Topic: Craig W. only claims to be Satoshi, because he knows the real Satoshi is dead? - page 5. (Read 15271 times)
April 18, 2020, 08:19:34 AM
If he knows about the probable death of satoshi, I am very sure he is not the only person that knows about that and this secret must have long be broken. I just think the guy is playing mind game and maybe there is more to the character he is currently playing probably a move to see if the real satoshi will come out to rubbish the guy's claim
April 18, 2020, 06:52:09 AM
The fact that anyone can be tricked is why it's so much more important for people who will be perceived to be an authority to make an extra effort to not get tricked or just not play along. So I think here the issue isn't so much that wright tricked him, it's that he shouldn't have been exposed in the first place, and that to this day he still has do little to nothing to walk back the damage. Wright suckers still continue to cite his equivocation as evidence to support wright. I think Ver is one of the less ethical people around cryptocurrency, and yet even Ver did better and eventually provided an unequivocated statement against wright's claims.
And yet I still have people who quack around telling me that Gavin is trustworthy around here, many things are backwards. The very very least that he should have done after all this nonsense got exposed was apologize and retract his statements (if not condemn Wright too). Ergo, not trustworthy. April 18, 2020, 06:13:12 AM
CW claims to be Satoshi because he’s a crook, a fraudster out for his own financial gain & he will do or so anything to ensure he earns money. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.
He’s a creep, the sooner he disappears into bankruptcy & or prison the better.
Well said, this is the only reason we can see and we all know that this is what he really after. He also want to be more popular so he can perform more fraudulent activity by trying to earn the trust of those people who believes in him to be SN. He’s a creep, the sooner he disappears into bankruptcy & or prison the better.
April 18, 2020, 06:09:39 AM
CW claims to be Satoshi because he’s a crook, a fraudster out for his own financial gain & he will do or so anything to ensure he earns money. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.
He’s a creep, the sooner he disappears into bankruptcy & or prison the better.
He’s a creep, the sooner he disappears into bankruptcy & or prison the better.
April 18, 2020, 05:47:45 AM
Hindsight is great and when a situation is stage managed there is limited time to make a proper assessment. Not everyone figures out how a trick is performed in a magic show.
Even if you are an expert:
Even if you are an expert:
This is a great point and it's something to keep in mind. I do think that many of the people wright fooled could have and should have done better, but none of us should feel confident that we couldn't have been fooled. We could have. Maybe the trick that would have fooled us would have been different or the situation that succeeded would have been different. But humans make mistakes.
Quote
But Gavin wouldn't have been appointed as Chief Scientist for his forensic or detective skills.
To be fair, the only thing that ever appointed him as Chief Scientist of anything was an organization that he, alongside Jon Matonis (Former Nchain Vice President of Strategy), Roger Ver (another prior Wright sucker, massive shitcoin promoter), Peter Vessenes (stole millions from MTGox customers and is holding up the distribution of the remaining mtgox assets with frivolous litigation), Charlie Shrem (went to jail for money laundering), and Mark Karpeles (lost customer funds at MTGox and went to jail for smaller scale embezzling) created.
There are plenty of defences that can be offered for the Bitcoin Foundation and the people involved with creating it but I don't think anyone can argue that it was some dream team of people went on to demonstrate good and careful judgement.
Validation of Wright's evidence is a question for a technical expert. Gavin had sufficient expertise to demand the right things-- he had even previously published a more or less reasonable laundry list-- and he didn't. He also knew enough to know the basic limits of his expertise, such as being unable to determine if a random windows PC had been tampered with. Most importantly, he should have known that he was being asked to participate because his enforcement would be taken as a high degree of assurance, nearly proof, by the media and the public -- and as a result deserved either an appropriately diligent vetting on his part or a refusal to participate if he was unable or uninterested in providing one.
From my perspective it was just another example of a long history of poor judgement.
The fact that anyone can be tricked is why it's so much more important for people who will be perceived to be an authority to make an extra effort to not get tricked or just not play along. So I think here the issue isn't so much that wright tricked him, it's that he shouldn't have been exposed in the first place, and that to this day he still has do little to nothing to walk back the damage. Wright suckers still continue to cite his equivocation as evidence to support wright. I think Ver is one of the less ethical people around cryptocurrency, and yet even Ver did better and eventually provided an unequivocated statement against wright's claims.
April 18, 2020, 04:44:16 AM
I'm interested in this:
Where in the forum can I find these experiences that happened? They're probably buried under 500 threads by now.
Back before these things actually were happening, I was spamming on the forum and people privately left and right to save as many individuals from being burned by the orchestrated scam as I could..
Where in the forum can I find these experiences that happened? They're probably buried under 500 threads by now.
February 21, 2020, 01:44:59 PM
I will never believe this person, because there is no evidence that he is saying. At least, when the court requested Craig Wright to provide secret keys to Bitcoin wallets, which are the real property of Satoshi Nakamoto, this person did not fulfill this requirement. And if Satoshi is alive or dead, then this is a completely different conversation.
February 21, 2020, 06:06:44 AM
He was about to give proof that he was the real Satoshi. He once announced that he will move some of Satoshi's coins (which were mined in 2009 and not moved since). But later he went back on his promise, saying that he risked arrest from law enforcement agencies, if he prove that he was the real Satoshi.
Reality is: He can't, because he doesn't have control over any of Satoshi's keys.
He doesn't even need to say that he does it. He can give some clues and hints that it is he but not show so much proof for the authorities. For example including a number on some tweets. Then moving the amount in BTC. This is just an idea.
Then again he cannot provide any proof that's why suddenly many people confuse to him so maybe it's best for us to move and not believe on any claims coming from him since listening to him is just a waste of time, finding the real Satoshi still a mystery right now and if he's alive maybe he need to show up to eliminate those fakers.
February 21, 2020, 01:15:28 AM
even he knew or not if satoshi is dead still this person will claim the title because He is looking after the benefits he might have if he fooled the world and took the title from the real Satoshi Nakamoto.
Then again he cannot provide any proof that's why suddenly many people confuse to him so maybe it's best for us to move and not believe on any claims coming from him since listening to him is just a waste of time, finding the real Satoshi still a mystery right now and if he's alive maybe he need to show up to eliminate those fakers.
how can he Prove to be the one when he does not have Proof of claiming?simple thing to do is Sign a Message to the wallet addresses that Satoshi has so that can save everyone's time for this issue?but why can't he provide this?because he is a Faker.
Then again he cannot provide any proof that's why suddenly many people confuse to him so maybe it's best for us to move and not believe on any claims coming from him since listening to him is just a waste of time, finding the real Satoshi still a mystery right now and if he's alive maybe he need to show up to eliminate those fakers.
February 20, 2020, 09:24:59 PM
He was about to give proof that he was the real Satoshi. He once announced that he will move some of Satoshi's coins (which were mined in 2009 and not moved since). But later he went back on his promise, saying that he risked arrest from law enforcement agencies, if he prove that he was the real Satoshi.
Reality is: He can't, because he doesn't have control over any of Satoshi's keys.
He doesn't even need to say that he does it. He can give some clues and hints that it is he but not show so much proof for the authorities. For example including a number on some tweets. Then moving the amount in BTC. This is just an idea.
Then again he cannot provide any proof that's why suddenly many people confuse to him so maybe it's best for us to move and not believe on any claims coming from him since listening to him is just a waste of time, finding the real Satoshi still a mystery right now and if he's alive maybe he need to show up to eliminate those fakers.
February 20, 2020, 08:48:52 PM
Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?
This is not a matter of “opinion”. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact. Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?”
So no, he shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.
Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.
I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility
So... You “100% believe” that Satoshi endorsed the cryptographic competence of someone who does not know how to verify a forking digital signature!?
See also:
The Same Standard Applies to Me
Let’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture. And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
Let’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture. And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
Quote
| achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
While I wholeheartedly agree with what you said and the conclusions.
Gavin should have been more careful - he fell for the ruse. As a result his reputation too has been tarnished.
But Gavin wouldn't have been appointed as Chief Scientist for his forensic or detective skills. It would have been because of his passion for the project, his programming and project management skills.
Someone who is honest themselves is more likely to be trusting of others. History shows very intelligent people fall for cults, cons and scams.
The definition of a con man is:
Quote
a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/con_manGavin was gullible, was used and was duped. As a result he gave traction to a hoax and lost a lot of respect from the community.
But I wouldn't go as far as to say that if I was in his position that I wouldn't have fallen for the tricks. Errors in logic are not always immediately detected.
Hindsight is great and when a situation is stage managed there is limited time to make a proper assessment. Not everyone figures out how a trick is performed in a magic show.
Even if you are an expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0CC99hVK8
https://www.cryptologie.net/article/350/how-gavin-andresen-was-duped-into-believing-wright-is-satoshi/
February 20, 2020, 06:13:54 PM
He was about to give proof that he was the real Satoshi. He once announced that he will move some of Satoshi's coins (which were mined in 2009 and not moved since). But later he went back on his promise, saying that he risked arrest from law enforcement agencies, if he prove that he was the real Satoshi.
Reality is: He can't, because he doesn't have control over any of Satoshi's keys.
He doesn't even need to say that he does it. He can give some clues and hints that it is he but not show so much proof for the authorities. For example including a number on some tweets. Then moving the amount in BTC. This is just an idea.
February 20, 2020, 02:41:36 PM
Just to refresh your minds... I quick searched the word "united" through all the pages but couldn't find anything so I'll assume that nobody has mentioned it yet.
Jeff Garzik also has a shitcoin project... a 1:1 (supply-wise) fork of Bitcoin.
United Bitcoin. (Trading for ~$1.8 at the moment on these exchanges, yep it is pretty much dead.)
Everybody was getting his own version of bitcoin, and that was Garzik's shot.
Jeff Garzik also has a shitcoin project... a 1:1 (supply-wise) fork of Bitcoin.
United Bitcoin. (Trading for ~$1.8 at the moment on these exchanges, yep it is pretty much dead.)
Everybody was getting his own version of bitcoin, and that was Garzik's shot.
February 19, 2020, 07:43:27 AM
... anyone who could actually prove that he/she is Satoshi.
Personally, If I could prove myself as Satoshi, that implies I have the private keys, I'd rather just cash out some of the coins. I'll probably start at the tail end (closer to present time rather than closer to genesis block.) I'm almost certain Satoshi had been able to mine some later blocks which flew under the radar and not attributable to anyone in particular.
There isn't any evidence or proof (and there could be none at all) but isn't it likely he would have stuck around at least until after the first halving, just to do some test mining and see the reward drop from 50 to 25?
Would probably split the forked coins too.
February 19, 2020, 07:23:05 AM
(Not that that negates the likelihood of a leash on the grand-scale scammer and identity thief who seems thus far curiously immune to consequences. I could never get away with what he’s been doing for years. Cui bono?)
Not immune from consequences.
Michael Ryan and DeMorgan Information Security Systems Pty Limited
v
Craig Wright and Lynn Wright
Australian tax office investigation and ruling.
Ira Kleiman v Craig Steven Wright
https://static.coindesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Order-_CSW.pdf
February 18, 2020, 06:39:06 PM
I read it all @nullius.
The adage (not originally mine) is, “If you read it, it’s for you.”
Maybe we should say the same thing about Jeff Garzik? He, "abandoned" core and tried to set up his own "bitcoin unlimited" or something along those lines.
Indeed, jgarzik’s political game with BU didn’t work out so well—so he became a NYA/2Xer. I just lolled at his current signature: “Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.” (Bold underscore mine.) In 2014 (cough), he was highly trusted and widely admired! Actually, till 2017...
Traitors always evoke an intense feeling of horror and personal violation in those who trusted them. Whenever I think of jgarzik, I think of dooglus’ comment which I memorialized in this screenshot when I was a Newbie, when I had been actively posting for less than five days: “What have you done with the old jgarzik and how much will it cost us to buy him back?” This was when 2X tried to subvert the Bitcoin P2P network; committer: jgarzik, whose code is not trustworthy. Read that 28ebbdb commit for details. Underhanded bastard.
Reading in the recent release notes a list of “Network fork safety enhancements”, I can well imagine the internal monologue which must have gone through some dev’s head. “I need to finally finish this patch for Segwit change address support (plus tests, tests, tests). No wait, first I need to find some ingenious hack to ban fork nodes who lie about their identities so that they can waste node resources and try to subvert the whole network. Network safety first. Sigh.”
It requires prodigious engineering effort to produce mission-critical financial software which handles hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of value, operates in a hostile network environment, and is never, ever allowed to make the sort of mistake which could drop huge amounts of money on the floor because somebody rushed the change address patch. I’m so glad that Core gives this to you, me, and everybody else for free so we can run our businesses, whether or not we pitch in what we can for what is an open-source project.
For sure i'm not going to invest money to create own work arounds or own patches to core code.
Another one of my Newbie posts, from when I had been actively posting for seventeen days:
You fork, you die.
Genuine Bitcoin has crushed numerous forks and attempted forks: “Bitcoin XT”, “Bitcoin Unlimited”, “Bitcoin Classic”, and the “New York Agreement” (misnamed “Segwit2X”; nothing to do with Segwit), to name but a few. These no longer exist. For the current outbreak of forks, if you wish to claim some fork coins, then dump them in exchange for real Bitcoin, and enjoy your free bitcoins. Otherwise, simply ignore. Anything from “Bitcoin Cash” to “Bitcoin Super Diamond Plus2X Plutonium With Ponies” is only a scam; and these scams will die sooner or later, just as did their antecedents.
There are many pretenders to the Bitcoin title. However:
There is only one Bitcoin.
Genuine Bitcoin has crushed numerous forks and attempted forks: “Bitcoin XT”, “Bitcoin Unlimited”, “Bitcoin Classic”, and the “New York Agreement” (misnamed “Segwit2X”; nothing to do with Segwit), to name but a few. These no longer exist. For the current outbreak of forks, if you wish to claim some fork coins, then dump them in exchange for real Bitcoin, and enjoy your free bitcoins. Otherwise, simply ignore. Anything from “Bitcoin Cash” to “Bitcoin Super Diamond Plus2X Plutonium With Ponies” is only a scam; and these scams will die sooner or later, just as did their antecedents.
There are many pretenders to the Bitcoin title. However:
There is only one Bitcoin.
(Note: Quote changed to refer to an imgur upload of the image that I originally obtained from http://segwit.party/nya/tombstone.jpg)
That tombstone could also read: Here lies Jeff Garzik’s reputation in Bitcoinland.
Whereas Gavin Andresen is worse, much worse.
JayJuanGee: ++occam
(Not that that negates the likelihood of a leash on the grand-scale scammer and identity thief who seems thus far curiously immune to consequences. I could never get away with what he’s been doing for years. Cui bono?)
February 18, 2020, 06:22:33 PM
--snip--
In this case, the more plausible scenario is that the CSW is a fucktwat scam artist that just makes shit up and throws spaghetti at the wall until something might stick, and in that regard, it does not matter hardly at all to speculate in a way that attempts to cause CSW to appear anything less than narcissistic and/or deluded in regards to what he knows or might know.
In this case, the more plausible scenario is that the CSW is a fucktwat scam artist that just makes shit up and throws spaghetti at the wall until something might stick, and in that regard, it does not matter hardly at all to speculate in a way that attempts to cause CSW to appear anything less than narcissistic and/or deluded in regards to what he knows or might know.
He has become a sensation no matter what we are speaking about him here or anywhere - at least he is in the talks which means he is something an important topic to discuss about. That's what he wants and that's what we're giving him - utter importance to a debate about a non-sensical scammer trying to gain fame by endorsing himself as Satoshi no matter even if he gets fucked in his face, he'd still not stop himself claiming that he is SN, yes he is a SuNky dude who can't resist the fame this Bitcoin thing could get to anyone who could actually prove that he/she is Satoshi.
February 18, 2020, 05:57:39 PM
Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? 
We don't know! We don't have any knowledge who is the real satoshi Nakamoto is and if he is still alive or not. We don't know why mr. Craig Wright is claiming that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto, but the thing is what if he really knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is? And he already know that the real Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't have the plan on revealing himself so Mr. Craig Wright is claiming it in order to gain the popularity that he wants. What if that is the case?I don't mean to be too dismissive about potentially valid explorations that might be raised, but these kinds of pie in the sky speculations regarding what might be potentially "valid" CSW motives are common tools for trolls and shills to place too much emphasis on what is highly unlikely rather than focusing on more plausible scenarios...
In this case, the more plausible scenario is that the CSW is a fucktwat scam artist that just makes shit up and throws spaghetti at the wall until something might stick, and in that regard, it does not matter hardly at all to speculate in a way that attempts to cause CSW to appear anything less than narcissistic and/or deluded in regards to what he knows or might know.
February 18, 2020, 04:16:47 PM
Discussing Craig on this forum is like bashing on flatearthers on a science forum. Everyone knows he's BSer but still people get pissed off
February 18, 2020, 03:54:02 PM
I read it all @nullius.
Maybe we should say the same thing about Jeff Garzik? He, "abandoned" core and tried to set up his own "bitcoin unlimited" or something along those lines.
When I questioned that act, others questioned my competence... (they could not question my integrity I think; or maybe it's too difficult to question a reputation.)
This is the same line of thinking I have about a great many people who have done a great many things in the past, but then decide to do something bad later in life, or are somehow coerced to do it. Martyrs are made because they died for their beliefs, not by compromising them.
For the religious out there, if you have lived the life of a saint up until the day you die, but you despair and commit a mortal sin willingly and willfully, you still go to hell. (It's arguable about suicide that in the last moments before death, one may have repented, so that's a different story altogether.) Conversely, if you have been wicked your entire life, but repent dying on a cross, that same day after your death, you could be in paradise.
Maybe we should say the same thing about Jeff Garzik? He, "abandoned" core and tried to set up his own "bitcoin unlimited" or something along those lines.
When I questioned that act, others questioned my competence... (they could not question my integrity I think; or maybe it's too difficult to question a reputation.)
This is the same line of thinking I have about a great many people who have done a great many things in the past, but then decide to do something bad later in life, or are somehow coerced to do it. Martyrs are made because they died for their beliefs, not by compromising them.
For the religious out there, if you have lived the life of a saint up until the day you die, but you despair and commit a mortal sin willingly and willfully, you still go to hell. (It's arguable about suicide that in the last moments before death, one may have repented, so that's a different story altogether.) Conversely, if you have been wicked your entire life, but repent dying on a cross, that same day after your death, you could be in paradise.
Jump to: