To start: the evidence presented from Wired and Gizmodo as we posted the other day, is really weak.
It has since been revealed that the PGP keys used are almost certainly a forgery, and it has been demonstrated that backdating of pages is trivial and can not be trusted as a reliable source of evidence.
In addition, it's been revealed that MANY "journalism" news outlets received the hacked/leaked/whatever tarball that was sent around exposing Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto:
https://twitter.com/truth_eater/status/ ... 6752879616
For those who don't recognize the name, Leah McGrath Goodmann , whose Twitter name seriously is "Truth_Eater", is the infamous reporter behind the epic fail of the Newsweek cover that declared Dorian Nakamoto to be Satoshi. She somehow still has a job at Newsweek, and has said that even for her who received this leak from the source, the burden of evidence and hearsay was not worth publishing. She even said she prefers "primary sources" -- hah, cute.
The nail in the coffin though for the "Craig Wright is Satoshi" case is the set of revelations from friends and family of Wright that he was being actively extorted. Here's a tweet storm from Ian Grigg, a crypto veteran with close connections to Wright's loved ones who runs the site Financial Cryptography:
https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/674722847160422400
So between the evidence having serious doubts cast upon its legitimacy, the fact that multiple new outlets were confronted with this bag of evidence, and now the revelation that he was targeted as a victim of extortion -- it looks more and more like Craig Wright is not Satoshi. The prediction markets per Fairlay are showing that there's still a 50/50 chance that he is Satoshi, although that may change:
As Grigg says, the "facts are evolving", so the strength of the counterargument that Craig Wright is not Satoshi may change in the coming days. But for now, it looks like this has just been an elaborate hoax or extortion plot that the whole bitcoin community has been gripped by.
