Gmaxwell proves Craig Wright is a fraud - page 4.

NorrisK

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1007

Quote from: CoinCube on December 09, 2015, 03:08:22 PM

Quote from: BARR_Official on December 09, 2015, 02:43:24 PM

Craig Wright could have been impersonating satoshi for almost 2 years, in order to con private investors.

"Only you know I'm the creator of Bitcoin, don't tell anyone. I have a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, but I can't use them until 2020. That's why I need all your money for this Bitcoin Bank. You can trust me, I'm already a billionaire."

That would explain why he created fake evidence in 2013 but kept it secret. This public exposure could have come from his over-excited investors, or maybe he's throwing his net a little wider to see how much more he can get before it falls apart.

This is certainly possible. The data so far indicates one of the follow is true.

1) Craig Wright is Satoshi

or

2) This is a conspiracy involving multiple individuals in different countries trying to convince us that he is.

or

3) This one of the longest cons ever and Craig Wright started laying the groundwork to convince people he was Satoshi back in 2013.

Personally based on the information presented in the wired and gizmodo articles I lean towards #1 lots of compelling circumstantial evidence there. However #3 is not impossible especially if you can establish a definite profit motive for setting up such a fraud in 2013.

Or 4) he is seeing stuff. He might have lost his mind somewhere during his life and actually believes he is satoshi..
It probably happened in 2013 when he started laying the foundations to prove his claim.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on December 09, 2015, 09:56:16 AM

Quote from: Yogafan00000 on December 09, 2015, 09:49:27 AM

Can someone offer a non-reddit explanation on this PGP backdating evidence?

Thx

This guy delivers a reasonable analogy:

Quote

Same mistake as the bytecoin scam with their pdf allegedly from 2012, but compiled with a TeX version released in 2014

Like let's say you compress a file with a version of 7zip that hasn't even been released yet, yet you claim you used this version back in the time when it didn't even exist. He was using software that doesn't match the date of existence of said software... that would be a simple explanation. But this is even worse since are talking PGP keys.

Same mistake as the CBS scam with Dan Rather peddling documents allegedly from the 70s "proooving" Dubya was a draft dodger, but were typed in MS Word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

tl;dr anachronism

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: BARR_Official on December 09, 2015, 02:43:24 PM

Craig Wright could have been impersonating satoshi for almost 2 years, in order to con private investors.

"Only you know I'm the creator of Bitcoin, don't tell anyone. I have a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, but I can't use them until 2020. That's why I need all your money for this Bitcoin Bank. You can trust me, I'm already a billionaire."

That would explain why he created fake evidence in 2013 but kept it secret. This public exposure could have come from his over-excited investors, or maybe he's throwing his net a little wider to see how much more he can get before it falls apart.

This is certainly possible. The data so far indicates one of the follow is true.

1) Craig Wright is Satoshi

or

2) This is a conspiracy involving multiple individuals in different countries trying to convince us that he is.

or

3) This one of the longest cons ever and Craig Wright started laying the groundwork to convince people he was Satoshi back in 2013.

Personally based on the information presented in the wired and gizmodo article #1 seems possible lots of compelling circumstantial evidence there. However #3 is also possible especially if you can establish a definite profit motive for setting up such a fraud in 2013.

Edit: Some evidence that there may have been a financial motive involved can be found here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright-all-facts-1281650
Data provided by Gmaxwell and backdated keys also point towards #3

rtrtcrypto

hero member

Activity: 627

Merit: 500

Yes.

The razor appears strong here.

All other clowns with their "proof" on ignore list.

Quote from: theymos on December 09, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: bri912678 on December 09, 2015, 12:24:03 PM

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used [email protected] (only [email protected] and [email protected]), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

keepdoing

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 101

Quote from: RoadTrain on December 09, 2015, 02:53:54 PM

Am I the only one to have noticed how hard keepdoing keeps pushing everyone to accept that Wright is Satoshi? I smell hidden (not particularly) agenda Roll Eyes

Yes

Yes I do

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Am I the only one to have noticed how hard keepdoing keeps pushing everyone to accept that Wright is Satoshi? I smell hidden (not particularly) agenda Roll Eyes

BARR_Official

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Craig Wright could have been impersonating satoshi for almost 2 years, in order to con private investors.

"Only you know I'm the creator of Bitcoin, don't tell anyone. I have a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, but I can't use them until 2020. That's why I need all your money for this Bitcoin Bank. You can trust me, I'm already a billionaire."

That would explain why he created fake evidence in 2013 but kept it secret. This public exposure could have come from his over-excited investors, or maybe he's throwing his net a little wider to see how much more he can get before it falls apart.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Kprawn on December 09, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

Look at Nick Szabo's reaction when she asked, "Who are you...?" and they pan the camera over to her... I think he smelled the bullshit way in advance or he knows more than what
-snip-

Could you tell me at which part this exactly is? I don't want to waste my time on "Dr. Craig Idiot". I smelled bullshit the second that I've read the news about this. People like this should be put on the shame list for all eternity.

AndreasMAntonopoulos:

Quote

Yawn. Gawker-style "journalism" in the tech sector. I'm waiting for the Nakamoto sex tapes.

That would be interesting. Roll Eyes

NorrisK

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1007

Quote from: keepdoing on December 09, 2015, 02:13:18 PM

Quote from: NorrisK on December 09, 2015, 01:56:43 PM

Quote from: keepdoing on December 09, 2015, 09:58:52 AM

Craig = Satoshi. You can't fake most of the facts, and most of those facts fit. AND the amount of innacurate information, exageration and FUD being propogated is growing so exponentially it is ridiculous. This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense and drama because "Satoshi" was more fun to believe in as a purely idealistic vision - than to look at through the lens of reality.

Sort of like the whole Jesus concept. If Jesus really were to come back, today, the first thing religion would do is beat the crap out of him and nail him up to another cross all the while screaming hysterically that he was an fraud.

LOL - same thing going on here.... Seems tech weenies are still just a step evolved above the apes, even with all your loft idealistic talk. Your "Tech Jesus" has returned, and you scream to crucify him

Flippin monkeys. Just when you think there is actual evolution occurring. ROFL

LOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria

That's not true. Just like in maths, you only need 1 case that doesn't match the facts to prove that your theory is incorrect.

A massive mistake like this is enough to prove he is doing this for all kinds of reasons, except for being satoshi..

A massive mistake like what??? Are you suggesting that the Reddit supposition by GMaxwell is definitive "Non-proof"? Or are you referencing something else? A) that is not conclusive, and B) it is based on a single small portion of the "Evidence" - that being a text of a purported message from Craig. Even if GMaxwells argument = fact - it only proves that a single small part of evidence offered is false.

I have 5 cards in my hand. 4 are Aces. The 5th card is a 2 of clubs. Now, if I just lied about the 2 of clubs, and it is actually a 5 of diamonds, that doesn't prove that I don't still have the 4 Aces.

C'mon Ken. You're better than that.

Looks like you just don't want to beleive it is not him because you finally thought you could give satoshi a face and name.
Let him post with his orignial key, and we will all shut up right away and I will also admit my mistake to you.

Until then, he is not satoshi to me.

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Both parties have got good arguments. Then again all those "email evidence" is nothing because anyone can Photoshop email evidence, it has been done a thousand times before in the past, this is why math is all that matters at the end of the day.

keepdoing

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 101

Quote from: NorrisK on December 09, 2015, 01:56:43 PM

Quote from: keepdoing on December 09, 2015, 09:58:52 AM

Craig = Satoshi. You can't fake most of the facts, and most of those facts fit. AND the amount of innacurate information, exageration and FUD being propogated is growing so exponentially it is ridiculous. This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense and drama because "Satoshi" was more fun to believe in as a purely idealistic vision - than to look at through the lens of reality.

Sort of like the whole Jesus concept. If Jesus really were to come back, today, the first thing religion would do is beat the crap out of him and nail him up to another cross all the while screaming hysterically that he was an fraud.

LOL - same thing going on here.... Seems tech weenies are still just a step evolved above the apes, even with all your loft idealistic talk. Your "Tech Jesus" has returned, and you scream to crucify him

Flippin monkeys. Just when you think there is actual evolution occurring. ROFL

LOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria

That's not true. Just like in maths, you only need 1 case that doesn't match the facts to prove that your theory is incorrect.

A massive mistake like this is enough to prove he is doing this for all kinds of reasons, except for being satoshi..

A massive mistake like what??? Are you suggesting that the Reddit supposition by GMaxwell is definitive "Non-proof"? Or are you referencing something else? A) that is not conclusive, and B) it is based on a single small portion of the "Evidence" - that being a text of a purported message from Craig. Even if GMaxwells argument = fact - it only proves that a single small part of evidence offered is false.

I have 5 cards in my hand. 4 are Aces. The 5th card is a 2 of clubs. Now, if I just lied about the 2 of clubs, and it is actually a 5 of diamonds, that doesn't prove that I don't still have the 4 Aces.

C'mon Ken. You're better than that.

NorrisK

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1007

Quote from: keepdoing on December 09, 2015, 09:58:52 AM

Craig = Satoshi. You can't fake most of the facts, and most of those facts fit. AND the amount of innacurate information, exageration and FUD being propogated is growing so exponentially it is ridiculous. This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense and drama because "Satoshi" was more fun to believe in as a purely idealistic vision - than to look at through the lens of reality.

Sort of like the whole Jesus concept. If Jesus really were to come back, today, the first thing religion would do is beat the crap out of him and nail him up to another cross all the while screaming hysterically that he was an fraud.

LOL - same thing going on here.... Seems tech weenies are still just a step evolved above the apes, even with all your loft idealistic talk. Your "Tech Jesus" has returned, and you scream to crucify him

Flippin monkeys. Just when you think there is actual evolution occurring. ROFL

LOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria

That's not true. Just like in maths, you only need 1 case that doesn't match the facts to prove that your theory is incorrect.

A massive mistake like this is enough to prove he is doing this for all kinds of reasons, except for being satoshi..

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

I have learned that at these forums the most provocative, intriguing, and conspiratorial possibility is always the correct assumption. No homework or facts required. It's always aliens or a secret cabal of mysterious players.
This type of thinking should give Satoshi years of cover. Wink

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: theymos on December 09, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: bri912678 on December 09, 2015, 12:24:03 PM

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used [email protected] (only [email protected] and [email protected]), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

+1 it's like we're in the twilight zone.

keepdoing

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 101

Quote from: theymos on December 09, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: bri912678 on December 09, 2015, 12:24:03 PM

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used [email protected] (only [email protected] and [email protected]), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

And I am very disappointed in you, although that was always a pretty low bar for me to begin with.

I won't waste to many words except to say that everything you just typed is not "anti-Proof". You've taken a small sampling of the overwhelming facts, and in the end reduced it to a question mark.... "Why would Satoshi blah blah blah Huh

?"

Bottom line is that you don't know how he thinks, or why he might have done what he did, or what possible long term options he may have been considering. So in the end you are simply another equal voice in the crowd - yet with a recognizable name - with nothing but your desire to not believe.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: bri912678 on December 09, 2015, 12:24:03 PM

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used [email protected] (only [email protected] and [email protected]), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Please stop talking about this lunatic Roll Eyes

keepdoing

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 101

Quote from: bryant.coleman on December 09, 2015, 12:21:09 PM

These evidences are more than enough to prove that Craig Wright is either a fraud, or a puppet of the big bankers. However, there is a chance that he might be holding hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins. BTC was going at $1 = BTC1,300 in 2010 (New Liberty Standard exchange rate). He might have bought quite a few of them at that time.

FINALLY! An honest insight into all the frenzy surrounding this. The word "Bank" simply drives the unrealistic, immature, idealistic branch of the bitcoin community into choking spasms. LOL

The second that Craig's (=Satoshi's) support for REALISTIC financial evolution of bitcoin into the mainstream became public knowledge, the idealistic dreamers were destined by their own nature to self destruct in hysterical hand wringing and to sink into non productive Hyper-FUD. ROFLMAO

Ad this is evidenced in a louder and Louder and LOUDER screech of "there is evidence that Craig is a fraud."

AND YET NO EVIDENCE EXISTS, unless you count the hundreds of "OMG - he is a fraud." or "OMG, Newsweek got it wrong a long time ago, so everything will be wrong forever!"

PLEASE, I BESEECH THEE! Show the evidence. I dare you

bri912678

sr. member

Activity: 348

Merit: 250

Quote from: Preclus on December 09, 2015, 11:11:42 AM

As a followup, the argument that the preferred hashes "weren't added" to GNUGPG until after 2009 is meaningless. Read RFC 4880:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-9

That is the RFC from November 2007. Now look at section 9.4, the preferred hashes. Hash algorithms 1 through 11 are in there. They are not experimental, they are standard hashes.

GNUPGP was just one of a number of OpenPGP implementations. PGP itself dates back to 1991. OpenPGP to 1997. Looking at the preferred hash list is meaningless.

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

I doubt Satoshi would use a key in an experimental OpenPGP implementation he had written himself to link his key to the Bitcoin project.

Any good programmer knows software needs testing by a community before it's got any bugs ironed out. All programmers are likely to miss some bugs, which is why beta testing by a community is important.

Why would Satoshi use his own untested beta software for something vitally important when he could use the same reliable software used by everyone else?

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: cellard on December 09, 2015, 12:14:21 PM

From reddit:

Quote

I genuinely don't understand the logic people are following. The article presents some evidence and then seems to go back and disprove it all.

1. A "hacker" dropped off some emails and PDFs that they admit can't be verified
2. The PGP signature matches an email that's 1 character off from Satoshi's... Which proves nothing useful and points to a forgery
3. Later they reference the PGP signature as associated with Satoshi despite confirming that it's not
4. He inserted the references to bitcoin into his 2009 blog posts in 2013

Then there's a video of a guy acting like a moron when someone asks when he got into Bitcoin.

How are we coming to this conclusion?

I agree, the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove this guy is Satoshi Nakamoto, you would need to take a leap of faith to do so, which is not an option.

These evidences are more than enough to prove that Craig Wright is either a fraud, or a puppet of the big bankers. However, there is a chance that he might be holding hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins. BTC was going at $1 = BTC1,300 in 2010 (New Liberty Standard exchange rate). He might have bought quite a few of them at that time.

Topic: Gmaxwell proves Craig Wright is a fraud - page 4. (Read 19346 times)