Topic: Craig Wright relents aka Satoshi (air quotes) in Public Apology! - page 6. (Read 8965 times)

Cool.

This was about scamming $50.

Love his style. Wish I'd thought of this one.

Suckers.....

Craig must just be a attention whore.

It's just a warmup before bitcointalk is taken over by three letter agency and satoshi's account is revived to parrot the agenda

I LOL'ed quite decently at this...

This thread and the whole discussion is based on a false interpretation of Dr Wright's announcement: He has not "relented". He simply says that has not enough motivation/interest/mental strength to argue about his Satoshi identity. In other words Wright has observed that even moving 'holy coins' won't help to put an end to this. Wright is a sophisticated person (what else he would be), Gavin describes him as 'focused' and 'opinionated'. In his interview he simply asks a vital question: Why Does he have to prove anything to anybody? There is no interest, not a bit of logic to put an obligation on him for convincing every single person for his identity. Everybody can make claim about being Satoshi and everybody is free to accept the claim or not. This is it. I think Craig Wright is Satoshi, you think otherwise, suppose time will resolve this conflict, but what the heck?

I learned a very crucial lesson from this story: Cryptography is more and more changing to become a satanic, nihilistic religion.
"You want prove your identity, do not promise ask for no trust just show me your primary keys. I don't give a shit to people who know you, to your attitudes, to your prestige, to your resume just decipher some silly bits with your Pks."

I think this is the worst evil that human being has invented. It is worst than Uranium enrichment and nuclear bomb. It is worst than wall street or NSA. Nothing is more threatening than a gigantic 'decentralized' chain of blocks of silly bits that defines our identity.
And who invented this? Satoshi Nakamoto!
And Who deserves  being humiliated, denied and sentenced to be/remain dead, more than any other person? Satoshi Nakamoto!
I think what has made Wright such a fragile broken person is the realization of this truth.
Dr. Craig  Frankenstein Wright has a right to collapse: His creature denies him.

Just read the quotes. Haha hilarious. What was the point in coming out & trying to claim he's Satoshi if he was just going to make a fool of himself.

Ruined any credibility he might have had now.

Anyways, nobody actually believed that he is satoshi. Don't know what did he get by doing this but this apology sounds too silly.

Okay so maybe we just have to wait for Gavin to explain his side of this story else some users will probably see him as part of.... of whatever we call it, say "insidious plot"  
Craig almost convinced people and I'm not surprise if he had fooled Gavin though.


That sure make sense.

This is a very bad end of the story. I do not understand the motivation of Craig either. Why was he going to the public when he could not hold the promises? He should have known what impact such a confession must have 
Nevertheless, I am wondering why the real Satoshi did not posted on its P2P Foundation profile "that Craig is not Satoshi" if Craig would really not be Satoshi.
The whole story is confusing and mysterious.

You tried to insinuate that Gavin/Matonis were part of some insidious plot along with Craig. Unless you're just trying to push some agenda, you have to know that isn't true. That is definitely shit-slinging and you should not expect not to get called out on it. And yes, you did start it.

Oh, the irony present here is lovely: "we must never forget" == my opinion; so I deserve to be vilified ("lying", "hypocrisy", etc.) for having an opinion while Gavin does not?

Nope, I have started nothing. Do you see me say anywhere that e.g. 'Gavin is bad'? I haven't said anything bad about either one of them and have stated something that is a reasonable course of action once someone does something bad. Both of them have created reasonable amounts of doubt regarding their 'status', due to their latest actions (which is only normal). The only person that I've used a 'bad adjective' to describe in this incident is CW.

---

---

Update:
I did no such thing. This conversation has been quite lovely, but you're wasting my time with nonsense.

I'm not saying Core is evil, although I am defending Gavin for the obvious reason that he does not deserve to be vilified merely for having an opinion, especially after having contributed so much to bitcoin.

Remember, you are the one who started the shit slinging.

That is no valid reason for him to retain access, especially when he practically quit the role that he had.

No, it isn't. If he wants to contribute, he can create pull requests like everyone else. There is no mechanism for that and if I'm correct, Wladimir is the only one who can do that (due to him being the maintainer of the Github page).

Satoshi gave him access.


Self-fulfilling prophesy if access is taken away. Is there a mechanism for taking away such privileges? 95% super-majority consensus, something like that?

You're taking things way out of context. I have attempted to do no such thing, nor am I lying at this very moment (I have never had a single interaction with Gavin nor Matonis, I believe). Keep in mind that a lot of those articles written by the media mentioned both Matonis and Andersen (as an argument to make their 'case' more 'credible').

This is not factual evidence; without cryptographic proof (which would be a nice starting point) these are just stories.

The rest is pretty much useless and does not need to be commented independently. This is just an attempt to defend Gavin and try to make Core look evil.                                                                                Besides, even if we ignore everything, Gavin does not need to have commit access anymore. While I do not understand the exact 'process' which was used to determine the set of people who will have commit access, Gavin is no longer a part of them. People who have stopped contributing to the project should not retain access.

I doubt that you don't have anything against them. Your original comment was clearly seeking to instigate and make something into bigger than it actually is. You are lying.

Also, they have not been conned *easily*. Craig offered them proof none of us have seen, in a manner which would have been quite difficult to fake. You can say it was easy, but that would be a lie. JVP also believes Craig is Satoshi based on having met him before in 2005. There is actually a *lot* of anecdotal evidence which has not been explained or cleared up, and apparently the email conversations Craig had with them were extremely convincing. That is something that is extremely difficult to fake - coming off as being the exact same person as they talked to 5 years ago, just as a general feeling.

Letting them off easy, you say? Uhh, hello? People are people and we all make mistakes. We are not entitled to force them to beg forgiveness for being human and for having personal opinions. They have already done quite a bit to contribute positively to the bitcoin space, more than most other people. And they can't even have an opinion or make a blog post, even after giving so much to this project? That is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint.

Secondly, there is *zero* chance Gavin would have given CW control over the project. Not only does he not have the power to do that, but you are basing this assumption on a comment Gavin made many years ago during a time when things were a lot different than they are today.

Core has been wanting to take away Gavin's commit access for a long time. They used this as a convenient excuse to do so and now you are whitewashing the whole thing. If Core has any integrity, they would give it back. Looks like it's not gonna happen. Your hypocrisy continues to glare in the sunlight.

I have never said that he can't have market influence due to the amount of coins that he is holding. What I'm saying is, we don't need to know who he is nor do people need to be obsessed with the 'Satoshi quest' as they are now.

He has already abandoned Bitcoin long ago and (apparently) moved onto other things. I don't understand why his opinion on whether Bitcoin has failed or not would stand ground. No one should have that much influence in a decentralized system.

While I do agree with the first part of the post, I do have to correct you on the second part. I have said that it is possible that they signed that NDA (or something similar), I never said that this actually happened (since we have no proof of this).

https://blockchain.info/de/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S

three different tx's. do we have now the addresses of GA, JM and the BBC guy?

Someone just sent 0.111899 BTC (~$50 today) to the block 9 address.  Those bitcoins will probably stay there for the next 10,000,000,000 years.

https://blockchain.info/tx/e73a45c936d2ce195f13b5a715614f7d10f94ff7a6593dc24fcf98bf173941eb

God is probably turning in his grave.

If I were the real Satoshi Nakamoto and I wanted to come forward, would I want to enter such a hostile place? Yes, Craig brought this on himself, with the piss poor attempt at fooling the community with the

" so called " proof he brought to identify himself, but it still a aggressive attitude towards someone who might have been Satoshi. I think we have to decide what we want as definite proof of his identity and we

put it out there. { This must be backed by technical advice from the more experienced developers in the scene } One day the real Satoshi might just decide not to come forward, due to this aggressive response

he or  she might get and we will never know the true identity of the creator of Bitcoin. { On one side I do not want him to come forward, but on the other hand.. I would really want to know who this is }