Topic: 12 years ago this man was accused to be Satoshi (Read 630 times)

Yeah, first time to heard and see this guy.

The way I'm seeing the nature of everything right now the Monday accused to be a satoshi I believe that the man is not a supposed to because if satoshi she'll come to forum bank many people who were there during the creation of this platform we know santoshi and satoshi will also go back to eat old account and reactivate it to be functioning again so all those people claiming that there are satoshi are fake one

The true identity of Satoshi isn't known, so anyone claiming themselves as Satoshi should provide the right source to prove him to be Satoshi. Here Micheal have denied that he isn't Satoshi. Many have claimed themselves to be Satoshi. For that they weren't targeted, because people know they aren't the real one.

Claiming to be Satoshi wouldn't get anyone a lot of money, people say Satoshi has a lot of bitcoins to his name, so anyone claiming to be Satoshi is rich in the eyes of everyone, and therefore a target of any kind of harm you can think about because of the money he is believed to have. Claiming to be Satoshi even makes you lose a lot of money to lawsuits and attempts to cover up the truth like CSW is doing, i don't know why people even believe it is an admirable position to be in as an impostor, it is not, denying such accusations is the easier option to take in my humble opinion.

Maybe they are not even there anymore, maybe they passed away, we do not know. Plus, I feel like it doesn't even matter, we shouldn't really look for satoshi because in the end satoshi doesn't even matter, I personally believe that the best thing he ever did was to remove himself from the calculation, that allowed him to continue existing without caring about what could happen to him, and allowed us to not be worried about the owner doing something silly.

Even satoshi "saying" something bad, would cause bitcoin to crash, it has nothing to do with bitcoin itself, but just because he is the creator, that would be bad. Hence, it's best we do not know who they are.

He is really an honest person, anyone in his place would have agreed immediately because just claiming that he is a Satoshi would make him a very famous person and he would get a lot of interviews and money, but on the other hand claiming being a Satoshi is not easy because he needs to provide a lot of evidence and proof and from It could get him in trouble with governments as well, so I think this guy made the right decision.

Being Satoshi doesn't just depend on that name and authority alone but will have some strings attached.  He saw it as not being famous but has to save his ass, government will have him on deck if he has accepted.

I believe you're right. If it's coming from you it might cause some drama, and some pointless noise in Bitcoin Land. They will put words in your mouth with headlines that will be, "Gregory Maxwell has strong lead on the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, inventor of Bitcoin". Hahaha.

"No, it was just a forum post answering a stupid pleb, stop following me".

There are many candidates and most of them have self portrayed them to the world they are original creator of bitcoin but didn't have any valid evidence to prove themselves against their fake claims so in my opinion we should not look for some connections and disturb the personal life of people and making them in whole media coverage if they deny the fact and let this mystery as it is because we all are satoshi in the end.

I think it doesn't matter-- the whole innovation in Bitcoin was finding a way to make whomever created it not matter, and so it's disrespectful to both the invention and the creator to speculate.   Also, it's potentially really harmful to the target of speculation and their families.

I don't think it conflicts with the above to point out that the vast majority of the people that people speculate about have zero chance of being Bitcoin's creator based on my expertise and direct experience.

I will gladly oblige such status, not because I'm introverted or want to become one but because the narrative of bitcoin is going to change from being a decentralised value to a centralized cult and the belief of bitcoin will reduce including the soldiers surrounding and defending it over the years.
Aside from looking at the ways to protect the reputation of bitcoin, I wouldn't want to become the target and prone to the world, the governments will be hunting you, the CIA, the FBI, and the SEC and do you know why? They will all want to probe him for bringing freedom to the people and also want to have a share of that 1 million bitcoin in his custody.

Gmaxwell, I hope you don't mind being asked this question, but who would he your No.1 candidate to be Satoshi Nakamoto? Would he be someone from within the Cypherpunk mailing list? Or an outsider?

Tin-foil hats on but I believe it was someone who pretended to be an outsider, but was actually a regular.

Who were the first people in that mailing list who became intruiged by the "concept/idea" of Bitcoin? One of those people might be Satoshi.

Claiming other people are claiming you are Satoshi is a way that some fakers promote their fakery.  But in this case, I weakly recognized the name and 10 seconds on the forum search confirm that people have indeed claimed as much, so I'm confident that the denial was not just a sideways way of claiming to be Satoshi.

It's really terrible to be falsely accused of being Satoshi when you're not (and when you're not planning on scamming anyone using it):  Satoshi's identity is far far more interesting to mentally ill people than it is to ordinary people, as ordinary people usually only find it a mild curiosity at most-- after all Bitcoin was designed so that the identity of its creator wouldn't matter-- but there are more than a few mentally ill people who are utterly obsessed with it.  Obsessed crazies have been known to murder famous people in order to make themselves memorable to history.

Satoshi's identity is also far more interesting to kidnappers and robbers, for obvious reasons: he's alleged to control a large amount of Bitcoin.   You really don't want a bunch of crazy or criminal people making you a target of their adventures, esp because the cost of security against these sorts of threats is quite substantial, limiting your exposure in public stinks, etc.

Often celebrities have significant incomes that can pay for security costs as a cost of doing business-- that isn't the case for people falsely accused of being Satoshi.


One thing folks may be missing when they note that they haven't heard of him is that the view from the driver's seat of someone's life is very different from the sidelines.  As someone who has probably received more than a typical amount of harassment and abuse, I've occasional commented to a friend about to hear back "oh, I've seen that but it wasn't really much was it?"   only to have me bring them over to the computer and show them from my perspective -- "holy shit!".

Even if you were following a person, what percentage of the messages and mentions to and of them do you think you see?  1%?   If you're not following them maybe a tiny tiny percentage 0.0001%?   You can't even see meatspace or private interactions at all.  So anything you see you could imagine that being multiplied by 100 or 1000 times.   There seems to be a weird effect where nice comments tend to get made in public while nasty/stalky/invasive comments are made more often in private, further exacerbating the effect.

So to me it's quite credible that someone you've never heard of could still have received a troubling amount of unwelcome or concerning contact.  (Doubly so in that the headline article here was published in 2013... plenty of time for people to forget about him ).

That just means you've fallen for Wright's story (abstraction v1).  There is nothing to support Kleiman here,  and Bitcoin is a mismatch of his skills: he was an IT admin guy, plugging PC parts and editing the windows registry.  There is no evidence that kleiman had substantive programming expertise (the only 'programming' he has ever been shown to have done is a trivial Visual Basic windows registry checker), nor any particular expertise in cryptography.  If Kleiman had any real experience programming it would have been brought out as evidence in the florida trial.

The only reason kleiman has ever been mentioned here is because Wright knew/feared that many would be able to tell that he obviously didn't create Bitcoin, but it would be fine for Wright's purposes (getting money predicated on access to Satoshi's coins) if people suspected that Wright was lying but still thought he had access to the coins.

There weren't any viable options (e.g. available in openssl) which were later found to be compromised.

If this story is true the guy did the best to come out open and say he is not the real satoshi. If it were to be one of these scammers it would  have been an opportunity to scam people to make money from this claim. It just good to be real and nobody else, claiming to be Satoshi has a lot of bad effect, if the real satoshi is not the kind of person that is private I think it would have cause something bad to him. Government would have have been is biggest enemy to bring him down.

Similar to others also not have heard about this ever brought up in the list of satoshis and don't why people always run behind these things linking up the fake connections to provide new drama in market.He is clearly stating that he has not invented btc so why run behind him like dorian nakamoto? You would never take the open responsibility to claim something that is not yours because government and media will surround you with lot of enquiries and put pressure on you.

Famous yet we never heard him before. Lol

This is actually the first time I hear or seen that face over the entire years of me staying on this forum and it just popped up out of nowhere. Where is he when Craig Wright trying to own Bitcoin but can't show a proof? I guess he just made the right choice since everyone was asking to open or show a signed message of his first wallet who has tons of BTC.

And if I would have to choose I wouldn't accept it too since first of all it's hard to stay hot in the public eyes plus the authority that might want to push the centralized system for Bitcoin.

Lots had been claiming that they are Satoshi nakamoto but we know that there's only one thing that they could prove it out which is to move those funds into those known satoshi nakamoto wallets.

We could really point out fingers on those presume or assumed Satoshi excluding CSW which is totally a psycho and trying hard to claim to be SN but the community isnt that dumb to believe with those claims.

Just looking on the thing he had invented then it would be safe to say that he isnt someone that would expose himself into the public and boasting on the project/thing that he had created.

I imagine the nature of Satoshi Nakamoto should he or she be an individual to be a very humble person. To have thought and created something so useful in our world today today yet chose to stay anonymous on his invention and have no desire to use it in extorting the public is just something Craig Wright will never be. Same reason why his going to court over any objection to his claims is the same for which someone outrightly rejects. So humble and that's the Satoshi/crypto nature in him. His Satoshi alright, we are all Satoshi for choosing to stay anonymous, take no credit in the aids we render through cryptocurrency, our teachings in the forum and staying true to the pioneers invention.

I still have David Kleiman as the #1 Satoshi candidate.

He is the only candidate considered a world class security expert. Which would have been necessary to adopt elliptic curve signatures over other encryption standards which were later found to be compromised.

Kleiman unfortunately passed away in 2013. Which would explain everything about Satoshi's absence. And the inability of other Satoshi candidates to provide private keys for early BTC mined by Satoshi.

Nick Szabo could be the #2 Satoshi candidate. But I think he lacks the technical and programming skills to create something like bitcoin. He lacks the engineering and security credentials.

You said famous till date but for most here including me, this is the first time that I've heard that name.

I guess his surname is already saying that he isn't Satoshi because it's very "clear" that he is not and why somebody would claim them to be Satoshi. Only a crazy man like Craig Wright can do it because he's crazy .

Now to answer the question, I will decline it immediately and for sure many others would because of security purposes and I'm thinking even though the real Satoshi will decline the accusation even he/they know inside that they is/are Satoshi.

I'm not also not familiar with the name, maybe in crypto or any other secure communications protocol or cryptography.

But in any case, yes, this man knows whats coming if he pretend to be Satoshi, just like what infamous CW is trying to portray when everyone around here knows that he is not Satoshi. So kudos to this guy for coming out in public and clearing his name and it is the right decision indeed. And for sure, Satoshi will no longer reappear but his invention will remain with us.

Michael Clear just clearly demolished Craig Wright who is fighting everyone and using his wealth just for the world to accept that he is the guy we are looking for. Michael Clear is very "clear" on this aspect: he is not Satoshi Nakamoto and he is not planning to use this opportunity to be known anywhere and give up his privacy which am sure he is valuing a lot. Maybe Craig should be taking the cue from Michael...because while Craig is very "Wrong" here we can see another man is very "Clear"...and that is amazing.

He have did the rightful and now if he looks back he once again feels happy on his decision. If he have accepted himself to be Satoshi, now more and more questions could've arisen towards him. Moreover governments would've started to watch him. A freaky cryptographer, and identity of Satoshi won't gets revealed forever. Quite often we can see some people claiming themselves as Satoshi, among few good ones like Micheal who denies they aren't real Satoshi.

I never heard of this guy, it might be suspected because of his work as a cryptographer.
If there's deserving to be called Satoshi, I rather called Hal Finney a Satoshi because in the first place they had an interaction before and I doubt that's one of the members who created Bitcoin (because I doubt Satoshi is not one person).

At the first glance, he is really a coder.
Long hair and wears eyeglasses that look very busy his entire life being a coder.

He is wise and honest enough by denying that he is not Satoshi. He should have his own reasons why he denied it because he is not Satoshi is the truth. By denying it, he may be calmer in life. We know that Satoshi is one of the most hunted people in the world, the person who has always been searched for. the man that invented Bitcoin. With the name, the person may hold very big pressure, and accusations, and also probably many parties will accuse, give probelms, and also probably be jail. That is why denying is a good decision.

Quite true, but in fact, he is a cryptographer 

Even myself, this is my first time on knowing for a certain guy accused to be Satoshi but totally had been denied.Its totally opposite on what we are seeing on newer years that lots had been fighting on getting that

Satoshi Nakamoto spot or title.People are different when it comes to fame which either there are ones who do really loves to be famous and there are ones who do love to be alone.Considering the general essence of

Bitcoin then we could really tell that Satoshi itself wont really be tending to expose himself into the public.If he had the intentions on the first place then he had already done that
earlier.

For the three names of the people you mentioned I have seen them in various news articles, but all of them are just for entertainment. Michael Clear may be the best here, but I'm still inclined to be unsure if he's really Satoshi. Apart from that, I don't really care who Satoshi Nakamoto is, I'd rather not know his real face. Most importantly he has helped us to make it easy and safe to transact quickly using bitcoin.

Ever since I found out about bitcoin, this is honestly the first time I've heard of Michael Clear being accused of being a satoshi and I've only just seen his image. There are many names I've heard that might also be referred to as satoshi, such as; Hal Finney, Dorian Nakamoto, Craig Wright, but everyone can't prove it.

However, what Michael Clear does must of course get a good response from the community so he doesn't have to prove anything to the community. A person who claims to be a satoshi is much more likely not to be a satoshi, but otherwise a satoshi would not claim to be a satoshi so easily.

A bad person that many people believe to be the bitcoin creator can probably deceive people and extort money from them, heck people send funds to dummy/scam celebrity accounts to double their bitcoin for them, not to talk of an account or a person they think is Satoshi, you are correct on this that he may extort funds from people.

But what the person cannot do is perform any illicit operation on the bitcoin protocol, even satoshi himself cannot successfully do that because bitcoin is not under his control, any illicit operation will be rejected by miners/nodes, that is why decentralization makes bitcoin very unique and safe.

Yea, I remember the stress Dorian Nakamoto had to go through almost 8 years ago trying to let the public know that he is not Satoshi. But the question that begs for an answer is what is the probability that the real Nakamoto Satoshi would gladly accept that he is the founder of BTC if ever there was a claim? The real Nakamoto Satoshi  just doesn't want publicity and wants to live a normal life. Imagine the publicity and disruption to his life if he revealed his identity. Imagine him getting interviewed all the time being asked about the price, being at risk of being robbed, and might even be sued for some dumb reasons.

Of course, i will decline. I am not qualified to be at that spot to be called Satoshi or a lair to introduce myself as someone i am not. I prefer myself to be an introvert. So my room is my world. I don't want to go out or earn public fame to ruin my world. I am happy as who i am right now.

By the way, Maybe Satoshi himself is reading this. Then here's what i have to say to him - You have paved the path, and we will walk on that to make your dream come true. We support you through every ups and downs.
You are a legend, man.

I even just heard the name Michael Clear which was previously only filled by the name Craig Wright as a person who claims to be the creator of Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto, even proclaims himself and opposes anyone who doubts him. But unlike Michael Clear, he is a real man who doesn't want to confess despite being called a satoshi and that is the right and wise choice.

For the latest news, Craig Wright, according to several sources, his life has become more difficult because he has proclaimed himself the creator of bitcoin and a number of technology giant companies have made several lawsuits against him.

haha me too, when i first saw the photo i thought instead he was just a rock singer who finished a gig, far for Satoshi to say,
and in my mind a Satoshi is a person who comes from Japan with a cute face,

I would decline because there's no point in pretending, they will eventually catch your lies and you don't really want to be in that situation because your life will turn upside down as fast as you've made it when you didn't decline the accusation. Imagine this, would you be annoyed when people talk to you about the stuff that someone did? If yes then you would get why it's best if you decline the accusation outright.

Never heard of this guy but I've seen some other names that have been accused for being satoshi and has some good proof of connection why they're accused as satoshi himself.

Well, as this guy has declined of the accusation, he should actually decline it and there's no strong evidence that can prove that it's him. While some other guy we knew that's trying to prove himself and claiming that he's satoshi, only him calls and admits that he is.

I'm sure that all of you guys are aware of this guy and spending a lot of money in court for this claim. 

It couldn't because we know the exact and prompt means to identify the real Satoshi, if he could sign a message or not is one of the best m ways and moreso, why should he accepts or claim what he's not, that should be impersonating enough and a thing of big shame on his reputation provided that he's reasonable enough to realise the fact, Craig among many others were also struggling on this self proclamation to be Satoshi.


This is what their type want, money, recognition and power, they are the types that like to claim on other's people efforts and works as theirs, everything they know how to do is plagiarism and still yet they don't want to aggree to the fact that what they are doing is wrong.

The New Yorker’s author Joshua Davis then asked Clear again whether he was Satoshi Nakamoto. “I’m not Satoshi,” Clear responded. “But even if I was I wouldn’t tell you.”

source:
https://news.bitcoin.com/pinning-the-tail-on-satoshi-nakamoto-how-journalists-erroneously-used-circumstantial-evidence-over-the-years-to-identify-bitcoins-creator/

When you want to understand this thread, I recommend you to read that article  
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/the-crypto-currency
10/Oct/2011

I don't know who is this guy, like many others I've never heard of him.
But yes, I would decline such accusation. And the reasons are many:
1. Since I know I cannot prove it cryptographically that I am Satoshi, I would be just another Faketoshi.
2. I guess that many reporter and madman would be looking me up, disturbing me and my family with good and bad, including hate.
3. If I would become somewhat convincing that I could be Satoshi, some may want me dead or come for my alleged money.
4. A convincing enough Satoshi could do very bad to Bitcoin (as price and also as community and development).

So why bother? It cannot do anything good neither to me, nor to Bitcoin itself.


PS. If Satoshi is alive and well, I am sure he thinks the same (of course, excepting point 1), no matter how much noise some try to do in order to make him step forward.

Well! you can't be far from getting arrested once the truth will come out and that's the worst-case scenario after getting some praise from the people which will gonna turn into humiliation once they know you are a crook. Also, the money that you will get from those people will be the same money you will be paying for the fines and that would not be enough and you will end up taking some loans just to pay the damages of what you have done to yourself claiming to be a person you never been was.

You have to be a special kind of narcissist to claim that you are Satoshi Nakamoto, if you are not him/her or them.    Only a ego maniac like CW will attempt to claim that title and I hope it backfire on him. 

I hope IF he succeeds... that the authorities will go down on him like a pack of wolves and that they will show him what the governments will do to people, when they challenge their authority/monopoly. (They are waiting for a centralized figure head to recieve that title, because they can only start with their revenge...when it is official)

Simply thinking about it like this

Assume you are real Satoshi Nakamoto, are you ready to disclose yourself? I believe you won't because you know that your life will be under risk and serious observation from governments as well as Bitcoin community. If you are smart enough to create Bitcoin, you would be wise enough to have in-depth thinking about such risks. You also are fully aware that if you disclose your identity, you lose it forever.

Again another topic about Satoshi.

The List Satoshi Nakamoto Thread
I gathered every Satoshi Nakamoto thread.

I don't have interests to read all those topics but if you want, I think you can find something to support your topic.

I think any sane person would.  The amount of harassment that you and your family would have to deal with as internet sleuths and reporters all dig to try and find clickbait would be enough to drive anyone crazy.  Look at others who have been accused of being satoshi...  It is never a welcomed thing that they enjoy.  Not to mention the security issues of people knowing you have billions of dollars.  It might be funny to be accused if it was obvious you weren't, but if there were any real interest being it, it would be a nightmare.

That's what I thought when I saw his face, too, lol!
Anyhow, a lot of random guys have already claimed that he is Satoshi, but nobody has been able to show proof of this as of yet. I believe we should keep Satoshi's identity a secret since he did an excellent job of creating Bitcoin, and I'm sure he is happy, from wherever he is, that Bitcoin has come a long way to achieve its current status.

I don't think that a normal/reasonable human being would even try to claim ownership of another person's achievement , let alone as a cryptographer he is, he already knew the implications involved if he had done that, Because for you to claim to be Satoshi there are proofs you need provide to be believed, Therefore this so called Faketoshi, I don't see him as normal human being, looks like someone that has ulterior motive against Bitcoin or maybe he's looking for cheap popularity.

Only a weird man would be happy accused or alleged to be Satoshi Nakamoto. What would I gain if others think that I'm Satoshi Nakamoto? I would be kinda popular but what will I gain out of that popularity? Death threats? Actual attempts even? Or even deriding remarks, mockery, criticisms, etc? Would I even earn from that popularity?

At the end of the day, the truth will come out that I'm not Satoshi, that I don't even know much of what Satoshi have gone through, can't sign a message from those old addresses, can't move those old Bitcoin, etc. I'd rather just be true to myself and save myself from all the shit that comes along with it.

Interestingly enough, of all the rumoured Satoshis, this is the guy I literally haven't heard about once.


An easy yes. God knows what the authorities would do to a person that actually invented Bitcoin; not-so-nice things, safe to assume.

Yeah, first time to heard and see this guy. The only normal citizen that I know that was suspected to be Satoshi (founder of Bitcoin) is Dorian Nakamoto, which came from the country of Japan.
I am not sure for this guy (Michael Clear) why telling them that it's Satoshi, maybe of his job, as a cryptographer.

Never really saw a thread about him being Satoshi despite me being in crypto for more than 5 years.

He doesn't look like a tech guy who can code but a member of a rock band. But he advocates privacy of course he will decline just as the real Satoshi would. There is nothing worth keeping for someone who has everything but privacy. You wouldn't want to live like the actors and actresses who keep hiding from the public and can't even go to a park to walk their dogs.

A cryptographer named Michael Clear declined the wonderful offer, after he was said to be Satoshi. Accepting the false claim would have made him famous till date but he made the right choice. Hence, someone is in court paying lots of money to lawyers claiming to be Satoshi, what an Irony. I think the people decides who is Satoshi then its left for the person to accept or decline like Michael Clear a good man - a bad fellow would have used the opportunity to execute illicit operation on bitcoin and extorting funds from those that sent him mails.





His online activities proofs he is not Satoshi indeed!





Photo Credit; @Rizo

WOULD YOU DECLINE SUCH AN ACCUSATION?