Topic: [2021-11-15]WSJ - Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Could Be Unmasked at FL Trial (Read 239 times)

I would judge those statements to be arguing in favor of his solution to a computer science problem. It is also possible that his views have changed over time.

Again, this is nothing more than his actions after he started claiming to be saotshi.

I would point out that if Bob were to repeadily say that 2 + 2 equals 5, no matter how many times he repeated this claim, it does not mean that Bob does not know that 2 + 2 actually equals 4.

I very strongly believe that CSW is in fact not Satoshi. However, claims such as that a signed message from a known cryptographic key would not prove that CSW is satoshi only gives credibility to CSW as it shows that his critics do not have an open mind regarding the facts and evidence.

I don't necessarily agree with that. While he maybe never openly discussed his political leanings, he certainly made some other references, such as these:

Agreed, but the fact that he has repeatedly shown himself to be a technically incompetent plagiarizer is good evidence that he is not Satoshi.

Agreed.

Although CSW has shown evidence, even if that evidence does not show anything with regards to him potentially being satoshi, despite his claims that it does. <-- this is true for a reasonable person with modest knowledge about bitcoin (in my opinion).
Well the evidence against CSW being satoshi amounts to CSWs actions after he started claiming to be satoshi. I might point you to the experience of Dorian "Satoshi" Nakamoto in 2014 after Newsweek claimed that he was the person that invented bitcoin.

CSW has an ideology that is very different than those who currently (or who have historically) use bitcoin today, however, we don't know what satoshi's ideological beliefs are. There is very little evidence that satoshi created bitcoin for any reason other than to solve a computer science problem. The only potential exception to this is the message he put into the genesis block. The fact that CSW thinks differently than how I think is not evidence that he is not satoshi. Similarly, the fact that I don't like CSW is not evidence that he is not satoshi.

If there was substantial evidence that CSW is, in fact, satoshi, such as him signing a GPG signed message from his known GPG key, or signing a message from a suspected block he mined, or signing a message from the genesis block, the only reason evidence possible evidence that CSW is not satoshi would include evidence that would make it impossible for him to be satoshi if said evidence was proven to be accurate.

---

CSW won his case yesterday, and will not be liable to the family of his previous business partner.

The onus is not on us (or anybody else) to prove that CSW (or anybody else) is not Satoshi. That is not how the burden of proof works. If you make a claim such as "I am Satoshi", then the onus is on you to provide evidence or proof to substantiate that claim. If you fail to do so, then that claim can be completely disregarded, and does not require any further discussion, counter proof, refuting evidence, etc. This is essentially a case of Russell's Teapot. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Having said all that, even if CSW came forward with a signed message from the genesis block (he won't), the mountain of evidence against him being Satoshi is more than enough to allow such a signed message to also be dismissed as a stolen private key or similar.

It is unusual for newspapers to employ "fact-checkers" to check the accuracy of articles they publish. It is more common for reporters to consult with "experts", and cite the expert in their article. So instead of saying "blocks are found on average every 10 minutes", the article would say "according to o_e_l_e_o, who is a blockchain engineer for maga_bitcoin.com, blocks are found every 10 minutes on average". That way, even if the "expert" is wrong, the article would be correct as the source did in fact make the statement.
Bitcoin is currently trading at roughly $49k. If CSW sold 21 million BSV for $400, he would have insufficient money to pay for satoshi's estimated 1 million bitcoin at current market rates.

CSW has acted as if he is not Satoshi. He has also acted as if he is trying to fraudulently to claim to be Satoshi.

Based on the currently available evidence, I think it is fair to say that CSW is not satoshi. It is also very difficult to prove a negative, and without knowing who satoshi is, it is very difficult to prove that someone is not satoshi.

For example, I could claim to have been the person who created the private key associated with the address bc1qczdzkqld9cukpn5jc77zgyzfvjpn20em6m7h3c

To prove this claim, I might provide signed messages from bc1q7c06pn20mvz0wenkan99enxfc6l2kk9m5q3872 and the private key to bc1qhg8fmzpk8um0zx0vngy5pfaefp0da3j9t8alhg while claiming (while using flawed logic) that these addresses are connected. While providing this misleading evidence, it would very much look like I did not control the private key to bc1qczdzkqld9cukpn5jc77zgyzfvjpn20em6m7h3c, and it would be very reasonable to believe I didn't generate the private key to this address.

As I was saying,
https://cointelegraph.com/news/jury-in-craig-wright-lawsuit-cannot-all-agree-on-a-verdict


I wonder if some in that jury simply think it's better to not reach a verdict at all and just let it be, rather than taking the blame for the outcome in something they probably still don't have a clue about even with all the material handed to them, its easy to consider they might silently agree to disagree and drop it.

Here's the thing though - proof of possession of a specific private key or knowledge of the login details to a specific account does not prove identity. It only proves ownership. It is a necessary prerequisite to discussing the claims of "X is Satoshi", but it is not sufficient proof by any means. As I said in my first post above, if you can sign a message then we will take you seriously enough to examine your claim that you are Satoshi, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Now look at all the provable lies CSW has told, all the silly tricks he has tried to pull to "prove" he is Satoshi which have been easily debunked, all the times he has been wrong on even some of the most basic technical aspects of bitcoin, all the times he has shown complete incompetence in terms of programming, coding, math, etc., all the plagiarism he has committed, and so on. Even if CSW could sign a message, the far more likely situation would be that he had somehow stumbled upon or stolen Satoshi's private keys.

We have mountains of proof that CSW is not Satoshi, and none of that would change based on the possession of a private key.

Wright is currently trying to sue several bitcoin companies because he "lost" his keys. hes also not satoshi and i can tell you why very simply
hes NEVER publicly signed a signature from a know satoshi wallet that could simply be verified by anyone that wants to check.
i can fully buy and understand the fact hes lost the wallets most of us have been there at some point. but the big thing for me is satoshi has been around several times to say no this person isnt me. if DR wright is satoshi he could sign into his account on any platform and simply say see this is me. i believe that satoshi simply wants this to play out and see what happens or has passed away.

if the court believes wright is satoshi then hes going to be in and out of court for years getting sued (especially if he wins the court cases for his lost bitcoin) and if hes proven not to be satoshi hes still going to get sued for affecting companys credibility. its another reason i dont think hes satoshi, Satoshi was a smart person coverd his tracks careful who he spoke to Dr Wright is in a loose loose situation something i cant see satoshi doing.

This is nothing more than a click bait scheme by WSj and they know it because running such a story can easily bring them some traffic, and possibly subcribers for their services.

It's the same really for any topic on which you are knowledgeable about. The article passes just fine to a lay person, but falls apart when read by someone with a bit of understanding of the topic at hand. You expect this kind of trash from small sites and bloggers with limited resources, but somewhere like the WSJ has enough money and resources to either hire a better writer or hire a fact checker. Hell, there are probably a few hundred users on this forum who could easily correct an article like that for a small sum.

Assuming he hasn't done so already. There have been multiple times where BSV has been artificially pumped to >$400 and then immediately dumped. The same pattern of activity has been seen multiple times on Bcash (I assume known fraudster CSW and Calvin Ayre both have/had some bags of that too). They may be technically inept, but they are not totally stupid, and may already have dumped thousands of coins in preparation.

I scrolled back through his last 5 pages or so of articles on WSJ. Every one about bitcoin is just baseless price speculation, invariably discussing how it is going to crash and predicting that we were entering another multi-year "crypto winter" over summer. Clickbait trash.

What a bunch of baloney.

This might just be another publicity stunt to further the narrative that CSW is the creator of bitcoin when he obviously isn't.

The mainstream media really needs to abandon the obsession with trying to find Satoshi and fuelling this circus. It is not particularly crucial to BTC adoption, development, or anything of that nature, so why bother with it?

Paul Vigna is an utter tool. Back in the GAW days he basically validated the scam by repeating their PR claims. He was shown a Bitcoin address that had received ~28k coins and called that an "investigation". Apparently hasn't learned anything at all in the 7 years since.

The case is unusual because both sides are agreeing on a fact that is widely disputed and is very likely not true.

The article says that the defense (Wright) has said the evidence will show that Wright created bitcoin on his own. This is a very interesting legal strategy because if Wright were to make the Kleiman family prove that Wright had anything to do with bitcoin's creation, the case would fall on its face, and would potentially reach the point of being frivolous, as I don't believe there is credible evidence to support Wright having anything to do with bitcoin's creation.

Wright has credibility to gain in this case.

There is obviously a reason why Wright has subjected himself to scrutiny in claiming he is satoshi, and the public humiliation and ridicule when he publishes "proof" that a knowledgeable person might believe shows that he is fraudulent. Assuming Wright never makes any money from any coin that satoshi mined, Wright could likely make far more money by leveraging his skills and knowledge than he is currently (what I believe to be) by pretending to be satoshi. It is possible Wright intends to try to securitize and/or collateralize satoshi's bitcoin without giving the buyer/lender any actual access to the private keys of the underlying coin. This would obviously be dangerous for the buyer/lender that would be highly likely to result in them loosing all their money.

The author is not part of the bitcoin/crypto community (that I am aware of). I understand he has a long history of reporting on various markets, most recently reporting on bitcoin/crypto markets for the past ~6 years.

Exactly.  The court isn't going to prove anything or unmask anyone.  The number of weasel words in the article is astounding.

Perhaps their goal, if they are in cahoots, is to attempt to claim the keys are lost and there should be a fork to allow them access to the keys.  (e.g. like the ethereum nonsense with ethereum classic).  Of course they'll be on the fork by themselves, but I am not sure if a court will comprehend that. 

Of if they aren't in cahoots, then Kleiman is attempting to prove that CSW is lying about being SN because after a huge judgment his choice will be to access the bitcoins (which he clearly can't) or sell other assets. 

Either way, I don't really see how it turns out to be a positive for CSW.

This means two things: most people will be easy to fool with a court ruling and the more people get to understand how Bitcoin works, the less credibility Craig will have overall and the more of a fraud he will be known as.

He does no seem to get that he will be in a situation similar to OJ's, where being told and ruled as innocent does not make you innocent and this will even haunt you your entire life.  Craig has already messed up his "facts" and "evidence" of being Satoshi WAY too many times.  Besides his ego blowing up once a favorable ruling occurs, there is nothing he'll gain for it in the long run.

WSJ should be ashamed for writing an article like this.  Attempting to get as many clicks as possible or not, they are giving Craig credibility which is a shame.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Bitcoin has shown itself to be very difficult to cover by the MSM. I don't know how many times articles have said that the mining process is a bunch of computers trying to "solve a complex mathematical problem" -- mining can be more accurately described as trying to brute force the solution to a mathematical problem. Journalists tend to find a single "expert" to use as the basis for a statement in their article and will just roll with it.

Anyone in the bitcoin/crypto world knows that a court saying that a particular person is satoshi does not actually mean that is true. Most people are not in the crypto world.

I like to keep an open mind, and am willing to hear evidence that will possibly change my mind. However, I very strongly doubt that any evidence will ever emerge that CSW is satoshi. The only way I can see myself even considering changing my mind would be if CSW lost the case and actually transferred a half-million bitcoin, on-chain to the Kleiman family. I think it is unlikely any of this will happen, but if it does, I would still look at the situation with a skeptical eye.

Here is how I view the situation from Ira Kleiman's point of view. Her brother was likely associated with CSW around the time that bitcoin was created, and there may be some evidence they were in business together around that time. From the looks of it, Kleiman may have had the technical expertise necessary to create bitcoin (there are a decent number of people who meet this criterion, so this does not prove Kleiman is satoshi). Then, a few years after her brother dies, CSW starts claiming to be satoshi.

If CSW loses the case and has to pay 500k bitcoin to the Kleiman family, he will be unable to do so. Selling his BSV will be insufficient to even come close.

"Could".
And a meteorite containing the elixir of life could land exactly 99.9 miles away from Milestown.

The trial will only reveal in one thing, that the two sides have claims but no proof, if they had any we wouldn't be here after all these years. As o_e_l_e_o pointed out, really poor journalism and the most important thing is that the object of this trial is by no means to establish the identity of Satoshi or to prove one of them was Satoshi but to see if the claims from Kleiman side are real.

If Ira Kleiman had proof her brother was half of Satoshi she would have made that public already, but I have a feeling the claim actually targets whatever partnerships those two had and whatever came out of that 2011 break-up. So rather than focusing on the identity, they are focusing on the money, if they prove CSW was indeed Kleiman's partner then it doesn't matter if CSW has access to those coins or not, he will have to pay up, doesn't matter if he can't access his bitcoin stash, he's going to sell a lot of BSV for that.

Here's an archive of the article without the paywall: https://archive.md/NRbwx

Disappointing journalism really from somewhere like the WSJ. You would expect them to do some basic fact checking.


So much wrong in that paragraph, from the fact that ownership of a key does not prove identity, to the fact that we don't know how many coins Satoshi actually owns, to the fact that they aren't stored on a single address (I don't even know what "account" refers to in this context), to the fact he would probably just sign a message rather than make a transaction, to the fact the genesis coins can't even be used in a transaction.

Still, in terms of the court case itself, I've been ignoring known criminal CSW for a while now, but I'm pretty sure the judges in this case have said repeatedly that they are not there to decide whether or not known fraudster CSW (+/- anyone else) is Satoshi. Regardless, only an idiot would conclude that the identity of Satoshi would be proven in a court. If you want to prove you are Satoshi, you first sign a message from the relevant private key. If you can do that, then we can examine your behavior, your knowledge, your writings, your actions, etc., to see if they are in keeping with those of Satoshi. Known identity thief CSW has failed miserably, completely, and repeatedly on both counts.

This article appeared in the November 15, 2021 paper edition of the Wall Street Journal (it was written on November 13, 2021).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-could-be-unmasked-at-florida-trial-11636808401

The family of David Kleiman (via his estate) is suing Craig S Wright for half of the bitcoin that satoshi mined in bitcoin's early days. The lawsuit claims that both Kleiman and Wright created bitcoin as a partnership in 2008/09. As many know, Wright has long claimed to be satoshi, without offering any (what I believe to be) real proof to backup this claim, however, he has presented (what I believe to be) fraudulent proof to suggest he is satoshi.

Regardless of the outcome of the case, I think Wright will claim that a court had ruled that he in fact created bitcoin. Even though the Kleiman family has a long history with Wright, I see this to largely be a case between two parties who are "friendly". Kleiman did create a partnership in 2011 that was titled in a way that might suggest some kind of partnership between Wright and Kleiman. Even with the partnership (that was created years after bitcoin was created), the Kleiman family has a long way to go in order to win their case.

If Wright receives a court ruling suggesting that he created bitcoin, he will gain credibility, although, IMO such credibility will be ill-deserved. Both sides of the case are arguing that Wright helped create bitcoin, and there is no one in the case arguing that he did not create bitcoin.

[moderator's note: fixed date format in title]