Topic: Fraud of the Century? (Read 362 times)

Exactly, but let's assumed that Craig Wright or someone has enough evidence to prove that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto it won't change anything it can't stop the volatility, or the mining of bitcoins until it reaches the limitation to 21 million bitcoins unless he has a tool that can shutdown everything about bitcoins like deleting all the programs that is connected to bitcoin such as the blockchain, and lock it so no one will be able to retrieve it anymore, by then we need to acknowledge and bow down our heads to him for he is the lost lord of bitcoin.

In reality, no one can break what the real Satoshi made and Craig is just hallucinating every time he claims that he is the real creator of bitcoin.

It might I'm tired of listening to anyone who claims they are the one who created Bitcoin.  Whether it is Craig Wright or other individuals that will come out in public and claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto together with assuming that they had concrete evidence proving to be the real one.  So what, it doesn't make sense anymore since they have no control over Bitcoins and can't even make any changes or do manipulation on it, so better not to throw attention to them for they enjoy it much or probably, they earn from it.

Anyway, Satoshi created Bitcoin, he/she/(they) in the past but will never be the future, for it is on the hand of the of us (crypto holder/community) now on where it will go and what it will be in the future.

You should have gone two paragraphs more when not only is not CSW a fraud but we are because we consider him a fraud.


What's the point of debating that the water is wet and shit smells bad?
There is no point wasting time over it, he was asked to prove, he has failed, we can debate this when he manages to prove it, which will be NEVER!


Do you have a plan and what are planning you to do if all the cartoon characters come out of the tv screens and start living among us?


0.0000000001? are those enough?  

Craigy doesn't even warrant discussing. An amoeba would start laughing at his claims within a second of it being laid out, if it had a gob.

Bitcoin is what the majority decides it should be. That's how it was designed. Who knows where it'll end up but it's fuck all to do with the actual Satoshi now.

That's simply how influence work. Even if an individual is not inclined with something, if he has the popularity, he can change the perspective of other people to either engage or avoid it, especially those who believes on him. How will it affect the price? Well, it is quite an indirect effect. If many people will not invest or people in this industry will sell their holdings, that might have a direct effect. But ofcourse it would seem impossible for people in this community. But those who are not will have a higher probability of doing som

I'd stick a couple zero's on that 1% chance if I was you

It probably looks weird to anyone that wasn't around before about 2014. I think thats about the time when the new Bitcoin philosophy originated, and so people arriving since then are likely unaware of a lot of historical context - having only ever been exposed to curated content. That historical context is the foundation necessary to even begin to understand the evidence. I don't think that many people have the appetite for what's involved, the volume of information to digest is enormous. It all comes back to incentives - the magic at the heart if bitcoin, it seems, is applicable to a great number of real world situations that involve humans.

What is the incentive of every BTC holder, of every BTC exchange, of those that would seek to introduce anonymity into Bitcoin (LN, schnorr, taproot)? How does making BTC truly anonymous change Government incentives towards it?

My incentive is to have other see what Bitcoin's true nature is because I believe as a technology it is revolutionary, and so where I see that threatened I feel compelled to say something. I also care about other people and I care that they might be misled into losing a lot of money. I've invested so much more than money in Bitcoin over the years, the time I've spent learning about it I dread to think, so I do feel as though I have reasonably well informed opinion and moreover I can tell it is because I don't get upset when I consider that I might be wrong!

Well said and how can that be possible that his actions will affect the price of bitcoin? This is not possible. His actions can only affect projects that he has partnered with or has advertised. I think also that some of those projects are already on the fall since his true self was discovered.

It's true that many people wouldn't accept moving coins as proof that he's Satoshi, because it would only proof current ownership of the addresses, but the most important thing here is that he can't even do that. Craig can't even prove that he's the current owner, not to mention a past owner. I could accept partial, circumstantial proof because it would at least suggest that he was involved in the creation of Bitcoin. Maybe not the main guy, but at least there. Craig couldn't even prove that he was Satoshi's partner. He wasn't even in the same room with the man. He's a wannabe.

For a person who has been on this forum (at least by registration date) since 2011, is it really weird that after all the evidence presented, he still thinks that someone like CW Faketoshi has a 1% chance of being a real Satoshi Nakamoto?

All his attempts to prove that he is something that is evidently not are more than enough for us to put his case ad acta and let him gradually drown in the quicksand he created himself. If you think that the original BTC no longer meets the criteria you need - you have Faketoshi BSV (bullshit vision) or what preceded it, BCH (bitcoin crash).

Well, thats an interesting set of views. A small sample but I'll assume it represents the general views around here, I sure hope you have all done your homework!


Yes, its function as digital cash is something that I always thought was a critical function - I'd certainly agree that is no longer the primary driver in BTC, given that it's now impractical to use it this way. Doesn't it concerns you that something that was originally called "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" no longer does that. This is my original question - if it doesn't do that, what are the other things it does well and how valuable are these things?


I think that proof is in the eye of the beholder. The difference between truth and belief confounds rational action.

I've heard talk of people claiming that "moving coins" would constitute proof, but I don't think that those who are resolute in their opinion would accept it (and indeed it doeasnt really constitute proof that CSW is Satoshi, merely that he controls keys.

Much like I doubt they will accept it should it come to light in court.

I ask the question because it logically follows that if he *is* satoshi then there are potentially sever legal ramifications that might impact BTC.

Now I'm no trader, but I do invest. One of the things you know as an investor is not to fall in love with a stock, you always have to understand threats/risks to your investments.

I get the impression from this thread that because everyone is so sure he is not, that they believe there is not threat. Also, that even if he is - that there is still no threat. What I don't understand is how you can conclude this?

CSW is old news, and most would not even recognize him save from some of his crazy antics that went above and beyond to claim that he is Satoshi. He can't even handle himself well against Roger Ver when it comes to technical discussions, why would he even matter on the decision of current users of bitcoin re: investing in bitcoin? Case or no case, people would still be interested in bitcoin because the giants of the financial world and some huge companies are already invested. And it is just a sane decision to get on board before everyone else gets their hands full and there's nothing left to find. Even if CSW is proven to be Satoshi, would it even matter now that bitcoin has gotten so big and has stood on its own for the last 11 years? I don't think so. Bitcoin will still be bitcoin with or without CSW conviction. Let the clown do his circus tricks.

i reckon it will be a nothingburger. bitcoin investors and the general community have long since moved on from craigy's drama.


i've moved on from particularly caring what satoshi thought. he gave us bitcoin, but we can decide what to do with it. satoshi was prolific but i also don't think he was necessarily correct in all his views.


by "digital cash utility" do you mean cheap fees, for medium of exchange transactions? i think there is very little evidence to suggest that is the primary driver of bitcoin adoption.


what are you expecting to happen that would prove his claims?

I have not read enough or care enough to decide if he is satoshi or not. I figure if he was he could move a big stash of very old BTC to prove it.

With that said, BTC isn't satoshi's thing anymore, it's our thing, and we do with it what we want.

I don't think it will affect Bitcoin in any way but I would like to say that in all this chaos of making more money we have used Bitcoin as just a money minting opportunity without bothering about why it was created. This is what happens when the greed for money overtakes the idea of technology for the future, some naive users are still falling for traps and scams. Regardless, it's Craig or Satoshi it will not have any impact on Bitcoin since Bitcoin is not controlled by an individual or any organization.

I don't think Craig would have much impact on Bitcoin's price if he went to jail. Bitcoin is a digital asset so Craig can use his power to manipulate his wealth in many ways.
Additionally, Bitcoin is an unmanaged asset and it follows natural needs. So whether Satoshi Nakatomo or Craig is lost will not affect the value of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is still there and it is not lost anywhere

Agree. But after observing this topic for some time, I noticed that most of the community either doesn't care or won't believe Craig no matter what evidence he presents. Thats why I think it will affect bitcoin price in LONG term. In short term we will have huge volatility, possibly a drop of several dozen percent but after a while price will continue to grow based on increased demand caused by another fiats doing hyperinflation, another bank crisis.

I think you are giving people too much credit, it is not rare at all for people now to think if they should enjoy something just because someone that they do not like it made it, people nowadays have problems separating the two, they do not understand that the work of a person is not the person itself, they can dislike a person and like what they do, for example I could strongly dislike someone but like the way they cook, and I think something similar could happen if the identity of satoshi was revealed and he was not some sort of saint.

I skimmed the article and stopped after this:

If someone really believes in Craig's lies he must be either stupid or paid. This guy failed to provide a single piece of evidence to support his claim but was found lying and faking signatures more than once.

How can anyone continue to support this guy?

Even if serial killer will announce in his will and prove that he is a satoshi, it will have no long term effect on BTC. Btc is not owned by satoshi, btc is not satoshi dependent, the foundations of btc do not change no matter who the satoshi is, even if a real satoshi will reveal itself along with strong evidence and say that he thinks bitcoin is going wrong direction, it doesn't mean anything (the community decides, not him). Just because he did BTC 10 years ago does not mean he is has infinite knowledge better than whole comunity who took care of bitcoin and developed bitcoin for over a decade, after satoshi left, turning it into digital gold.

I don't care who real satoshi is. I doubt it's Craig but even if ... it will not affect bitcoin in long term.

I believe Craig is a fraud, and he has already caused a lot of harm to Bitcoin by undermining it in the past and bringing it to very low points. However, I have a friend who is absolutely sure that Craig is Satoshi. This difference, however, doesn't affect our behavior with Bitcoin. He's been hodling for a long while, and during the rise this autumn he started selling BTC (he needs the money, so I think it's a wise choice), but all of this has nothing to do with whatever happens to Craig.
In the post-truth era, I'm sure that the question about the real Satoshi will always persist, even if at some point someone provides strong evidence for being Satoshi. So nothing will change much IMO. Whoever created Bitcoin is not responsible for it now and is not the authority on its future, so I think the community will stand by Bitcoin in any case.