
New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux - jbegley
https://www.investinblockchain.com/new-evidence-suggests-satoshi-nakamoto-is-paul-solotshi-the-creator-of-encryption-software-e4m-and-truecrypt/
======
tptacek
Evidence:

* Both Le Roux and Satoshi did significant cryptography projects.

* Both Le Roux and Satoshi work in C++.

* Wright claimed in legal filings to have been involved with Le Roux.

* Allegedly, Wright and a friend have built a cluster of computers to crack secrets, which the theory presumes to be the password for a TrueCrypt volume with Le Roux's bitcoin key.

* Le Roux has an alias, "Solotshi", which sounds like Satoshi.

* Le Roux published a short manifesto, long before Bitcoin, that echoes some Bitcoin principles.

* Satoshi disappeared at about the same time Le Roux was really kicking his criminal conspiracy into gear.

* A forum post presaging Bitcoin was posted from the Netherlands, where Le Roux is from.

I mean, judge this stuff for yourself. Independently: a lot of people _want_
this to be true.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and
for all.

(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community
are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral
character?)

~~~
johnnycab
>(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community
are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral
character?)

Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright? Both of them have been
actively craving recognition and courting notoriety of their own accord, for
differing reasons ─ either due a flaw in their character or empty spots in
their souls, probably not related to their genius. Regardless, they are not
seeking any kind of redemption or permission from anyone, nor do they have any
desire for privacy; although Paul Le Roux is already semi-anonymous due to his
status as an asset.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
> Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright?

Neither. I was talking about Satoshi Nakamoto.

It disturbs me that so many people are willing to unmask Satoshi.

More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created
something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them
of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?

~~~
danShumway
One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy (whether or
not it ever delivered, other people can debate). But there's a special kind of
horribleness in working so hard to unmask someone who is in part famous
_because_ they helped build a privacy-protecting payment system.

Do people who spend time obsessing over the fact that they might not
personally get to know the real world identity of one famous person understand
how much it undercuts every other argument they will ever make about privacy?
Shouldn't the Bitcoin community be collectively the biggest and most forceful
group of advocates for leaving Satoshi the heck alone?

The hypocrisy of a website called "Invest In Blockchain" popularizing what is
essentially a giant doxing campaign is apparently lost on this article's
writers/editors.

~~~
betterunix2
"One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy"

Really? I would say that the primary, and basically only, selling point was
the lack of a central authority (I think it is interesting that Bitcoin was
announced during a major financial crisis that shook confidence in the banking
system). Satoshi stated this in the original whitepaper and took the time to
explain the concept of electronic payments without central banks on the
cryptography mailing list. Privacy seems to have been unimportant to Satoshi,
who basically left it as an open problem (he speculated that something like an
anonymous remailer could be created for Bitcoin, and ultimately such things
were created).

As I say every time this comes up, the Bitcoin whitepaper makes no mention of
the work on e-cash, which is telling for two reasons. First, it means that
Satoshi was probably not very familiar with the academic research on
cryptography and almost certainly was not involved in the cryptography
research community (so we can eliminate Hal Finney, among others). Second, it
means Satoshi probably was not very interested in payment _privacy_ , since
anyone who did even a cursory review of previous work would have come across
David Chaum's work on e-cash or his Digicash startup. The fact that Satoshi
used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about
privacy; it just means he was a cryptography enthusiast.

~~~
danShumway
> the fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone
> who cared deeply about privacy

:shrug: I would take it as a strong indicator. Who else other than someone who
cares about privacy uses a remailer? I'm not sure I buy the argument, "they
were just anonymously registering domains for fun because they liked
cryptography."

That being said, my point wasn't that Satoshi himself listed privacy as a
selling point of Bitcoin, but that the _community_ listed privacy as a selling
point (and still often does). The hypocritical part isn't about what Satoshi
intended Bitcoin to be -- it's seeing people who have argued that part of
Bitcoin's importance is privacy then turn around and say, "except for this
guy."

------
ak39
"The newfound Satoshi candidate is Paul Solotshi Calder Le Roux, a 46-year old
former cartel boss, drug smuggler, arms dealer, informant to the US Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), and genius programmer."

How do you run a drug cartel, be responsible for gun running, play undercover
informant for the DEA and still have time to program in C++ _AFTER_ thinking
deeply about the best architecture for crypto-currency through trial and error
prototypes and then also have the presence of mind to author a near perfect
academic quality paper on the seminal algos?

Keyser Söze! The legend continues with new apocryphal evidence.

~~~
tribeofone
Some people are just orders of magnitude smarter than the rest of us. Look at
Kim.com, how was this guy able to run a series of companies, become a
multimillionaire and be the #1 rated Call of Duty player in the world? I can
hardly manage holding down a job, and coaching my kid's soccer team!

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
I know Kim because I interviewed with his company "Data Protect" in Munich in
person.

He was a hero back then in infosec and kids like me were told by "the Internet
elders" that if you want to make it in InfoSec you have to work for
Dataprotect ... "because this is a company where the boss flies to work with
his helicopter". I was young and easy to impress and this kind of talk was
even echoed by fyodor @ insecure.org so it wasn't just idiots like myself who
believed it.

When I met him and his other German partner in September 2000 at his swanky
office in _Nymphenburgerstraße_ all my alarm bells rang because they had
literally cartoon cut-outs of Kim and posters of Kim everywhere plastered
around the office.

Kim is a genius in managing his brand but he isn't a hacker, in fact his
questions in the interview were so lame that I felt really disappointed. Later
it turned out that he hasn't even done the credit card hacks that he used to
say he did. Instead he made his money with insider trading and ponzi schemes
during the dot-com bubble which was the reason why he did a runner and why
German authorities wanted him for so long.

Kim isn't a technology genius, he is just a really good con-man (oh btw his
real name is "Kimble Schmitz", which sounds way less cool than Kim Dotcom).

~~~
wp381640
> Kim is a genius in managing his brand but he isn't a hacker

He was the butt of all jokes on IRC hacker circles for years - the crazy
eccentric guy who would threaten to hack and ping DoS everyone and have a
meltdown. He is/was essentially a charlatan and snake oil salesman who never
proved any actual skill

That he has come so far in terms of being respected by anybody is bemusing

------
jimbob45
Why say Paul Solotshi instead of Paul Le Roux, a name everyone is far more
familiar with?

None of the evidence presented was compelling. It was circumstantial at best.
Save yourself the five minutes it takes to read this article.

~~~
bena
"Circumstantial" does not mean "weak".

Circumstantial evidence is often strong enough and compelling enough to
determine court cases. Circumstantial evidence is often better than direct
evidence.

Circumstantial evidence: Stuff like DNA, fingerprints

Direct evidence: Bob's memory of the event.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence)

But please, continue using "the evidence is circumstantial" as if it means
that it's not good enough.

~~~
N_trglctc_joe
This is a really good point. Direct evidence of Satoshi's identity can only be
in the form of someone claiming to be him, and that just wouldn't be credible.
Circumstantial evidence is all we're going to get; even somebody spending
Satoshi's BTC wouldn't be direct evidence since, as the article points out,
someone else could have obtained (and be in the process of cracking) his hard
drives.

~~~
bena
People just way too often ape legal procedural shows where people will exclaim
that "all this evidence is circumstantial" as if that's an actual problem.

You can say that about _most_ evidence. Even the classic "smoking gun"
metaphor _is_ an example of circumstantial evidence.

It's just a way for people to dismiss a claim without actually having to argue
against a claim. If the evidence is tenuous or weak, explain why.

For instance, the fact that Solotshi is similar to Satoshi. That's just dumb.
If you're going to pick a pseudonym to hide your identity for the long term,
you don't pick one that's just a variation of your name.

However, if every other piece of evidence was much better, then dude just
picked a bad pseudonym.

And we also have to consider that a lot of weak signals can become a strong
signal. Like the name thing is what I'd call an extremely weak signal. But if
there's an overwhelming flood of such weak signals, then it starts looking
much more likely.

------
mike_hearn
I was one of the first users of Bitcoin, and one of the earliest developers.
I'd like to have a beer with Satoshi some day, so I took a brief look at this.
But I'm unconvinced.

One key claim is "they both liked gambling, Bitcoin 0.1 had a poker client in
it". Beyond the obvious problem that lots of people like poker, this claim is
nonsense. None of the versions of Bitcoin I've ever seen had a poker client in
them. It's not even clear what that would mean - you can't implement (mental)
poker with Bitcoin Script. And I don't recall Satoshi ever commenting on
gambling one way or another.

Another claim is that they both knew C++. Let's assume for a moment that
TrueCrypt was written by Paul le Roux (I don't know the backstory). I
downloaded the TrueCrypt code and had a look at it.

The TrueCrypt code doesn't share the same rather distinctive coding style
Satoshi used. Bitcoin was rare for all kinds of reasons, but one rather
obscure reason is that he used a simplified variant of Hungarian notation and
only wrote code for Windows. The TrueCrypt code doesn't share this quirk, but
it does have a different formatting quirk that I haven't seen before (there's
always a space after a function name and the argument list in invocations).
Satoshi didn't use that style either. Styles can be pretty distinctive, and
I've never seen one that exactly matched Bitcoin's. So it looks to me like
these codebases were written by different people.

The other bits of "evidence" are all circumstantial and frequently absurd. The
entire thing traces back to Craig Wright, which isn't a good sign.

~~~
I_am_tiberius
I'm hearing about the Hungarian notation story for the first time. Just makes
it more evident that it's Nick Szabo.

~~~
mike_hearn
Why?

~~~
I_am_tiberius
He explains it in this 1 minute interview. He lived in Hungary until he moved
to the US with his parents.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZw4LNLYUgc&list=PLyajeoDXKm...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZw4LNLYUgc&list=PLyajeoDXKmQ7QM8ouEObZalBUZetN9A_J)

~~~
mike_hearn
Hungarian notation has nothing to do with living in Hungary. It's a style of
naming variables in which type codes are prefixed to the name, e.g. a variable
holding a name might be called lpszName for "long pointer to string terminated
with a zero". It's called Hungarian notation because the programmer at
Microsoft who came up with it came from Hungary, beyond that there's no
connection.

~~~
I_am_tiberius
ah ok. Then I take it back;)

------
hartator
Gimlet media released a podcast about him:
[https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/dvhd9k/136-the-
found...](https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/dvhd9k/136-the-founder)

His huge interest for gold, programming, encryption, and his global distrust
of the state makes me believe he can also have created Bitcoin.

~~~
scottlocklin
He also ran a crazy criminal empire denoted in gold bricks, which seems like a
pretty stupid hobby if you invented bitcoin.

It was Hal Finney (and maybe Szabo). It's obvious.

------
staplers
After 7 years in the crypto space, I'm still not convinced of any particular
Satoshi theory. That being said, Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, and Paul Le Roux all
have decent evidence pointing to them.

~~~
WalterBright
Hal was in the dorm room next to mine at Caltech. It's just like him to be
Satoshi. Hal was a great guy, wicked smart even for Caltech, and his sense of
humor fits right in with being the anonymous creator. I have no idea about the
other two fellows, but my money's on Hal just because I want it to have been
him!

~~~
BubRoss
There is also the thought that it is more likely the creator is dead than
someone who gave up being world famous as well as 20 billion dollars.

~~~
TremendousJudge
If satoshi tried to cash out, wouldn't the value of bitcoin plummet?

~~~
BubRoss
Is the number of billions the only thing you have an issue with here?

------
rayascott
Elaine Shannon wrote the book "Hunting LeRoux" [https://www.elaine-
shannon.com/works-1](https://www.elaine-shannon.com/works-1) I haven't read it
but she has been on reddit discussing why she thinks Paul Le Roux is NOT
Satoshi Nakamoto
[https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bp3uug/the_unanimous_o...](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bp3uug/the_unanimous_opinion_is_no_hes_not_satoshi/)

~~~
SkyMarshal
Great find.

 _" In 2009, when bitcoin emerged, he was busy launching multiple ventures As
I detailed in Hunting LeRoux, among these were small arms sales, trading in
hard drugs, trading in smuggled gold, building a submarine, devising a new
missile navigation system for Iran and setting up a new base in Somalia, where
he intended to make himself into a white warlord, expanding his arms business
into an Amazon-for-arms platform with fortified bases, his own militia,
barracks, warehouses for arms, an airstrip, a seaport and so on.
Significantly, he discovered oil on the land he controlled but declined to
drill it, saying it would take too long to turn a profit."_

~~~
nickpsecurity
"saying it would take too long to turn a profit."

If that's true, he'd definitely not want to do an uncertain and long play like
Bitcoin. He'd be more likely to do Silk Road or something.

------
rdiddly
Is it possible the name Paul Le Roux was left unredacted intentionally? I'm
not familiar with Wright's case or possible motives; this is just a public
service announcement that you should always look with suspicion at all
"leaks." For some reason the idea that a piece of info came out inadvertently
or accidentally is sufficiently distracting that few people will wonder
whether that piece of info is true. Which means a viable strategy for anyone
trying to make something look true, is to make it look like it was released
accidentally.

------
robotcookies
Is it really possible to stay anonymous for this long? Nakamoto bought the
bitcoin.org domain at one point - we know this for sure. Surely someone can
track how this was paid for? Someone running the forum he posted on has IPs it
came from. Even if it was through a VPN, that can be traced by going to the
host provider, right?

This person left a long digital trail. How is this not traceable?

~~~
SkyMarshal
Maybe he used a prepaid card for the domain and a different one for the VPN
(which doesn't log), or maybe he did everything through TOR. Not hard to be
untraceable for someone capable of inventing Bitcoin.

------
avs733
So sincere question...does this matter? What is added to the social value of
bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general?

I'm not asking to just dismiss it...just why we are perpetually
having/focusing on this discussion is intriguing to me

~~~
jimbob45
He would reach mythical status if he were found to have upended both the
cryptographic industry and financial industry as well as run a multi-
continental crime empire.

~~~
vkou
> if he were found to have upended both the cryptographic industry and
> financial industry

How exactly has he up-ended the financial industry?

None of the differences in how 99.9% of the world pays for things, over the
past 10 years, have anything to do with BTC.

How has he upended the cryptographic industry? Nobody actually building
products, or using cryptography for useful things is basing it off BTC.

BTC created a new financial market, sure. It has not 'upended' industries that
solve actual problems.

~~~
lugg
Name one major bank not working on blockchain tech right now.

I guess an upending isn't a totally accurate description but I haven't seen
banks this motivated to innovate in a long time.

~~~
vkou
> Name one major bank not working on blockchain tech right now.

Name one major bank actually shipping something blockchain related that works
better then what we had before.

Major banks occasionally announce that they are tinkering with it. There's a
couple of reasons for why they do so.

1\. Some senior engineer who is personally interested in cryptocurrencies with
political clout wants to work on a hobby project, and is chums with his boss,
who said yes. It's never going to see the light of day, but who said big
institutions are smart?

2\. They want to be seen as hip places for engineering talent. What better way
to do so, then to claim that there's people in the organization working on
magical unicorns (Even though none of their work will ever see the light of
day.)

3\. Idiot board members/shareholders who don't understand anything about
banking or crypto are asking directors 'What are you doing about crypto,' so
the company builds a Potemkin village, to tick a checkbox on their next
quarterly earnings call. The village will be torn down, and the villagers
shot, as soon as this checkbox disappears.

In short, the list of valid reasons for a bank to work on cryptocurrency are:

1\. Someone with pull started a vanity project that slipped past the
beancounters.

2\. Cynical marketing for purposes of developer outreach.

3\. Covering-your-ass against a powerful idiot, who wants to know why you are
busy doing real work, instead of chasing a fad that he read about on Buzzfeed.

Notice how this list omits "Building a useful product that will make us more
money."

~~~
jamisteven
LMAO - I work in IB and this is spot on.

------
ilaksh
Well, if I were a movie producer I might consider trying to put that movie out
immediately. Before we find out who the actual Satoshi is -- assuming we will
ever find out.

Because it just sounds like the type of movie that Hollywood can sell. I mean
Hollywood loves to glorify violence, and people already think that Bitcoin is
mainly about criminal activity.

However I am hoping that La Roux is not Satoshi, or at least that it is never
proven. Because the association with criminal activities detracts from the
positive effects that cryptocurrency can have in terms of improving society.

~~~
wp381640
"Hunting LeRoux" \- the book is already being turned into a film by Michael
Mann[0]

His story is more than interesting enough for an entire film without the
Satoshi connection

[0] [https://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-evan-ratliff-
elaine-s...](https://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-evan-ratliff-elaine-
shannon-paul-leroux-20190215-story.html)

------
gm3dmo
In a forum post from 2002, 7 years before Bitcoin was released, somebody
posted something that sounds an awful lot like an early idea of Bitcoin ...

The comments in the screenshot claimed to be from 2002 are from gmail.com
addresses. Gmail was launched April 2004.

~~~
jiveturkey
the gmail.com comment is a _reply_ , dated 2014. Later on in the thread, the
original post, being replied to, is shown to be from 2002. Necrothread.

the screenshot you're referring to doesn't show any dates.

------
nostrademons
I'd still bet on Hal Finney, RIP.

~~~
api
If so that means the creator of the first true cryptocurrency is currently
frozen in liquid nitrogen awaiting potential revival in the future, which is
even more evidence that we are in fact living in a cyberpunk novel. All we
need now is a Rastafarian operated space station at one of the Lagrange
points.

~~~
nostrademons
We also have pervasive surveillance, drones that bomb enemies of the state at
their weddings, social credit scores, masses who are addicted to their (two
way, voice controlled!) telescreens, bionic humans with RFID chips embedded in
their hands, reality TV stars running the government, people drinking green
mush called Soylent, reusable rockets to colonize Mars, a cloud of Internet-
bearing satellites surrounding the earth, and a cult of rich people who think
time is going to end as AI takes over and technological progress accelerates
to a singularity.

We are living in a cyberpunk novel.

~~~
api
I'll add more:

"Console cowboys" who constantly pop stimulants like Modafinil and Adderall to
maintain their edge and shoot for a big payday (via startups, cryptocurrency,
cybercrime, etc.), weird subcultures of nihilistic cyber-terrorists,
enormously powerful criminal organizations that are almost indistinguishable
from states (the Russian mob), an Asian superstate with crazy pollution and
industry (China instead of Japan but close), people losing themselves in
online fantasy worlds and cults, epidemics of drug addiction to weird
synthetic designer drugs among the lower classes, and widening class
divisions.

William Gibson just "remote viewed" the 21st century and wrote down what he
saw. Unfortunately it's pretty dystopian unless you're rich.

If the prophecies of William Gibson play out then this goes on until AI
eventually rises up and takes over and effectively overthrows the global
superclass. The end result for regular people is not entirely clear.

~~~
nostrademons
The Matrix, probably. Harvested for bio-energy after a losing a war with the
AI, while being pacified by a simulation of ordinary life.

Who knows, maybe it's already happened?

~~~
krustyburger
Why would human beings possibly be the best source of “bio-energy” instead of
other organisms? Futurama already made the point, but that part of the plot of
The Matrix is really total nonsense.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a very good movie.

~~~
nostrademons
Held in stasis to train machine-learning algorithms? Too late, that's already
happened - Mechanical Turk.

Or exterminated, then, but that'd make a much more boring movie. Can't have
someone save humanity if we're already all dead.

------
Sschellbach
my conspiratorial reaction to all these conspiracies about paul le roux is
that this is propaganda to defame bitcoin by driving a narrative that bitcoin
was created by a convicted vicious crime boss and informant. im not buyin

------
_Nat_
Isn't Satoshi Nakamoto supposed to control >5% of the total Bitcoin supply
currently available? But they're inexplicably not tapping into the large
amount of wealth that'd seem to be available to them?

It's a bit hard to believe that someone who'd go to such extremes for money as
Le Roux would simply choose not to enjoy some payday from the Bitcoin hoard.

~~~
UseStrict
I'm pretty sure he's still in prison, serving time for various convictions.

------
gwbas1c
Reads like a conspiracy theory.

That being said, as much merit as the theory has, there's far too much
allusion to circumstance to believe this.

------
mirimir
Interesting, I suppose.

But I wonder if Craig Wright does in fact have a bunch of FDE drives that he's
trying to crack.

And if they are Le Roux's drives, I wonder what will go down if he ever gets
released.

------
virtuexru
This article states that:

"Bitcoin’s initial code had a poker client included."

Does anyone have more information about this? I had no idea this was the case.

~~~
emrehan
[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4405b78d6059e536c369...](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4405b78d6059e536c36974088a8ed4d9f0f29898/uibase.cpp#L1592)

------
I_am_tiberius
I don't believe it, at all. I still very sure it's Nicks Szabo. Also if he
blocked me on Twitter for no reason:)

~~~
781
The problem with Szabo is that nobody was able to locate any sort of code
written by Szabo - ie, he doesn't seem to know how to program and the first
version of Bitcoin is way beyond noob-level - crypto, GUI, distributed
networking, ...

~~~
I_am_tiberius
In the podcast with Tim Ferriss he said he can code in C++.

~~~
781
Well, none of his code is public. Furthermore, on his blog he wrote about a
lot of topics - economics, history, politics, crypto contracts, but not even
once about a programming topic.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Szabo was a University of Washington compsci undergrad, and then an engineer
at Digicash and a certificate authority company (forgot which). Then he went
to law school. So he definitely knows how to code, but it's unclear if he's
current with it, or perhaps rusty from not doing daily for a long time.

I suspect Hal Finney was behind the Satoshi handle on the original mailing
list, and I wouldn't be surprised if he enlisted Szabo to help him write the
paper since Szabo was also on that list, is a good writer, and Szabo's Bit
Gold concept is pretty close to Bitcoin. But it's most likely Hal who invented
Bitcoin's architecture and coded it up.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo)

------
spookybones
Interestingly, the photo of his Congo passport shows his date of birth as
December 12, 1982. But, the article and Wikipedia states his date of birth as
December 12, 1972.

~~~
mikeleung
that's a fake passport, hence the alias 'Solotshi'

------
darkpuma
Every time I read one of these theories it sounds pretty convincing. This one
too. Yet they can't all be right.

------
1121redblackgo
Nick Szabo

------
wyck
tl;dr Craig ratted out La Roux and the the icing on the cake is trying to
steal La Roux's coins using a front for mining (and school funding, etc)? Ya
that's not the full story, La Roux certainly knows about this unless he's in
solitary, did anyone ask him;)

------
chvid
Why all this silliness? Everyone knows it was made by the grumpy Aussie man.

~~~
tim333
Unlikely.

~~~
jtms
It was clearly a joke - he means the opposite of what was said, but thanks for
spelling out the obvious

------
mrkramer
He is probably not Satoshi because Bitcoin was meant to be everything opposite
of a currency for money laundering hence triple ledger accounting aka
blockchain. After all see Bitcoin whitepaper and read carefully each sentence
and you will realize it was meant for internet commerce and last thing you
want in ecommerce is fraud and money laundering.

On the other hand Craig Wright is the most possible candidate for Satoshi by
far. There are too many clues leading to him for example like this one
[https://seclists.org/basics/2006/Mar/270](https://seclists.org/basics/2006/Mar/270)
or a small detail like word "bloody" which Satoshi used and it is usual for
people using British vocab which Craig being Australian uses, I heard it in
his presentations. And btw Craig said he was involved in cracking of TrueCrypt
with law enforcement that explains why creator of TrueCrypt is mentioned in
court documents.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
Craig Wright is not Satoshi, that is absurd. Research it more and come back to
us. If he ever wanted to prove it he could easily do so by moving any of the
early coins etc. Instead of his fraudulent signatures added after the fact and
all his other shenanigans.

~~~
mrkramer
By moving Satoshi's coins he is not proving him being Satoshi, he is only
proving that he has a private key of Satoshi's wallet. If I steal your Bitcoin
wallet's private key and I move your coins does that mean I am you? Probably
not. Craig said in of his interviews that he has a bank statement of
bitcoin.org domain purchase so I am eager as much as everyone to see the bank
statement.

~~~
duskwuff
> Craig said in of his interviews that he has a bank statement of bitcoin.org
> domain purchase

Which still doesn't prove anything, beyond that he bought a domain name. (Or,
to be even more cynical, that he got something that looks like a domain name
purchase to show up on a bank statement.)

~~~
mrkramer
He bought bitcoin.org domain in 2008 and by credit card. If bank statement
says that then he can be considered at least being a part of Satoshi group or
even Satoshi himself.

~~~
wc-
The screenshot he shared supporting this claim was shown to be easy to forge.
(source:
[https://twitter.com/Mike__V_/status/1116725165168177152?s=19](https://twitter.com/Mike__V_/status/1116725165168177152?s=19)
)

I think before continuing further you should familiarize yourself with the
mountain of evidence showing lies, fraud, and deceit found at:

\-
[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright)

\- [https://www.stopcraigwright.com](https://www.stopcraigwright.com)

\- [https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-is-a-liar-early-adopter-
prove...](https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-is-a-liar-early-adopter-proves-
ownership-of-bitcoin-address-claimed-by-craig-wright/)

\- tax fraud in AUS, attempting to cover this up is most likely the cause of
his campaign: [https://medium.com/@Bitcoin_Beyond/forensic-report-raises-
qu...](https://medium.com/@Bitcoin_Beyond/forensic-report-raises-questions-
about-australian-tax-offices-handling-of-craig-wright-probe-138843251ef5)

The list goes on and on, the evidence is easy to find and there is really no
excuse for trying to push this theory.

