoundhound
First rule of a credible "reveal".

You do not reveal yourself; someone else must reveal you.

The art lies in the orchestration of the latter.

------
joeblau
The Internet... Still undefeated.

------
csomar
It comes as a surprise to me that this is too close to religion.

Some trustworthy people saw Jesus, God and the miracles. Some people did not
believe and some people might have claimed that it was fake.

But most people believed it anyway, and it's still believed by a big number of
people to date.

~~~
knodi123
Some people were deceived by a con artist named Wright. When he was called on
it, he made a bunch of people think he was going to die soon, and made a bunch
of other people feel marginally guilty for questioning his authenticity. Now,
despite overwhelming evidence of trickery, despite perfect proof of his claims
being _trivially_ easy to create, there are still people _in this very thread_
who think he's genuine. And probably will be for years to come, since those
who believe him and defended him are emotionally invested in it, and those who
disbelieve him will have ceased thinking about this embarrassing debacle a
year from now.

Yes, it's a pretty good analogy.

------
dsugarman
It does read like a suicide note, as someone in the other thread noted

------
OliverSadie
Did anyone notice his pronunciation of "moniker" on the BBC piece? Needed a
second or two to parse "monkier". Before seeing the weight of evidence both
sides of the argument, this awkward language was my first whiff of BS. Just
me?

~~~
headgasket
noticed that too, maybe he's dyslexic?

------
ohyes
I too lack the courage to out myself as satoshi nakamoto!

------
zodPod
So, like... Is this a thing now?

I guess... I'll be the new Satoshi?

------
matchagaucho
I'm confused what part "courage" plays in executing a public transaction using
known Satoshi Bitcoins?

Would even that transaction still be subject to scrutiny?

------
known
Apologies accepted :)

------
justsaysmthng
I believe the guy is Satoshi.

People were expecting the next Jesus Christ and now everyone's so disappointed
that "Satoshi" is just an average geek with human weaknesses - not the messiah
everyone expected.

Had he started a Unicorn startup, nobody would have even thought to question
it, but now that the myth of Satoshi has been blown to astronomic proportions,
people refuse to believe that their guru is just a "simple" guy who makes
mistakes and is clumsy at PR.

Look at the source code of bitcoin-0.1 and you'll notice that Satoshi was an
average C++ programmer who wrote sloppy code - yes it was a prototype - but it
wouldn't have stood a chance if other people hadn't gotten involved to develop
it into what Bitcoin is today.

Besides, if you look at the code, he wasn't even sure he was creating a
currency - it looked like he was trying to create a marketplace, complete with
products and chat.

Interestingly, a lot of people treat him like a fake prophet - and are
proverbially crucifying him for not being able to perform the "miracle" of
making a transaction from block 9.

\---

He's not Jesus and he's not Buddha, he's just a programmer who had a brilliant
idea and now tries to claim his invention.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong and Craig Wright is just an idiot compromising
his reputation and career for a "moonshot" and a minute of glory. That would
be totally stupid for a guy who has a family and a company and who's a
cryptographer - to make a fool out of himself like this. Unless, what he
claims is true..

Who knows, in the end it doesn't really matter that much.

~~~
nyolfen
Look at discussions about Wright from earlier this week. He has an established
reputation as a scam artist.

~~~
justsaysmthng
Too much noise - all of them opinions and speculation...too many emotions.

The fact that Gavin Andersen (and others?) met him and talked to him and then
said that he is "the father of Bitcoin"... means that either Wright is a _very
good_ con artist, good enough to convince the chief scientist of the Bitcoin
Foundation, or he is the real deal.

I've also watched the interview... if he is a con artist then he is also a
very good actor too.. to me Wright looked like a person in deep emotional
turmoil.

Compatible with what one would experience if he were holding the private key
to billions of $ worth of bitcoin, while the public were pushing him to use
it.

~~~
nyolfen
Andersen and Wright have explained the methodology used to 'prove' Wright is
Satoshi and it has already been torn apart, here and other places on the net.
I recommend you do further reading.

> if he is a con artist then he is also a very good actor too..

these two things very typically go hand-in-hand.

>Compatible with what one would experience if he were holding the private key
to billions of $ worth of bitcoin,

the only thing he would need to do is sign a message using the private key
from an early block. This is extremely straightforward, widely known and
expected, and he instead provided an bizarre and discredited method of proof.
This also comes months after he tried to use easily discredited methods to
take credit, like backdated blog entries. He's a scam artist.

