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.
If you toss out the ones about romantic relationships, Craig hits on most of them.
Interesting that it has now been deleted from wikipedia...
This is also good: http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath
I'm also in the non-believer camp, nor can I fathom why "Satoshi" would initially choose to remain anonymous but then decide to come out. What purpose does that serve?
Whatever the case, all of this drama is really, really bad news for bitcoin as a currency in the future.
They said that in their 30 year career counselling criminals and assessing them, they only met one true sociopath. The kid came from a family with $100M+ and was about 20.
They said that this person could convince you of anything to the extent that everyone who had exposure to them had to do so in small chunks so as to not empathize.
This person could cut to the heart of someone's identity very quickly and learn how to manipulate and engineer your response.
Apparently it is one of those things where you are like "Maybe I am on this spectrum..." but if you were, you would either know for sure, or be pathologically immune to the critism. And if you met someone who truly was on it, they would be capable of things beyond most normal people's imaginations.
Bitcoin already has a reputation for being used in scams and illegal dealings. This con man being able to convince some major news organizations and bitcoin celebrities doesn't help improve that image.
Even the guy who chaired the DSM-IV thinks so: http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalizati...
Modern psychiatry is 50% science 50% tarot cards if you ask me.
Of course, you'll be leading with coin flips, and most people will fail. We just pay special attention to statistical flukes who make a lot of money before they flip out.
A huge portion of the population is not made up of happy-go-lucky, oblivious-to-the-world individuals, and someone comparing themselves to public figures in some vain attempt to show just how nice and normal their own life is... sigh. There are what, probably over a billion people, that random strangers would label with all kinds of mental illness. If it's that common, most of those cases are not mental illness, - it's just a personality type. Another person having a different personality than your own does not mean something is abnormal about them.
The question then, of when and if society or doctors judge someone to be ill as a result, is an open one. I think maybe in retrospect dying from a cancer he could have probably treated properly, and his various personal and professional setbacks (which he managed to reverse in some cases) paints him as more disordered than different.
Labelling the people who do not appear to be afflicted by certain behaviours as normal, and labelling everyone else as something else bothers me. Doubly so when you're talking about something like depression that supposedly affects millions. Having a dismal outlook on life based on how our society operates (capitalism, dead-end jobs, government, lack of community, etc.) isn't a disease; it's just how some people see the world that we are forced to participate in with no choice of alternatives.
I don't buy into this mental illness craze that is sweeping across developed countries. When you have 10-20%+ of people popping pills for one thing or another, something is wrong. It's ridiculous. All the sheeple just take the word of experts who decide what is what. As a society we put far too much faith in these experts, taking their best-guess research and believing in it as if it's factually known to be accurate.
tldr; Our current understanding of the brain is nowhere near complete, and treating people for problems that may not actually be problems based on our limited knowledge bothers me.
Not that I think the phrase has useful diagnostic meaning or anything.
The thought he knew more than doctors about medicine. That has nothing to do with work being priority #1, it's entirely based on your head being up your own ass.
I think there was more narcissism than sociopathy.
Sociopaths have a sadistic streak. They enjoy fucking with people's heads, lying to them, and destroying them. Nothing on earth makes a sociopath happier than the knowledge that they've screwed someone over.
They're actually more like human relationship trolls - from the "soft" versions who enjoy lying and cheating, to the much rarer dangerously criminal types who enjoy torture.
Narcissists simply don't care about other people. They don't enjoy torturing others - they don't think of them at all, except as an occasional inconvenience, or (ideally) as a source of praise and limitless support.
The Jobs dedication to getting noticed by the world for being "insanely great" combined with his tendency to use employees and customers to build up his self-image without being interested in them beyond that seems more like classic narcissism to me.
Even Jobs realized his self-delusions had cost him some time, at the end.
I wouldn't go so far as to call this behavior "full blown sociopath" but it definitely shortened his life. I don't know what the stats are for refusing cancer treatment, but I think they're fairly low.
"Too many people didn't believe me, so now I will NEVER show the proof, so there!" --- that's completely transparent bullshit coming form a grown man. If it was a nine-year-old girl, I might continue to believe, due to accepting the drama as emotionally genuine.
(click on "Symptoms")
(2) Snow some investors and raise a bunch of VC.
(3) Pay off tax authorities with VC to avoid going to jail; swap angry tax authorities for angry VCs. The former are criminal charges with nasty penalties, while the latter are civil and/or easier to defend criminal charges. At the very least you've kicked the can down the road.
In all seriousness though, I hope he does get sent back to Australia. Everything he's done fits with someone who is grasping at anything that might get him out of has last con, and unfortunately for him, his last con involved a government organization that will want its money back.
Maybe he is a liar, maybe he's Satoshi, who gives a shit at this point when the jaded comments make it sound like we've been invaded by 4chan.
But the giveaway that shows it's all fake is that they never really get to the root of the bad behavior and do anything to fix it. In this case, Wright still hasn't admitted that he isn't Satoshi and doesn't have the key to the genesis block.
I've seen this behavior far too many times from my ex--I'm not going to give in to it here. Sure, someone should go check that he's not going to kill himself. But that should not for a second distract from the fact that he's a liar and a fraud, and this is likely just his latest ploy.
Either way, it is a loss of life. I do feel better knowing that his safety (or, at the very least, status as a living, breathing human being) is confirmed. I also think he needs help, real professional help, to overcome whatever is pushing him in this apparent downward spiral.
Of course, he could just be some asshole trying to get airtime or to socially engineer access to Satoshi's funds. Maybe Satoshi had a psychotic break, and he (as Satoshi) is the result of it? Point is that we have only the evidence that has been shared (by him, the media, former colleagues) in a very haphazard way. It's easy to get wrapped up in theories and plot twists when there's a level of anonymity between us and the subject of our conspiracies. We simply do not know. Maybe we won't ever know.
Hopefully the next step for him begins a path to peace, rehabilitation, restitution, acceptance or any combination thereof.
I don't think she would be alive now if I hadn't made that call.
It's us angry monkeys who are the creators of this kind of behaviour.
At least on HN let's concentrate on the technology FFS.
AFAIK none of the current "blockchain" tech has managed to successfully introduce a robust "proof of stake" system versus the wasteful "proof of work" yet - and that's just one of the many problems we need to solve.
Essentially the whole Internet is broken so unfortunately we cannot even seriously talk about the significant scalability issues which AFAIK all of the current decentralised crypto state machines still suffer from out there on the githubs...
However it's not right to go around guessing that someone like this guy is using that tactic and ignoring what could be a serious cry for help when you have no idea if he's an abusive person.
That said, I agree that if I knew the man, or had any idea where he is then I'd feel compelled to check in on him. But it sounds like people have checked in on him and he's OK .
But I'm guessing it's just more showmanship and more attempts to distract from the fact that he has no proof he's who he's claiming to be.
He's also updated his homepage in the last few minutes.
Despite knowing just how much of a manipulator Craig is I think it's worth erring on the side of caution here.
Thanks again for checking in.
It would take less than 5 minutes, which leaves the question, why drag it on like this?
(I'm not actually claiming that's what's actually going on, for what it's worth. Just that the behavior has a familiar feel.)
I wouldn't keep the keys to US$ 500 million on my laptop's hard drive.
EDIT: this is presupposing he's not a con-artist, which is still my hypothesis
Of course, it's vastly more likely that he is not Satoshi and he's just trying to save face.
When your every action gets a Guardian article it can be a scary time for anyone. Especially those who've not experienced it before.
Even if he made a calculated decision to manipulate the news media here, the blame must be shared by the journalists who promoted the story, and to an extent, the portion of the audience that was simply looking for an easy answer and a satisfying resolution.
At the end of the day, the whole lot of us should be responsible for being skeptical enough to prevent a destructive person from turning their personal issues into a global crisis.
Many people stepped up to debunk this story quite readily. It was the mainstream media that was really exacerbating the situation.
I believe someone (healthy) close to him should take some care of him for a while. Regardless of his online identity.
We'd all be more worried for him if he wasn't so blatantly causing harm to other people's reputation.
Obviously he could suffer from severe mental illness, which combines elements of harming others and self harm, but as a society I think we should worry more about the person being harmed (ex. Gavin).
Yeah he made a mistake. But smart, even skeptical people get conned into making those kind of mistakes all the time. In the end, it's a lot of drama with no real harm done.
This guys is so full of crap its amusing
At this point his mental health is clearly not good. If he really believes what he writes, he has delusions on a clinical scale which should be addressed before he does something he might regret. If he doesn't believe it, he is a consummate fraudster, a danger to the community, and should probably go to jail.
Courage of admitting he lost control of his con game. The only way is to keep plowing forward with more lies and more diversion, no matter how childish and stupid.
At the end of the day every con artist is also a desperate, lonely and broken on some level. There is probably a tiny dose of truth in what he said at that level. In other words he is not sorry and broken for lying, he is sorry and broken for being caught red handed at his own game.
Craig, hoping Satoshi to be alive, provided an opportunity for Satoshi to move some of his own Bitcoin and have Craig become Satoshi in the public mind. But Satoshi, did not bite.
It would also explain the silence - the project is over, the team is probably bound to secrecy because this stuff is classified.
The only time Satoshi spoke out (edit: and we don't even know that it was authentic, see discussion below) was to help the poor bloke who was mistaken to be Satoshi and his life was being ruined, and that was probably a collective decision by the former team members, it was the right thing to do.
This is a different case - Satoshi speaking out wouldn't help in this case, Craig sounds like someone in need of help from a professional psychiatrist or psychologist, http://www.drcraigwright.net/ almost sounds like a suicide note. I feel sorry and worried for the bloke.
no, the forum account was hacked to make that claim. It wasn't by Satoshi.
Are you sure, I wasn't aware of that?
Edit: the "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" was on March 7 2014, the account hack on Sept 8 of same year. It doesn't prove it conclusively. In fact the hack may well have been done deliberately, for a (kind of) plausible deniability (i.e. now you can't tell whether it was the real "Satoshi" and thus there was no provable breach of secrecy).
Discussion at the time: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zrshb/real_satosh...
The consensus is that it was not from the real Satoshi.
In fact the reaction to that forum post are the same as the reaction to CSW's claims: Sign it or it's worthless.
Good point. But on a second thought - signing it might have been in violation of whatever secrecy requirement, possibly a crime, under this theory we will never ever see anything signed from Satoshi.
With that view of the big picture I would be surprised if someone would throw away what may be the most valuable numbers in history, let alone the only proof that they created it while purposefully remaining anonymous.
Mr. Wright made his claims but now is unable to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Warning: Adblock dection) http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/12/11/bitcoi...
Asides the conversation, the whole source code of this website is: <img src="homepage.jpg">
This man is really not caring.
EDIT: site is updated now, with proper html+css coding.
Frustratingly, it appears the main screenshots from the Sartre post (showing his original 'proof') have already been removed from archive.org.
You can fetch them from here: http://imgur.com/a/ppGI9
You're kidding right ?
EDIT : no he isn't .
Or just use the privkey from the genesis block to sign a message "In the very unlikely event that I ever decide to reveal myself, it will be through a message similar to this one" -- and then post it anonymously somewhere.
>In December 2013, a blogger named Skye Grey linked Nick Szabo to the bitcoin's whitepaper using a stylometric analysis.
All that, and the NS/NS: Nakamoto Satoshi / Nick Szabo. :)
I assign a low probability to the proposition that Nakamoto is other than Szabo.
Suppose Nakamoto isn't Szabo. Why the various similarities? They could be deliberate: Nakamoto isn't Szabo but another researcher who not only runs with the same ideas, but mimics the elements of writing, duplicates the timezone of activity and so on. Even chooses the letters N and S for his pseudonym to tantalize people with the hypothesis that he is Szabo. The problem under this hypothesized scenario is that Szabo would almost certainly have cried foul: "Hey, world, this Bitcoin Nakamoto dude is ripping off my research without crediting me at all!" Secondly, why would someone who wants to create a digital currency system based on Szabo's ideas go to the trouble of creating all these irrelevant similarities.
On the other hand, there is the why: why wouldn't someone who obviously knows a lot about security an privacy issues not put more effort into building plausible deniability? Maybe Szabo simply doesn't care about having anything near air-tight claim that he isn't Nakamoto, and so just let himself be sloppy. Perhaps he actually wants there to be all that circumstantial evidence, and is biding his time until the right moment to admit that he is Nakamoto, at which time with just some small piece of proof, it will be iron-clad to everyone.
Figuring out whether anyone actually knows who Satoshi is/was becomes more interesting than waiting for the person(s) to show up, because it will never happen in a death scenario. One thing we have gained from this bizarre circus is a sign that neither Gavin nor Jon know who Satoshi might be; who's left? Who might know?
In fact bitcoin's cousin, Ethereum, is all about digital contracts.
But there could be cases, where people lose their keys or die, without making a will. We can easily foresee, that in this case software could accommodate cases, as exceptions, where identity is otherwise attached to the public key.
But a will contract can be put on the blockchain, and its a step forward, IMHO. Just today I learnt about OverStock's t0 trading on the Blockchain using colored coins (which is supposed to bring down the settlement of stocks to T+0 from T+3. Just stating this example as a case of progress enabled (or made possible) by the blockchain.
Likewise, Blockchain will make wills better i.e. enforceable and crisp via a program hence more specific. But as of now, its not a replacement for judiciary definitely. That's why I said its like version 0.1 of what's possible.
Edit: The link to t0
We're not anywhere close to it mattering yet, though; it's several decades out.
One satoshi is currently worth about $0.0000045, though, so there's still plenty of room left for inflation.
The two paths are:
1. Come out as Satoshi and be regarded as a genius. Deal with whatever the consequence of holding btc are, be they currency or assets.
2. Burn your own rep and be regarded as a nut, then struggle to live off your btc fortune.
Some people are weird. It's all fun to think about though.
At worst, it's an interesting discussion of a con man running into a technical wall.
There is no evidence to believe the post reflects upon his real emotions, and since the man is untrustworthy, the post cannot be taken as evidence about his emotional state.
:Whether he is willfully or maliciously deceptive is irrelevant. Even if he has the best of intentions, his behavior is still untrustworthy.
He's a criminal.
How would Satoshi prove himself then?
If he had the foresight to know he might want to prove his identity at some point in the future, he could have embedded the hash of a message into an early block (using the public keys of coinbase transactions). The message could say something like "Satoshi Nakamoto is <real name>. <salt>". In order to prove his identity, he'd just have to reveal the contents of the message (he'd have the make the salt something he could memorize so that it wouldn't be at risk of being destroyed by a fire). Ideally he'd encode this message hash in multiple early blocks (using a different salt in each message, so that the hash is different each time).
I think anything like the "knowledge of the content of private emails" is flawed. Satoshi's email account was hacked, so most of his "private" emails are no longer private (supposedly he didn't use PGP for most of his private correspondence).
If I were Satoshi I totally would've committed it to memory. I have more random characters than that memorized for passwords to various accounts.
Or, even easier, have a smaller simple password, and then be able to reconstruct them using an algorithm that your remember, e.g. SHA256(SHA256(SHA256("correct") + "horse battery") + "staple").
If I were to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is Satoshi, this note still doesn't make any sense. Removing all doubt that he at least controls the keys is almost trivial.
1 - Propose flawed argument.
2 - Insert pink unicorns.
3 - When asked for proof, don't give it and instead claim this is exactly what's best for the world but that we are too short minded to understand it.
The rest of the world at large (EDIT: that knows about bitcoin as sub intended by the rest of the sentence) that is not part of the bitcoin cult, looks at the thing for its technological prowess - or lack of it - and mostly sees it as a cryptographic experiment gone right and a financial experiment gone very wrong.
When I referred the world at large, I referred the world at large that already knows bitcoin, not the world population. And from those, most of them obviously didn't get in bitcoin (in fact the ones that did get in bitcoin are pulling out as can be clearly seen in the volume of bitcoin transactions since 2014).
And it is a clearly failed financial experiment because:
1 - It concentrated all the wealth in the hands and very few people in only a couple of years (http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/top100)
2 - The majority of bitcoin transactions are used for ilegal purposes (http://www.coindesk.com/dark-web-markets-processed-more-bitc...)
3 - It's more inconvenient than existing payment systems to use so people don't use it (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-is-dead-says-prominent...)
4 - People are so uninterested and suspicious of bitcoin that you actually loose money if you present bitcoin as a payment/donation method (http://bitcoinist.net/mozilla-study-shows-bitcoin-negative-i...)
5 - Complete unregulation keeps meaning high scale theft and complete unreliability of bitcoin markets (MtGox and many others)
All in all, the world at large - in this case not only the ones that know bitcoin - clearly understands that the financial system needs more regulation not less, and yet, you put bitcoin in the table with is utter lack of regulation and try to claim its a great thing that will solve the world's financial problems but you don't give absolutely no sane argument or metrics about how it is doing that. And that was exactly my original point.
You cannot have a functioning financial system that is constrained to seven transactions per second.
The real question is, what is the maximum real throughput of the system if we could adjust the tuning parameters to be as high as possible? It's well north of 7 but I bet also well south of, say, 1,000.
Lol, that's the best "it's a feature, not a bug" spin I've seen on the blocksize issue to date.
I find your comment funny because it reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/whnms4CLJys?t=44s
Setting the number of blocks at 2,016 per two weeks is completely arbitrary, as is setting the block size at 1 MB. None of these are "fundamental flaws" because they can be changed. They're hard-coded constants that can be changed in code in a trivial amount of time. The hardest part about changing them is getting consensus on the change and the time it takes the change to roll out to most of the clients on the network before cutting over. The existence of altcoins that have changed these parameters is proof that it's not a technological flaw.
A technological flaw would be some kind of vulnerability in ECDSA or SHA256 that would allow people to spend other's Bitcoins. Now that would be a fundamental flaw that would destroy Bitcoin over night. But coding constants that can be changed, and as time goes on, most likely will be? You are seriously over-dramatizing things.
All I'm getting from you is flippancy, Simpsons references, and strawman arguments. You have failed to make your case at all. If what we are talking about is a fundamental flaw, then every program you have ever written is fundamentally flawed, because I'm sure they've all initially had bugs in them that were much worse than what could be changed by adjusting the values of constants.
The block size can't be changed because a small number of miners control it, and they stand to profit from the increased transactions fees resulting from the increased competition on smaller blocks. It's tragedy of the commons.
This is a fundamental flaw with Bitcoin- that the people who control the software can also benefit from inhibiting transactions per second. For a payments network, it's not going to get more than 7 tx/s, until someone else is in control. Other enthusiasts have reconciled this by looking to bitcoin as smart contracts, or to side-chains.
But you can continue to spin this as good for bitcoin or as "payments tuning parameter" propaganda if you like, just understand that I'm going to laugh at you for it, cydeweys.
You argument that miners will always want small block sizes is flawed. Miners stand to benefit a lot more from a widely-used functioning currency than one that fails because it is incapable of scaling. They want Bitcoin to succeed in the long run, because a lot of them hold a lot of Bitcoin. Particularly, there is little reason to keep block sizes small for this reason because while the average transaction fee might go down, the total number of transactions in a block will go up, with an overall neutral effect on total transaction fee. Additionally, the vast majority of a miner's reward still comes from the block reward, so miners don't care too much about transaction fees yet.
Segwit is already close to rolling out and block size increases could happen in the medium term. Or, if all else fails, there's always side-chains and altcoins. The fundamental technology (blockchain) is fine, even if a particular implementation of it with a specific set of tuning parameter values happens to stagnate. I don't foresee that happening though, as the incentives for everyone in the ecosystem are aligned for Bitcoin not to fail, and if limited transaction volume truly starts changing that, then changes (beyond what's already on the current roadmap) will be made.
You're making the same fallacious assumptions about miners that people do about individuals in tragedy of the commons. You think that the individual cares more about the system rather than their own rational goals, but they don't.
The same resource economics that apply to international fishing also apply to bitcoin - both the fisherman and the miners care more about personal gains than they do about the system as a whole. They don't restrain their profit because you project your idealism onto them.
And it doesn't matter who promises what - there needs to be a consensus for the change to happen, and that's why bitcoin is flawed. The previous four forks to fix this block size failed, four times, which is evidence to back this up.
You can keep spinning the flaw as a speed hole though, it's pretty entertaining :)
LN is one of the better side-chain ideas to date, but it's still a bunch of I.O.U.s that have the bitcoin bottleneck. With LN, two people can reasonably send hundreds of thousands of transactions to each other, but hundreds of thousands of people cannot reasonably send two transactions.
And then there's centralization, off-network volatility, etc. issues as well. Side-chains are still not a viable fix for the blocksize issue.
The FTC recognizes it as a commodity, something that can be bought and sold. In it's current incarnation, it is the equivalent of bartering with baseball cards in lieu of cash.
If your point is true, then the purpose has been abandoned for the popular and current realization of Bitcoin as a means of electronic monetary value transfer.
I personally followed development and the community from the time it was introduced. It was always pitched as an 'anonymous' electronic currency.
The US government has a stake in the failure of non-state-controlled currencies, though, so this isn't really evidence of anything.
The point is it isn't commonly purported to be a 'settlement layer' but something else entirely.
That's quite a confidently presumptuous tone for an opinion that is clearly controversial at best.
That's why it makes the front page of HackerNews when some random company starts accepting Bitcoin payments?
Which begs the question, exactly what what means being "one of their own", and if they have any kind of plans to re-instate the Spanish Inquisition.
It seems to me like the community's reaction to a fraudster was remarkably productive, outside of Gavin / Matonis getting suckered.
That said, I never said that his "absence of evidence that he is Satoshi" is actually "evidence that he is Satoshi". In fact, no one has provided any real evidence either that he is or is not Satoshi.
Again, assuming that the real Satoshi wishes to remain anonymous, but is on the verge of discovery anyway, he may have a difficult time "proving" that he isn't Satoshi, so his next best bet might be to sidestep proof entirely and instead play a kind of mind game to throw off the investigation. So conservation of expected evidence doesn't factor in, because he hasn't "proven" anything one way or the other, he's basically gambled that internet ridicule will achieve a desired goal.
That discounts the fact that nobody would be able to figure it out. You did though, and I've heard that theory before as well.
Then also unless real Satoshi issues a statement saying "I am not this guy", people will always keep an eye on this clown. Always watching his moves and suspecting him.
Now, maybe if he was the real Satoshi as your are claiming he should then issue a statement that he isn't. That'll surely misdirect things a bit. "We've heard right from Satoshi that this isn't Satoshi, so ok, just a crazy guy". But then again, same trap, that is what Satoshi might be experted to do if he was hiding and trying to misdirect the public. And we got another twist in the spiral and so on...
.. or an attempt to bolster the flames of a dying media spectacle that keeps your name up at the top of the news feeds.
I hope I'm right, I hate the idea of a guy being driven to suicide; even more than I hate the idea of him social engineering media outlets en masse to self-promote.
The fact that some people believe it is more a testament to their naivete than anything else. I pity them... :(
Oh? Pray tell.