Topic: Craig Wright relents aka Satoshi (air quotes) in Public Apology! - page 7. (Read 8984 times)

"early block"? No, not good enough! Any block other than the genesis block could have been mined by someone else. Gavin should know you can't move the coins from the genesis block, so the only option is a signed message from the genesis block.

I believe that he genuinely thought he could pull it off by carefully timing Gavin & co public announcement about SN true identity and his own blog post. He didn't realize his complicated cryptographic "proof" was so easy to debunk. Additionally he had to assume that the real SN wouldn't post any message disputing his identity.

Exactly. Gavin's commit access should not be restored. He represents a tangible security risk. The willingsness of Gavin and Matonis to sign a NDA alone disqualifies them from taking part in the Bitcoin Core project any further. One may specualte what other NDAs they may have signed...

Talking about personality, Craig Wright to me seems like a highly narcissistic person. That doesn't fit to the personality of Satoshi at all. From all evidence we have, Satoshi was never an attention seeker.

ya.ya.yo!

Well, I'd like to offer a caveat to that. While I don't think we ever need Satoshi to step forward in real life and identify himself, there is still the possibility that he or an inheritor will someday want to utilize the ~1 million coin fortune that he holds - perhaps for a philanthropic project or for investment in a worthwhile business startup, for example. As the Wright episode has shown, even the slightest rumor of a "Satoshi sighting" can move the market without proof - now imagine how the market might react if the coins really did start moving?

It would be prudent and courteous (to put it very mildly), therefore, for Satoshi to give everyone a heads up prior to taking any action. Not a press conference or anything. Just a post here or in a similar public forum with appropriate proof (similar to Charles Lee's litecoin demonstration) to prove the authenticity of the post, outlining briefly his plans to move/spend some or all the coins, with some idea of the timeframe involved and method of transaction (an auction would make much better sense than crashing the markets).

Again, Satoshi wouldn't need to reveal his real world identity. Just authenticate a message and let people know what (in general terms) what he plans to use the bitcoin for, and that he's not abandoning it or signaling that Bitcoin has failed.

This scenario is made impossible because of this Dave Kleiman guy and also the fact the Craig Wright is totally clueless about any technical issue related to bitcoin.

The closest possible person in here for Satoshi is Dave Kleiman, not Craig Wright.

If the person Gavin communicated with on 2009 and 2010 was really Craig Wright, how did not Gavin notice back then that he is communicating with someone that is totally clueless?

On the other hand If Gavin in 2009 and 2010 communicated with Dave Kleiman as Satoshi how did he get fooled in 2016 to think that the personality of Craig Wright matches with what he knew as Satoshi, ie Dave Kleiman?

Incorrect. Personally, I have nothing against either one of them. However, my argument stands: Either both have been conned quite easily (i.e. they are too naive) or they have both been part of that 'plan' and signed an NDA. We might never know. In any case, there was a high chance that Gavin would have given CW control over the project (if he could). At least that is what he said a few years back about Satoshi. I do not understand why you would let them off so easy (people who helped spread this unfortunate event)?

Lauda, I know Gavin and Matonis give you nightmares in your dreams but there is no reason to be upset with them. They saw proof in person that was clearly convincing, and furthermore his personality fit with who they thought was satoshi. As much as you'd love to turn this into a smearfest against Gavin, I'm afraid it just doesn't hold up to water. You can't get upset with someone for having a personal opinion.

so we have a new target. 21 20 millions in existence ever.

Dr. Wright tries to come out as Satoshi, but can not bear the toxicity of this community. Unlike mankind's second greatest prophet, he is not willing to suffer on the cross.

But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Oh yeah, you are right. It is apparently him. Well this ends it for me. This dude is not Satoshi. So far the only thing I have seen that supports his claim is his claim.

What on earth is going on this is fooked up........

While I'm tired of CW threads, this one seems okay as it is good to hear that this annoyance is (hopefully) going away from the Bitcoin ecosystem. People that have responded to this have obviously gotten this "apology" all wrong. This is the classic sociopath play. He is unable to provide the adequate proof (after being exposed) and now he tries to play the victim. Stop falling for his bullshit already.

---

---

Additionally, we must never forget what Matonis and Andersen have done. To the real Satoshi, whoever (&& wherever) you are, we do not need to know.

Greed, Fear, and Narcissism can cause some pretty weird actions. Fear is kicking in now.  

Weird

Ok this is strange? so now we get nothing? i dont understand what could be the difference now if he does provide real proof.  Surely everyone is watching his actions either way at this point?

the personality that shines through his ​​posts, is clearly telling me that this guy can not be satoshi, and never will be

satoshi was high tech and very intelligent, all i see here is a moron that is trolling

so Matonis knows the real SN is deceased already? did CSW tell him the whole story about David Alan Kleiman?

Not suggesting that he did not claim to be Satoshi. Merely that not everything posted on the internet can be taken at face value. If he needed to claim that he is not the author of that apology, he easily could.
And, of course,

And so what is his motivation 

To destroy Matonis and Andresen?

The Guardian's got one up now, too:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/05/craig-wright-u-turn-on-pledge-to-provide-evidence-he-invented-bitcoin