Topic: Craig Wright deliberately made a fool of us all with his cyrptographic proof (Read 263 times)

Compound Math Credibility Adjuster: In order to prove someones credibility on a subject over time.

While you cannot totally prove a negative, I'm going to give it a shot. First off the data set can only hold things that are known lies, the true things someone says or does can be copied and are usually general knowledge to at least a select few people. So the equation is always a yes or no answer or fifty/fifty. So if each lie that is detected .5 is multiplied to the last number. The more lies and out character things done by that person, the odds get worse.

To start the person starts off with 100 percent credibility. So 100 times .5 for each lie or out of character move.
50 percent. He stated that SN never had a Bitcoin Talk account.
25 percent. He stated in court that certain BTC addresses where his then someone posted that he is a liar and a fraud etc. with one of the addresses.  
12.5 percent. He used Sha 256 for BSV which introduces a confrontation with the BTC chain which was totally unnecessary, unless he has some kind of an agenda. BSV would have been better off with a different algorithm. Him showing that he is not there for the BSV people. Which is out of character for SN by my research but I could be wrong?
6.25 For the many times his story changed. I'll go easy on him and not dock him for each instance but you should count each time for more accurate results. LOL.
3.125 For the many times he failed to produce proof of his so called keys.
1.5625 Lazlo has seen SN's mining software and might still have it. Why does this person simply produce the same software so Lazlo can confirm it? One person could be bought off for the right price, not saying that Lazlo would do it of course...
0.78125 For the many forged documents in his court cases. Each document forged should be .5 percent off but again I am going easy on him.
0.390625 For many people that in the know and say he is not SN. Richard Heart, Vitalik Buterin and many others.
0.1953125 Nima said that Adam Back's computer was used for the original source code.
0.09765625 He never mentioned Netcoin in time. If he was SN that ship has already sailed. No credit awarded! Do not pass go and collect 1 million BTC.
0.048828125 He copyrighted the white paper after it was already copyrighted, which is so lame that it's funny! Why copyright something that you supposedly already have? Does not compute... error...error... smoke coming out...
 
So there you have it folks much less than 1 percent chance that he is SN. Of course it is really worse than that, as I was giving him the benefit not including every lie, forged document etc.
Thanks for reading this just for fun exercise and feel free to add to the bottom line number! Let's see how low his odds of being SN really go!

------------------------------
edit. So an article said that there were 43 forged documents from a case and that puts a new number of...

5.551115123125783e-15, which is 0.048828125 multiplied by .5, 43 times if my math is correct?

One person of the 8.1 billion people on earth is 1.234567901234568e-10, his credibility is lower than being a human on this planet! Literally, everyone else on the planet has better odds of being SN. Including the judge of his next case.   

I changed my mind, and want to retract what I said that   Craig Wright may indeed be Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead I say that I believe it is not very likely that he is Nakamoto or part of the team behind Nakamoto (but cannot exclude it). The reason is that I since discovered the following news article

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/09/15/craig-wright-tells-court-he-stomped-on-the-hard-drive-containing-satoshi-wallet-keys/

that Craig Wright states that he destroyed the keys. That doesn't sound very probable to me, that somebody destroys the keys to this huge amount of money.

I still think what I brought up is an interesting twist to the story: Craig Wright pretended to have signed a message with the keys from Nakamoto (and if I understand the reports correctly this was fake, by misspelling the word "signature") , and the message essentially says "I don't sign this message as Nakamoto".  And nobody seems to notice this. This is definitely clever. It doesn't mean that I admire him as a person, but it is interesting how he was thinking ahead of what might happen like a good chess player.

What is interesting is that in the Norwegian court case he said he destroyed the keys in May 2016, and in the video posted on 5 July 2017 he at least gave to me the impression as if he claims to have the keys. But there might be a different explanation.

What I wrote above is carefully formulated, I don't want to get into a legal battle with Craig Wright.

Hi my lady! You see why everyone thinks he is a fraud? Because the real @Satoshi would never bring bitcoin and it's developers to the court, he would never demand changing the code so that he could get back his coins.

First thing the real Satoshi would do, would be contacting the early developers, his deputy theymos has had enough conversations with him in the past, he could be a good witness for the community.

Then he would come here, the place where he founded, he would seek the help of community members and would try to win the community because he knows without this community bitcoin couldn't last this long.

I mean for someone who has tried to separate one of the building blocks of  modern civilization from it's infrastructure and using it as the basis to found a new civilization, he'd know better not to seek salvation in a court room.

Stay majestic.😉

Yeah heard this shit before and also ignored it smoothly long back ago. In fact I have diverted the entire focus on collecting more BTC because that is what Satoshi might have thought the world would do. But all those curious minds are chasing and making it a business to showcase that they themselves are Satoshi. Just to gain the fame and in the name of fame money that's coming to their institutes. That is a pure myth and it will remains myth always.

Why would Mr. Satoshi want to become a public figure? The first thing that will happen is all the governing agencies will be behind him. He owns so much wealth right now, he could be just partying his ass off anywhere in the world. I think he simply doesn't want us to know that.

That was the whole point behind blockchain. Be anonymous.

So if I interpreted what you're saying right, you mean he could be Satoshi nakamoto? Yeah, right. Then I'd be Bill Gates. C'mon! Didn't you read it in the news that this fake Satoshi wannabe will go any lengths just to deceive any unsuspecting user into believing he's the real deal? Weren't you aware of the court case that's still ongoing about him trying to prove ownership of the Bitcoin white paper and code? Oh, probably you didn't.
Since 2016 he has been obsessed with the belief that he's the Bitcoin messiah and it will be crazy for anyone to fall for his tricks.
Baseless assumptions, bruh. You sound like one of Craig's faithfuls which is not surprising considering how you easily confused yourself with your topic.

I'm not sure if the only fool (seemingly, voluntary too) is OP.

If anyone doubted CW's delusions of grandeur, his copy of Sartre (if at all intentional) and contempt of justice procedure tells you all you need to know about what this guy is.

Why his followers don't put BSV where their mouth is, I don't get.

Like recovering a bitcointalk account, a signed message is one of proofs but not the only one proof will be requested by moderators.

If an account is valuable like donator or VIP, more details like past PMs and some information will be asked.

Like this VIP member and how theymos investigate it.

In a world where you have millions of adults who believe that the earth is flat, we should not be surprised that Faketoshi still has an audience that supports him, and not only in the way OP does, but also generously financially, considering that his court farces cost a lot if we only consider the army of lawyers representing him.

---

A signed message from any address presumed to have belonged to Satoshi would not mean that the person who signed it was actually Satoshi. As incredible as it may seem considering how much the real Satoshi has hidden his identity, it is still possible that one day someone will discover one of his private keys and try to impersonate him.

Even if Faketoshi manages to sign one of those addresses, only fools would believe that he is Satoshi - those two people have absolutely nothing in common, and that is visible to anyone with a little brain in their head.

That's a moronic conclusion to reach because what kind of MF owing thousands of dollars in taxes to the Australian tax agency would not just cash out those hundreds of thousands of bitcoins that they minted as soon as they had some kind of appreciable value and use that to get them off his trail?

That's like saying Craig Wright created Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Talk - he doesn't have any coding skills!

When someone claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto without proof and compares himself to Sartre, red flags fly. Even if you support government resistance, encryption claims dont seem like handing up the Nobel Prize.

Make no mistake: philosophical claims are not cryptographic evidence. In Bitcoin, where transparency and verification are crucial, implication and roundabout statements dont work.

Bitcoin users want proof. If Craig Wright has the keys, sign a message. No need for drama, no need for riddles. Its about a huge cryptocurrency's legitimacy, not a game.

 You know, when I come to think about it, I believe it would be in everyone's interest if and only if Satoshi could somehow deliver a cryptographic proof as in a signed message with genesis block key and put an end to this nonsense.

I don't know but it seems this wannabe is registering a new account every once in a while to come here and shill for himself, I mean what a f'ed up kind of guy.
Because nobody has such imaginations as the ones shilling for him other than himself.

He only made a fool of himself and possibly also of Gavin Andresen who supported him with that.    He is a narcissist with zero consciousness of what the truth is and what Satoshi Nakamoto stood for.... so why would he fake it, if he wants the fame and fortune?

He likes to be in the limelight and he plays tricks like a true "Snake oil salesman" ..but a scorpion will never change it's behavior. Let's forget about this fool and just focus on people who wants to build Bitcoin and not sell it to the highest bidder. 

 

I remember back in 2016-17 or so when I was actually more convinced he might be satoshi because he was going to prove it by signing a message from a certain address and then last minute he got cold feet and said something along the lines of “i cannot do it”. I got mixed feelings about him and figured maybe he just doesn’t want the added risk of being a target which you own over billions of bitcoin.

However years later and especially how that BSV turned out, I knew 100% he definitely cannot be the real satoshi.   I remeber there was a photo of him standing next to a Lambo. Then turns out that Lambo was a rental. The real satoshi wouldn’t do this.

Also can't help but notice that this is the OP's first and only post.  Using a throwaway sockpuppet account, which was only registered today, to spread Faketoshi propaganda is pretty spineless and utterly lacking in credibility.

 

Is he making a fool of us all? Do we even care about him?

"Mindset" my ass! What is in that answer of his that made it special to you? Did he, by making mention of Sartre's refusal of the Nobel prize, in effect make himself extra special? Is that enough to give him the benefit of the doubt? Is that enough for us to reconsider our position and acknowledge that he could indeed be Satoshi?

If at all, that video, that answer, only made him look more foolish by contradicting himself. He has been daydreaming claiming for years to be Satoshi and yet he doesn't want to labeled as such because of his convictions?

He's not making a fool of us. He's making a fool of himself and those who applaud him and believe in him. And probably you.

the real satoshi invented bitcoin as a cryptographic proof mechanism .. CSW(who only ever got any btc in 2013+, so not satoshi, nor affiliated) however wants to use social drama idiocy as his "proof". much like other idiots that just want to quote themselves and their idiot cult followers as proof

ass kissers and echo chambers are not proof, they are just evidence of lies, cheating and being an idiot

CSW is not satoshi. and any idiot that just follows other idiots echo chambers of ass kissery deserves to lose any value they have got

Craig Wright is a Faketoshi, one of Faketoshis.

I gathered every Satoshi Nakamoto thread collects many topics about Faketoshis.

One of interesting facts about Craig Wright is this one Legal Disputes and Drama - Craig Wright's Continuing Bitcoin Controversy

Why are you bringing this up now? He should live by what he talks about – "There is no glorious leader" but was actively parading himself as Satoshi. When people called his bluff, he should have submitted a valid proof instead of looking for loopholes in a word game. This should be the end of all Craig Wright shenanigans since it's obvious that he can't walk the talk.

---

Conversations involving Craig Wright, Roger ver about Bitcoin are unnecessary in 2023.

Are you Craig Wright?
You already stated that this doesn't prove why you still believed he is a Bitcoin creator.

Everyone needs valid proof and if he is able to sign the message then there's no doubt at all.
So I think to stop playing around and stop mentioning this name here, everyone knows about his foolishness.

This is abull**** IMO.  don't get trapped by his psychological approach.  I do think that is one of his alibi.  Knowing about Bitcoin, Craig knows how important it is to sign a Bitcoin message since Bitcoin is about trust in code not on whatever reason the people in mind.  If you can't sign a message with the address known to be Satoshi's, then you are not Satoshi.  @OP  just a reminder, don't get played.

One more, if it is against his anti-authoritarian conviction, why is it that he is dying to claim that he is Satoshi?

It's up to what he does because at the end of the day I think our view remains the same by not overthinking such a thing as believing that he is Satoshi.
There's no need to bother looking further into the video because the result is the same and I feel sorry for those who still believe in this because at the end of the day when people are saying Craig is a fool claiming to be Satoshi then of course the people who believe in it are even more foolish

You know that people can pretend to have convictions? Or even if they do have them, this is in no way an argument that they are an anonymous person with same convictions.

This argument that intentionally refusing to prove to be Satoshi proves being Satoshi is just totally devoid of logic. It's just some mental gymnastics for CWS cultists.

There are no bigger fools than those who foolishly believe that such a loathsome shit-sack could be the inventor of Bitcoin.



To describe this as "reaching" would be a colossal understatement.



Except he's not anti-authoritarian at all.  He advocates for a regulated protocol.  Governments in charge of code.  No thank-you.

Everybody believed that when Craig Wright made his wrong cryptographic proof he was cheating. But this was a deliberate hoax, making a fool of us all.

The video 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIvqn87iAz8 
reveals it all (but apparently nobody understood what he was saying):

One needs to look at the message he claimed to sign but didn't sign:

"  Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.\n\n"

which was a variant of the message by Sartre by which he refused to take the Nobel prize:

It is not the same thing if I sign Jean-Paul Sartre or if I sign Jean-Paul
Sartre, Nobel Prize winner. A writer must refuse to allow himself to be
 transformed into an institution, even if it takes place in the most honorable form."

So in essence he was a saying: If I sign the message that I'm Satoshi, then I betray myself because then I'm no longer the person I was before. I refuse to sign.

So he didn't cheat because he didn't have a key, but because it is against his anti-authoritarian conviction.

This doesn't prove of course that he has the keys, and doesn't prove that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, but for me the mindset this is coming might indicate he may indeed be Satoshi Nakamoto.