People are really doubting Wright's claims about being Satoshi

[EvanFaggart]

The Bitcoin community is very reluctant to believe Craig Wright's claims of being Satoshi, what do you guys think?

Article link: http://bitcoinist.net/community-wary-craig-wright/

[arnoudk]

It's not him. There is no reason to resort to faith when you can provide proof. There is no proof, so we are left with believing eye witness testimony. There is absolutely no need for that. Just post a signed message and be done with it. If someone is unable or unwilling to do this - they have other motives I don't much care to know.

[EvanFaggart]

It's not him. There is no reason to resort to faith when you can provide proof. There is no proof, so we are left with believing eye witness testimony. There is absolutely no need for that. Just post a signed message and be done with it. If someone is unable or unwilling to do this - they have other motives I don't much care to know.

I do wish he would provide more proof if he has it. I don't think he was anticipating so much backlash from the community.

[arnoudk]

I do wish he would provide more proof if he has it. I don't think he was anticipating so much backlash from the community.

If he is Satoshi, I'd be stunned if he did not anticipate backlash.

Satoshi invented a system where trust is not needed. Everything is proven cryptographically. This attracts people who share this thought. Especially from such a community, he should expect requests for proof and rejections of conjecture.

Craig Wright should also expect this. In december of 2015, he previously claimed he was Satoshi. Back then, there was a problem with how he had PGP signed documents and that 'proof' fell apart. He could just have resigned them properly if he had the keys - but that did not happen. Of all people, Craig should have expected requests for clarification.

I'm for sure interested in seeing additional proof.

[MikeUK]

OK people this really needs to be highlighted.

if craig uses this signature as proof of satoshism:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

then its meaningless.

this signature is OLD... and is of the TX data contained in the first transaction ever(satoshi->hal) in 2009 (7 years ago) (block 248)
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9 ... w_adv=true
(convert the input script into Base64)

all that the blue text is. is the input script from the transaction 7 years ago switched from hexidecimal to base64, no SHA or ECDSA was involved.

when you sign something the signatures are always different no matter if you used the same private key, because the content of the message you are signing would be different

so if you see anyone using the blue text you know they have not personally signed anything and simply copied and pasted it from the blockchain in a sightly different format.

now let this be the end of speculation and drama.
craig is not satoshi

[rogerver]

These seem very relevant.

Gavin says he saw him sign with the keys from Block #1 with his very own eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NylO5W4qQCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNZyRMG2CjA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZNtbAFnr-0

[OgNasty]

It would be very easy for him to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is Satoshi, which he is obviously desperate to do. There is only 1 reason why he hasn't done so.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The worst part of my day has been watching the nasty fighting between everyone. If we all worked together, we would be much further ahead.

[EvanFaggart]

These seem very relevant.

Gavin says he saw him sign with the keys from Block #1 with his very own eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NylO5W4qQCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNZyRMG2CjA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZNtbAFnr-0

The second video is very interesting. Thanks for sharing these, Roger.

[arnoudk]

These seem very relevant.

Gavin says he saw him sign with the keys from Block #1 with his very own eyes.

Thanks. Yes, his eyewitness account certainly has value, it most certainly is relevant.

Still I maintain that we should not have to trust anyone, including Gavin. If Wright wants to prove he is Satoshi, he can do the same procedure he has shown to Gavin, only publicly.

What do you think? Are you leaning one way or the other?

Why do you think Wright has taken this round-about way of proving his identity when there was such an easy option?

[rogerver]

I agree that there is a much much easier way for him to prove his identity, and I would like to see him release the signed message for all of us to inspect.
I don't know why he hasn't but I suspect if he is Satoshi, the reason he hasn't is for some dumb legal reason rather than a technical one.
At the moment, I believe Jon Matonis, Gavin Andresen, and some others.
If they proof they saw with their own eyes is good enough for them to continue life thinking Craig is Satoshi, then it is good enough for me too.

I'd still love to see the signed message myself though.

[arnoudk]

You could be right about there possibly being a legal reason for this round-about approach.

I guess it really does not matter though - whether he is or isn't Satoshi has (and should have) no effect on bitcoin. Everyone is free to believe, be agnostic, or be a Satoshi atheist. No harm is done to anyone regardless of the choice!

I like Andreas's statement on twitter:
https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/727152753101807616

[LiteCoinGuy]

He is not Satoshi. The evidence is there. Maybe he knew Satoshi but not more.

[bitc0in]

If he is Satoshi, then Satoshi is very narcissistic.. Too much portrait pictures on his blog..
http://www.drcraigwright.net/

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

He is not Satoshi. The evidence is there. Maybe he knew Satoshi but not more.

Craig Wright is taking the correct formal approach.

[Liquid1 aka no i am tom stonka]

San,
We see yet are blind,
use all your senses...do you truly think you will see the master coin,"it was lost on a big foot hard drive years ago"
Kind Regards,
AKA Tom stonka

[Liquid1 aka no i am tom stonka]

I have emailed Craig Wright to remind him of his days on MSN Chat...


just an update:
Subject matter at the time Craig was online V.R shopping centers and online coins you could go to V.R banks and spend in them!!!!

[arnoudk]

Here's some more evidence to suggest that Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi.

http://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-wo ... oto-proof/

Sure, he still COULD be. The fact that he does not claim that he is Satoshi, does not mean that he is not Satoshi. But to me, his fraudulent proofs with first PGP keys, then reusing bitcoin signatures from transactions, his erroneous blog post.... none of it is proof but to me they are strong indications that he is not Satoshi.

[arnoudk]

Craig Wright Won't Provide More Proof He Created Bitcoin
In a stunning reversal, Craig Wright – the Australian academic who on Monday sparked a media frenzy with his efforts to prove that he is the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto – now says he will not provide any more proof as previously indicated.

Two days ago, Wright said that he planned to prove his identity by demonstrating control of bitcoins mined early in the digital currency’s lifecycle – a move that would have specifically meant moving BTC in and out of an early address ostensibly under his control, according to a representative.

...

Not quite stunning to me, and many others, who never saw any evidence that he would be able to do as he claimed.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Here's some more evidence to suggest that Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi.

http://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-wo ... oto-proof/

Sure, he still COULD be. The fact that he does not claim that he is Satoshi, does not mean that he is not Satoshi. But to me, his fraudulent proofs with first PGP keys, then reusing bitcoin signatures from transactions, his erroneous blog post.... none of it is proof but to me they are strong indications that he is not Satoshi.

here is "some" more:

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. He wasn’t Satoshi Nakamoto before or after Wired and Gizmodo suspected him to be last year, and he still isn’t Satoshi Nakamoto after trying to reveal himself to be on his own blog and to The BBC, The Economist, GQ, Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen.

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wrig ... -nakamoto/


-------------------------------------------


Satoshi: how Craig Wright's deception worked

My previous post shows how anybody can verify Satoshi using a GUI. In this post, I'll do the same, with command-line tools (openssl). It's just a simple application of crypto (hashes, public-keys) to the problem.

http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satos ... ption.html


--------------------------------------------


Extraordinary Satoshi Claims

It has become an annual exercise for the press to jump on a Satoshi sighting that it has almost become an ordinary event. What is extraordinary is when a previously attempted and debunked contender emerges with, yet again, unconvincing "proof."

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/05/0 ... hi-claims/


---------------------------------------------


Validating Satoshi (Or Not)

Yes, this is a scam. Not maybe. Not possibly.

https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/vali ... hi-or-not/



--------------------------------------------


Craig Wright is a brilliant troll

http://blog.oleganza.com/post/143781316 ... iant-troll


--------------------------------------------


A Short Human-Verifiable Proof that Craig Wright has Cheated the Press

http://blog.bettercrypto.com/?p=2614


---------------------------------------------


Is Craig Wright?

https://cp4space.wordpress.com/2016/05/ ... ig-wright/


---------------------------------------------


https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment ... he_signed/

https://imgur.com/IPDPXZm


---------------------------------------------

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... ed/cxslii7

[arnoudk]

It appears he has stolen bitcoin from Gavin, Jon and the BBC...

They each sent money to the coin creation address of block 9, with Craig's apparent promise that he would sent the coins back.

Now it appears that he will not do so.

There is a word for that: theft.

Here is block #9
https://blockchain.info/block/000000008 ... 475c080805

Here are the transactions going into address 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S:
https://blockchain.info/address/12cbQLT ... oMeFtpTu3S

You can see that the following funds were sent:
0.0109 BTC from a whole bunch of 3<etc> addresses
0.01701 BTC from 17AXkmfwQF2EduaYBgF8kqn3XvGpFB6jpH
0.111899 BTC from 123456789vRagBRfuB1i24Fz81bpcQ5VeY

The funds have not been returned to their addresses
https://blockchain.info/address/17AXkmf ... XvGpFB6jpH
https://blockchain.info/address/1234567 ... 81bpcQ5VeY

The 1234 address also sent bitcoin to the genesis block 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa. (Each of those transactions are 50 USD each).

So over 100 USD has been spent, never to be returned.

Great guy this Craig. Very moral. Very trustworthy.

Story: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588 (the BBC sent the 0.01701 BTC transaction).

[Chris]

mysterious man,but yes I think he is

[arnoudk]

mysterious man,but yes I think he is

You may well be right, but at the moment this is a question of faith and not a question of fact.