Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Craig Wright faces tough questions over forged documents in court (decrypt.co)
142 points by benmunster1 73 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 116 comments



The whole story seems so bizarre. As far as I understand it, some kind of fraudster got caught up in a bunch of his own lies, of which being the inventor of Bitcoin happened to be one. We're only reading about it because "Bitcoin" happens to be a frothy buzzword that gets the clicks. Otherwise this would just be some local news case about a wacky person saying the darndest things.

It's funny how we decide what's news.


He's not a wacky person who says the darndest things, he's suing other people over their saying he's not Satoshi. As the article states, this case might affect a number of cases he's raised.

He's also made a new cryptocurrency (Bitcoin SV), and may be profiting off of a consultancy he helps run (https://nchain.com/en/).

I don't think he's just some random small fish.


Don't forget that Nchain is filing for hundreds of blockchain-related patents. That could be a serious problem.


i bet it's nothing but CSW's marketing trick. he's driving his diplomas in a cartwheel and bragging about publishing a thousand papers a year, but what is any of it worth? were they granted any of the patents they filed for? if i recall some filings were for things with obvious prior art like threshold signatures.


If you trust the patent system to not grant any bogus patents, then you are far more optimistic than I am. And a bogus patent is just as useful a weapon.


There is a multi-billion dollar asset known as Bitcoin SV that is valued highly on the belief Craig Wright invented bitcoin. He is not just a local crank.


Then it’s valued highly by a lot of extremely gullible people. The first time I heard about Craig Wright was that debacle where he was desperate to prove he was Satoshi, hand-waved his way through a very staged proof and then when called on it he subsequently refused to do an extremely simple proof that would’ve beyond doubt proven what he claimed (lamenting that no one would be happy with it). Everything I’ve read since then has confirmed he’s just a grifter, this article is no different.


>multi-billion dollar asset

[number of coins] * [ price of coin] =/= value.

I hate this ridiculous trend of "valuing" currencies by the above formula.

I sold myself 1 HackerNewsCoin™ for 1$(featuring decentralized freedom© and proof of steak®). Since there are 1e13 coins, I am now the world's first trillionaire! I own a currency valued at 1$ * 1e13!

It makes much more sense to compare currencies by their transaction volume, or possibly even better by the volume * days destroyed metric.

Bitcoin SV probably has very little real "float" and so it appears far more valuable than it actually is.


> He is not just a local crank.

Agreed, he's gone global.


You’re underestimating the story here. CSW is the creator of Bitcoin SV, which today has a market cap of $3.5 billion. A lot of people stand to lose or gain a lot of money depending on his claims.


market cap numbers actually aren't meaningful, especially in low liquidity assets like bsv.


How does that change anything? The point is CSW is relevant in the sense that if the #9 token by market cap collapsed it should be “news” in the crypto world. He isn’t just some crazy bystander whose supporters have nothing to lose.


It doesn't change anything - it just provides some color and context as to why that number doesn't mean as much as many think it does.


you argument that bitcoin sv is relevant stands on that market cap number.


The Craig Wright story is interesting because Gavin Andresen, who probably interacted more with Satoshi than anybody else, was dead set on Wright being Satoshi. He referred to evidence shown in private that he was unable to share the details of.

Later after Wright couldn't (or didn't want to) prove the Satoshi connection in public Andresen later expressed regrets going public with these statements, but never really took them back. It's hard to know, really. Andresen was release manager of the reference implementation for several years and widely regarded as trustworthy.

Other people made business investments based on these statements. Well known investor Roger Ver now seems to regard Wright a fraud, but not before headlining conferences with him and releasing a cryptocurrency together. So Wright has been quite influential, at least with some select people, and is absolutely newsworthy.


Seems newsworthy enough to me. First, the sum in question is north of $10B and even if nobody involved probably has access to it, it is still entertaining to watch. And though the guy is most likely a conman, nobody has put the final nail in the coffin yet so the scam lives on, fueled by large sums of money from his "business partner". It is interesting to watch how long will they be able to carry it on.


no matter how skeptical you are of cryptocurrencies, they are no small thing and bitcoin is by far the largest. CSW is being sued for billions of dollars^, so that's also not a small thing. i don't understand, why be dismissive of things in a way that completely rejects the objective reality?

^ of course CSW is a fraud and doesn't actually have access to satoshi's stash. it's quite comical how if he proves he isn't a fraud he will owe somebody billions of dollars, assuming klein wins the case.


The funnier thing is that he potentially embezzled investors out of many millions of dollars for his bogus claims.

It's a wonderful world we are living in.


There is also a pretty substantial amount of money wrapped up in this case. Billions of dollars. I would say that's somewhat newsworthy for a lawsuit involving individual people.


Pretending to be vastly richer than you really are happens to be the first step in a large number of confidence games.

In case anyone wonders why someone would want to pretend they're Satoshi.


This is also the fundamental reason why Donald Trump is using the Justice Department to prevent any disclosure of his tax returns.


No it's not. The most likely reason for that is Trump probably gave money to Planned Parenthood or a similar organization that would harm the pitch to his base.

We have his legally required financial disclosure forms that show a range on his income. Some of the best wealth trackers on earth - those at both Forbes and Bloomberg - have also put together sound estimates on his wealth (closer to $3 billion, not $10 billion).

Factually Trump presides over a sizable, serious business that is generating a large amount of cash.

Prominent assets: $765m Vornado partnership, $525m golf course & resorts, $445m 725 Fifth Ave, $480m 40 Wall St, $420 Niketown building, $330m other properties, $295m liquid, $140m 502 Park Ave, $95m DC hotel

"President Donald Trump’s latest financial disclosure report shows he had at least $434 million in revenue last year, but saw a drop in money coming from his Florida luxury resort Mar-a-Lago. The report, released Thursday, is required to be filed annually with the Government Ethics Office. It covers the president’s finances for 2018, his second year in office."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/16/read-president-donald-trumps...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-12/trump-s-n...


At the end of the day, all he needs to do is use the Satoshi key on a transaction on the bitcoin blockchain to prove everything.

He hasn’t and can’t.

Am I wrong?


See the court records, he claims he can't do it because he distributed the key parts or something.

Since it is hard to prove that someone cannot do something, yes, technically you are wrong.


We're going to see such things at some point, there are a few "bitcoin address collider", some of them are even distributed.


AFAIK, there are 160 bits of entropy in a bitcoin address. Let's say satoshi has ~1 million addresses with bitcoin in them (2^20). That means 2^140 attempts need to be made to steal any of satoshi's bitcoins. Cracking 128 bits of entropy is essentially impossible[1], cracking 140 bits is even harder. This collider tried 7 quadrillion addresses in 1 year[2]. That's 2^53, nowhere near 2^140.

[1] https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/1148

[2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nzpv8m/the-large-bitcoin-...


The amazing things is that this guy -- an obvious fraud and conman -- has been invited to numerous high-level Bitcoin/Blockchain conferences as a speaker.

It always stuns me how relatively few people are able to spot frauds (although it explains a lot about our current political situation). I'm guessing 40-50% of the population is susceptible to this kind of trickery.


This is a feature, not a bug.

Healthy communities are comprised of people who are trusting and permissive by default. The cost is that on occasion these communities will be exploited.

Personally I think it's a very low price to pay for all its benefits.


This is a great interactive demonstration of this - "The Evolution of Trust": https://ncase.me/trust/

It takes about 20 minutes or so to go through, but I highly, highly recommend it for anyone that hasn't already seen it.


This is a an amazing game theory simulation!


Very nice page. Although it seems to be wrong about the golden rule, the golden rule is "treat others how you want to be treated" not "treat others as they have treated you in the past".


> This is a feature, not a bug....Healthy communities are comprised of people who are trusting and permissive by default.

It's entirely possible to find a happy medium. You can be trusting without being totally naive about individuals with bad intentions.


It really isn't, per what 'pdpi wrote. What we should do is being maximally trusting (to reap the efficiency benefits), and punish hard anyone trying to take advantage of it, way out of proportion compared to the magnitude of the violation, in order to discourage people from abusing the trust of others.

The goal really is to let everyone be safe in trusting others to the point of naivete, because trust is that huge of an efficiency hack.

(I mean, think of the ridiculous amounts of energy Bitcoin wastes with its proof-of-work scheme, precisely because it tries to replace trust with computation. This energy is what trust saves you.)


I spent much of my youth in Utah, and it is probably the epitome of this.

Best state Gini coefficient [0]. Great income mobility (also best in US [1]).

It also has a rampant fraud/ponzi/mlm issue [3]. They come from the same source- There is a general level of trust that is much higher than anywhere else I've lived or experienced. Mostly rooted in a trust in others is part and parcel of the culture and dominant religion. I don't think the upsides would be achievable without the downsides that seem endemic to it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co... [1] https://business.utah.gov/news/utah-at-top-in-nation-for-upw... [3] https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900068203/does-utah-dese...


I’ve lived in Tokyo for 14 years and think that this characterisation also applies here. Comparatively low Gini coefficient, very high level of community trust and susceptibility to endemic fraud.


I have a great example from today of the efficiency of trust.

I went to a three storey old factory turned into an antiques store. 150 000 square feet. Three floors of booths of all kinds of stuff. Coins, cards, collectibles, toys, furniture, everything. The whole place had maybe five visible employees. It was all consignment. You'd pick up $300 worth of nicknacks from the top floor and walk it down to the first floor to buy. It's incredibly easy to steal from if you wanted.

So what I see are hundreds of individual vendors that don't need to be at their booth because of the trust between vendors, the managers, and the public.

If we were part of a culture where theft was all but guaranteed, that store just wouldn't be able to exist.


Very true, trust matters, but it might help a bit that many antiques aren't useful in themselves and aren't that easy to sell. If they were selling razors or baby formula, maybe things would be different?

Do you think they have cameras?


I don't want to get into the implementation details of this store as that's not the point of my anecdote. Either trust me that this place was an example of trust, or don't. ;)


Coins are easy to sell.


> What we should do is being maximally trusting (to reap the efficiency benefits), and punish hard anyone trying to take advantage of it, way out of proportion compared to the magnitude of the violation, in order to discourage people from abusing the trust of others.

Are we doing that, though? It feels like we're generally very trusting and, organized in society, very forgiving. Hell, in lots of business cases, cheating makes money, getting caught and paying a fine is just the cost of doing business - and it pays.

I understand the theory, and I agree. I don't see it being applied however.


We're not doing that, and that's why you see trust being continuously eroded. I'm of the belief that trust is the very fundamental building block of a society, and so crimes against public trust should be punished severely. Manslaughter-level severely, not with a slap on the wrist via a symbolic fine.


> punish hard anyone trying to take advantage of it, way out of proportion compared to the magnitude of the violation, in order to discourage people from abusing the trust of others.

I strongly disagree. This would make sense if humans were all rational actors who only took an action after performing the risk calculus of expected reward vs. potential punishment. But that's not how humans work, and thinking this way only results in a justice system that is unnecessarily cruel, ignores rehabilitation, and doesn't actually work that well at preventing crime.

Relevant sources:

Sentence Severity and Crime: Accepting the Null Hypothesis "Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher sanctions reduce crime rates in Western populations[1]."

Do Harsher Prison Conditions Reduce Recidivism? "Inmates housed in higher security levels are no less likely to recidivate than those housed in minimum security; if anything, our estimates suggest that harsher prison conditions lead to more post-release crime.[2]"

[1] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/652230

[2] http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Chen_Shapiro_2007.pdf


I spent past 30 minutes skimming the first paper (available here[0]). Fine, so severity itself doesn't really work as a deterrent - with the caveat made by study, that it applies to "variation within the limits that are plausible in Western countries". I.e. changing the punishment of some crime from 2 years to 3 years does not create meaningful extra deterrence; changing it from 2 years to 25 years or capital punishment just might. I'd argue that changing the punishment from "a fine" to "prison sentence" may just do the trick too.

> This would make sense if humans were all rational actors who only took an action after performing the risk calculus of expected reward vs. potential punishment. But that's not how humans work

This is indeed how humans work sometimes. Not in the heat of the moment, but when coldly calculating how to make more money with less effort. Fraud is not a crime of passion, it's premeditated, evaluated in advance. More certainty of consequences, and perhaps the severity of them, may be what's needed to further reduce it.

--

[0] - http://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1086/652230


There are situations when living in a trusting society can be helpful, but on the other hand, predictable consequences are probably a better idea when raising children, and also for encouraging people to trust that the system itself is fair. Rare, severe, apparently random punishment tends not to be associated with justice.


> Rare, severe, apparently random punishment tends not to be associated with justice.

In the dream/goal I presented I was hoping for swift, indiscriminate and - yes - severe justice. The lack of all three wrt. crimes against public or even individual trust is a problem for contemporary societies.


In your presentation, the severe justice was to discourage breaches of trust.

But that doesn't work if the justice is "apparently random".

If that is how it's perceived, then trust violators will have no incentive to avoid violation. They, and everyone else, will believe that it doesn't matter whether they violate trust or not, since justice is a lottery ticket given to everyone, where the prize is punishment, and it doesn't matter what you do.


I appreciate the distinction between being random, and seeming random. But this is a solvable problem, one particularly benefiting from rules being applied to rule enforcers - applying justice "at random" (in particular, in a corrupt way) is a violation of public trust too.


Anywhere you fall on this naivety/acceptance continuum, I can both show you a fraudster you didn’t detect that you should have, and a serious speaker you blocked but shouldn’t.

In hindsight it’s always easy to say what the right outcome should have been, but, in Wright’s case, he has enough legitimate credentials that it’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t at least hear him out.


wright is a complete con man with absolutely no credibility. someone like satoshi would never, ever, ever reveal their identity publicly. this is the most obvious thing, and anyone who thinks this is up for debate is gullible.

his credentials are lacking and also completely irrelevant.


It's not just a continuum, because in addition to being more or less trusting you also always have the option to do just a little more work to be sure. Trust, but verify.


It's only that your community evolves to be less trusting because unfortunately it has to. So the happy medium is really just a sacrifice of a good trait for a less good one only because you have to.


I am fond of a saying that apparently comes from the intelligence world: "trust, but verify." It never hurts to check. If you are dealing with a big liar you can usually catch them quickly enough, sometimes by just verifying small things like work or school history.


This is a false dichotomy. Yes, in general we benefit from being trusting. We also benefit from verifying extraordinary claims. In this particular case it's not hard to find which side the evidence is on, and it's indeed a bug that entire groups of people (not just individuals!) fail to do so.


One of the commandments of this particular community is Doing Your Own Research. Of course saying that you did your research is much easier than actually doing it so here goes.


I think the healthiest communities have norms of openness and common knowledge that make fraud very difficult.


It's also possible that the organizers of the conference know (or suspect) that he's a fraud, but invite him anyway because they know the controversy will generate buzz and attention around their conference, increasing its attendance.


That's entirely possible, and such an approach makes me despair even more of the Bitcoin community (and why I left it long ago).


> It always stuns me how relatively few people are able to spot frauds (although it explains a lot about our current political situation). I'm guessing 40-50% of the population is susceptible to this kind of trickery.

It seems very likely to me that frauds and those who can detect them are locked in an evolutionary arms race. If that is the case, it would have to be true that there is a substantial number of people who can't detect frauds.


Part of it has been the tribalism of him going against the obvious weasels that ousted the original Bitcoin team to keep the blocksize low, the transaction fees high and get VC funding for their company that they would market by saying it was the 'people that were in charge of bitcoin'

Some of the people who hated those weasels decided that Craig Wright must be great since he says he is against the same people. Instead of everyone rolling their eyes and fighting an OBVIOUS con man interested in VC funding and patents some people thought everyone calling him a con man must be on the 'other side'.

Edit: If you think something is off, use your words. I can back up everything I've said here.


> Some of the people who hated those weasels decided that Craig Wright must be great since he says he is against the same people. Instead of everyone rolling their eyes and fighting an OBVIOUS con man interested in VC funding and patents some people thought everyone calling him a con man must be on the 'other side'.

That's an interesting summary of the situation, with parallels again to our current political situation.


As 'Eliezer summed it up perfectly:

"Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you’re on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it’s like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy. People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there’s a Blue or Green position on an issue."

From: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i....


> Part of it has been the tribalism of him going against the obvious weasels that ousted the original Bitcoin team to keep the blocksize low, the transaction fees high and get VC funding for their company that they would market by saying it was the 'people that were in charge of bitcoin'

There are solid technical reasons to keep the block size low. The current developers were active almost from the beginning, you should take a look. And while Blockstream was founded by Bitcoin developers and sponsors development, it's a small part of the total development effort.

As an early Blockstream employee, I'd love to see some source to your claim that we "get VC funding for their company that they would market by saying it was the 'people that were in charge of bitcoin'"


Some of his supporters might just find him convenient for now. Like at work, sometimes I back people up who I don't really like or trust because at this moment they are doing something that is aligned with me, and it really isn't worth the effort to try to tear them down versus just going with it and dealing with them later if I have to.


is this the purportedly decentralized group that refers to itself, with no sense of irony, as Bitcoin Core?


To clarify: the bitcoin open source project was renamed "Bitcoin Core" to avoid confusion with Bitcoin the currency and protocol (it didn't help).

It does seem to follow Open Source best practice: but I'm not even sure what "decentralized" development would look like?


Bitcoin Core is the name of the software that was originally released by Satoshi Nakamoto and has been continuously been developed ever since. It is the most widely used software to interact with the Bitcoin blockchain, which makes sense, since at the beginning it was the only client and essentially the reference implementation.

The confusion stems from the fact that it was renamed at one point to make it clear that "Bitcoin Core" refers to this specific software whereas "Bitcoin" refers to the protocol and blockchain more generally. This distinction wasn't originally needed, as there were no other clients.


I guess it has to do with the fact that when organizing a conference many optimize for speakers attracting crowds rather than content.


On the other hand, most bitcoin devs I know would specifically avoid a conference that made that mistake.


True. And that's about attendees quality which is another metric I don't think they optimize for in general. They need to fill the halls first of all.


People relate to BitCoin conferences more like ComicCon.


It amazes me that a percentage of your percentage does so because to call out liars would be impolite and lead to discomfort.


Calling out fraudsters also gets you attacked and harassed and there is essentially nothing you can do to stop it.


Craig Wright in particular is suing people in the UK for libel for stating that he is not Satoshi.[1]

Being sued for libel in the UK is no joke.

[1] https://decrypt.co/6520/peter-mccormack


Generally you only get attacked by those fraudsters.


Hmm...go back and look at how the Theranos debacle played out.


Be careful. The people who called out Enron, Theranos, the NSA before Snowden or the rationale for the Iraq invasion often paid a big price.


or their entire personality cult/political party


I don't even expect people to call out fraudsters. But I do wish they would quit promoting them, or minimizing how much they are indeed fraudsters ("well, maybe he's not been totally honest about that, but what about...").


Most people are mostly honest and assume others are the same. They are not really expecting someone who is radically and baldly dishonest and so they get taken aback.

I remember my first encounter with a group of really dishonest people. It was deeply shocking. When I grasped just how much lying was happening and the magnitude of it it took me a while to wrap my mind around it. The folks I encountered had built entire webs of massive lies. I now realize they were small time hucksters compared with some of the cons that are out there.


especially when proving authorship of bitcoin would be a simple matter for the actual Satoshi - just sign a message with the same key as the recipient of the genesis block. He attempted to do this and failed in a stunningly obvious way.


I listened to him at a blockchain conference and there is a certain freak show curiosity to it as there is to much in the blockchain space.


I would say that 100% of people are susceptible 40-50% of the time. Okay some more than others, but for no one the number is 0. It's easier to understand the phenomenon after we accept it affects us all to some degree.


His home was actually raided by Australian police right after news[1] broke that he may be Satoshi Nakamoto.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-f...


You trying to link his claim to being raided?

He was raided because he is a tax cheat who has been under investigation for years for multiple unrelated tax compliance events.

* edit. Typo/grammar.


This says more about the stupidity and uselessness of the police than it says about whether he is Nakamoto or not.


> And a font copyrighted in 2015 appeared on an another email supposedly dispatched in 2011.

This keeps happening in court, mostly with Microsoft Word Calibri. It's kinda funny how effective such a simple oversight is at proving document forgery.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibri

It looks like it was released to the public in 2007


Yea, it wasn't Calibri in this particular case. It just happens with Calibri a lot.


Long read, hopefully movie comes out at some point: https://www.docdroid.net/5LZMLHb/06-28-19-ber-kleiman.pdf

So keys to satoshi’s Bitcoins are possibly going to be available in 2020 according to Wright.


I'm starting to wonder if Wright could actually be pathologically delusional and convinced to be Satoshi, despite the accumulated evidence against it. I'm no psychologist but it reminds me of how paranoid schizophrenia is typically presented.

At the beginning, it looked like an elaborate fraud but now, he barely makes any sense at all in his declarations.


If I were a fraudster and I knew I'd gotten in over my head, I could easily see myself mounting a mental-incapacity defense. It's almost unassailable.

That aside, I was pretty sure Donald Trump was going to develop a sudden case of Alzheimer's at some point, but so far I've been wrong about that. If the fraudster believes strongly enough in his own fraud, all bets are (literally) off.


Can someone explain the public address thing? The courts seem to demand he list the public addresses where all Thai early mines bitcoin lies.

He says he cannot produce it because of this splintered trust.

But, the addresses are available for all to see on the blockchain itself, it is the private keys which are hidden away.

How is this basic fact just ignored in all these proceedings?


I think he cannot produce proof that he is owner of these address. The list is well known. He could spend, or even sign a message, with any of the private keys from an early address. That would prove he is satoshi. He has not done this. Therefore he is not satoshi.


The case seems a bit nuts in that Wright isn't Satoshi so his business partners estate won't achieve much by suing him for coins he can't have stolen from the business partner because he doesn't have them.


But, they could get a judgement on whatever other assets he actually does have.


Bitcoin is evil in some aspects. Its enigmatic origin triggers religiosity. Bitcoin consumes those who learn about it. It's like a spell. When price goes down, you'd come into its defense. When price goes up, it occupies your brain. Bitcoin can be a source of good. But it comes with a lot of evil. Craig Wright fell for its evil.


Roux being Satoshi is the only plausible explanation I heard in a long time. This clown is not.


The article presupposes that Craig is not Satoshi.

If Craig is Satoshi, then the article and these comments on it, read very differently.


If a guy who behaves like this was satoshi or one of them, it would be an embarrassing revelation.


I do not understand why everybody is hating the guy so much. Listen to what he sais. He does not want Bitcoin to be used for buying drugs and child pornography. He wants to use it to make companies more accountable towards their users and governments more accountable towards their constituents. What's so terrible about that?

Then there is his claim to be Satoshi. At this point, nobody knows if that is true or not. Yet everybody is acting as if they _knew_ he is a liar and a fraud. That seems to be the justification for hate. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

My take is: I do not know if he is Satoshi or not. I also do not care. I listen to want he thinks about Bitcoin and I like what I hear.


There are very few situations in which a person who claims to be a previously anonymous individual could prove their bona fides without a shadow of a doubt.

And this is one of those situations. There are multiple ways that the real Satoshi could prove their identity, but somehow, Craig Wright has either lost of of them, or they're locked up in some strange escrow with a super-secret board of lawyers or some such nonsense.

Occam's Razor. If ever there was a good application of the principle, it's here.

Also, Craig Wright doesn't have the technical understanding to have written the Bitcoin implementation. Listen to him speak. If you're honest with yourself, and if you code, you'll realize that he's likely never written much running code at all, much less a full implementation of a complex cryptographic and network protocol.

But these are the kinds of guys who unfortunately make it past interviews on the strength of their "dazzle'em with bullshit" approach to interviewing, and that have caused the current situation where most of us have to spend months reviewing our DS and algorithms notes before new interviews.


>Also, Craig Wright doesn't have the technical understanding to have written the Bitcoin implementation. Listen to him speak. If you're honest with yourself, and if you code, you'll realize that he's likely never written much running code at all, much less a full implementation of a complex cryptographic and network protocol.

This is an important observation. Craig gives himself away every time he presents at a conference. His talks just throw up a bunch impressive technical jargon and graphics, but then completely fail to weave it all together into a coherent whole, leaving only a disjointed mess.

It fools people who aren't watching closely and thinking critically. But Satoshi Nakamoto being possibly one of the greatest connectors and integrators of disparate technical ideas in our time, Craig Wright he is not.


He's Satoshi but he lost the private key:)


> Yet everybody is acting as if they _knew_ he is a liar and a fraud

Most of his proof has been systematically proven to be forged or unverified.

> That seems to be the justification for hate.

You're confusing hate with lack of trust.

> What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It's very much playing itself out in front of you. "Innocent" isn't the same thing as lack of accusation. In the court of public opinion: He's accused of making fraudulent claims. He defends himself. His arguments are shown to be invalid.

I'm sure Bernie Madoff had some good ideas and nice things to say.


You are stating a popular opinion, but it's one that I do not share.

> Most of his proof has been systematically proven to be forged or unverified.

If someone fails to prove A that does not mean that (not A) is true

> You're confusing hate with lack of trust.

You are right, hate is a very strong word that I should not have used in this context.

> It's very much playing itself out in front of you. "Innocent" isn't the same thing as lack of accusation. In the court of public opinion: He's accused of making fraudulent claims. He defends himself. His arguments are shown to be invalid.

I'm really not that interested in what the court of public opinion thinks, I'm more interested in the truth. The truth is that I don't know if he is Satoshi or not, neither do you or anybody else here. Yet everybody is assuming that without question. The word fraud occurs 21 times in this threat, in almost all cases without qualification. I would expect more from the HN community.


Have you spent any amount of time reviewing the claims against his "proof"? We're talking about purchasing backdated companies(ie, the Tulip Trust), referencing products that didn't exist at the time they were allegedly used, sharing PDFs with obvious edits, etc.

Here's a good analysis of Craig's own testimony from last week and the inconsistencies:

https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/07/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-3...

> I'm more interested in the truth

The only way he is telling the truth is if an enormous number of claims is a massive conspiracy theory.

> The truth is that I don't know if he is Satoshi or not

You don't know I'm not Satoshi. I don't have to prove it:

> If someone fails to prove A that does not mean that (not A) is true

> I would expect more from the HN community.

True. We do have a habit of hero worship (ie Jobs, Musk, etc) so perhaps we should similarly believe Wright just because he said to.


you're very gullible to not take a side here. the idea that the same man responsible for something quite libertarian (pseudononymous distributed currency) would sue someone for saying he isn't satoshi in a court of law is insanity.

not to mention satoshi himself wished people wouldn't obsess over who he is, and rather think more about the larger team of people behind bitcoin's development, according to a post of his.

fraudulent proof is proof of fraud. you have to play mental mind games to believe there's a case for him being satoshi. all it takes is 30 seconds of basic logical thinking.

people who believe he could be satoshi are the reason the cryptocurrency community is so awful.


You enjoy his incoherent free association of tech terms every time he speaks? Or is it just that the rest of us can't appreciate his genious-level ideas?


it's actually that you can't appreciate his genius level ideas.


Which genius level idea specifically? I would love for someone to get technical here. The guy who claims to be Satoshi copied and pasted a hello world tutorial off the internet to show his C++ knowledge.


Someone posted a lesson he taught on distributed computing a few years ago - turns out the slides were all quoting Intel's Fortran docs (without crediting Intel per their copyright - kind of ironic)


The controversy began with him using his wealth to sue random people on Twitter for claiming he was a fraud. Small accounts without much influence. He is not acting in good faith.


Not really his wealth. The wealth of his backer, Calvin Ayre (the guy who pled guilty for violating gambling laws)


Innocent until proven guilty is when the state is going to imprison you and dictate every moment of your life.

If I said I invented cold fusion, would you ask me to prove it first, or give me 300 million in venture capital?


Saying you don't know at this point is like saying "he is or he isn't, so there's a 50% chance". Yeah, he might be. But it's not even odds, that's for sure.


If it becomes widely acceptable that this man invented bitcoin then a big myth is gone and the bubble is even likelier to burst.

He is not particular good in public appearances but to claim that he is an obvious fraud and he possesses no technical knowledge is just wrong. Also he did convince a few very knowledgable technical people.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: