Topic: POLL Is Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto? (Read 14479 times)
The fact that people actually get sucked into this drama is telling of who they are. Craig Wright is just another scammer claiming attention but using his method. There are countless more with their own methods of scamming.
In my opinion most likely not. The evidence just isn't there.
I also agree. Odds are long. But then again Donald Trump is President of the USA. So hell
anything is possible. 🙈
In my opinion most likely not. The evidence just isn't there.
I thought this issue had died down. It was already proven that Craig Wright is not what He thinks he is, Satoshi Nakamoto. And I agree,this guy needs special attention. I am quite disturbed why people like him love to claim to be someone while it is crystal clear that he is not the one and just the other ordinary guy.
I thought so too, but hes still messing here and there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_gxvx_QGo
Nothing wrong if someone does his/her business but this guy totally messed up his career and credibility.
Im ready for give him but first he must come out and ask for it. We all make mistakes but if we do not learn from them then we are doomed.
I see Craig Wright is still being considered by some people as a candidate for Satoshi. Here are some links I've gathered on this subject:
http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460
https://fusion.kinja.com/why-craig-wright-so-desperately-wanted-to-be-bitcoin-cr-1793857666
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair
https://medium.com/@hoaxchain/the-hard-evidence-about-craig-wrights-backdated-pgp-key-step-by-step-guide-for-windows-users-bd99c47c495f
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6y1e5t/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lnzs0/and_all_of_a_sudden_csws_mom_is_the_real_hero_of/
I've mixed it up a bit with CSW myself on Reddit, and it's clear that he is a disturbed man with an obsessive need to exaggerate himself to others. He really needs an intervention, or at any rate a reality check. Something like a prison term (for tax evasion etc.) might be the best thing that could happen to him.
http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460
https://fusion.kinja.com/why-craig-wright-so-desperately-wanted-to-be-bitcoin-cr-1793857666
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair
https://medium.com/@hoaxchain/the-hard-evidence-about-craig-wrights-backdated-pgp-key-step-by-step-guide-for-windows-users-bd99c47c495f
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6y1e5t/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lnzs0/and_all_of_a_sudden_csws_mom_is_the_real_hero_of/
I've mixed it up a bit with CSW myself on Reddit, and it's clear that he is a disturbed man with an obsessive need to exaggerate himself to others. He really needs an intervention, or at any rate a reality check. Something like a prison term (for tax evasion etc.) might be the best thing that could happen to him.
I thought this issue had died down. It was already proven that Craig Wright is not what He thinks he is, Satoshi Nakamoto. And I agree,this guy needs special attention. I am quite disturbed why people like him love to claim to be someone while it is crystal clear that he is not the one and just the other ordinary guy.
I see Craig Wright is still being considered by some people as a candidate for Satoshi. Here are some links I've gathered on this subject:
http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460
https://fusion.kinja.com/why-craig-wright-so-desperately-wanted-to-be-bitcoin-cr-1793857666
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair
https://medium.com/@hoaxchain/the-hard-evidence-about-craig-wrights-backdated-pgp-key-step-by-step-guide-for-windows-users-bd99c47c495f
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6y1e5t/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lnzs0/and_all_of_a_sudden_csws_mom_is_the_real_hero_of/
I've mixed it up a bit with CSW myself on Reddit, and it's clear that he is a disturbed man with an obsessive need to exaggerate himself to others. He really needs an intervention, or at any rate a reality check. Something like a prison term (for tax evasion etc.) might be the best thing that could happen to him.
http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460
https://fusion.kinja.com/why-craig-wright-so-desperately-wanted-to-be-bitcoin-cr-1793857666
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair
https://medium.com/@hoaxchain/the-hard-evidence-about-craig-wrights-backdated-pgp-key-step-by-step-guide-for-windows-users-bd99c47c495f
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6y1e5t/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lnzs0/and_all_of_a_sudden_csws_mom_is_the_real_hero_of/
I've mixed it up a bit with CSW myself on Reddit, and it's clear that he is a disturbed man with an obsessive need to exaggerate himself to others. He really needs an intervention, or at any rate a reality check. Something like a prison term (for tax evasion etc.) might be the best thing that could happen to him.
Mike Hearn is Satoshi Nakamoto. As much as most of the people here don't want to believe it, he actually fits the profile better than anyone else considered to this date.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21475727
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21475727
Yeah, im sure Satoshi wanted to be the benevolent dictator of Bitcoin:
https://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/
Im sure Satoshi wanted to have anti-privacy features on Bitcoin:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses
And im sure Satoshi wanted to hardfork Bitcoin when he said repeatedly and clearly how he didn't want his software forked:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
Please stop pretending any of these people is Satoshi.
Mike Hearn is Satoshi Nakamoto. As much as most of the people here don't want to believe it, he actually fits the profile better than anyone else considered to this date.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21475727
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21475727
...
Thus, IF he was to prove he was Satoshi, the Australian Gov't would want to be paid promptly and directly or he would go to jail.
Thus, IF he was to prove he was Satoshi, the Australian Gov't would want to be paid promptly and directly or he would go to jail.
Do you know was this "Gov't thing" around and known before or after he came out in BBC interviews and elsewhere he tried to prove something by his cooked programming scripts ?
If it was after then it really is possible he just made a mistake to come public with his claims and vanished. In this case what you're saying can be viewed in a new and different light I think...
But but... why he did any scripts while he could just do that signature thing ? -> 100% proof, no questions asked. 100% accepted by the community.
Think about it:
You are a Satoshi and after years you just decide "no I am not gonna take this quessing game anymore. I come out". Should you allready know that what you're going to offer must be a real proof. What is the most easiest way to do it? Well it is that signature thing what I told you earlier.
I am sorry but this just smells way too much for me
I agree..it smells...I"m just playing the 'scare the hell out of me game' in that if he is Satoshi and such and gets a hold of the group trust he was part of with
Hal Finney and the other guy as the true makers of bitcoin (both have passed) ...then crap.....he seems the vindictive sort
and no he was outed by the Australian gov't I believe snooping (*he hinted he was Satoshi to friends) thus they were all over his ass
Craig Wright did not come out voluntarily he was pushed out..either to confirm his scam and lies he got himself into or that he was part of the satoshi group
as he claims
just saying, he did not do this ORIGINALLY for fame, but now he may be just an imposter riding the wave....
but again, only 1 out of 1,000 chance he was part of the supposed satoshi group as he claims
still ...the last guy in the world you'd want with all that bitcoin/power and money if he has access to the private keys
damn, went and scared myself again (off to change shorts)
...
Thus, IF he was to prove he was Satoshi, the Australian Gov't would want to be paid promptly and directly or he would go to jail.
Thus, IF he was to prove he was Satoshi, the Australian Gov't would want to be paid promptly and directly or he would go to jail.
Do you know was this "Gov't thing" around and known before or after he came out in BBC interviews and elsewhere he tried to prove something by his cooked programming scripts ?
If it was after then it really is possible he just made a mistake to come public with his claims and vanished. In this case what you're saying can be viewed in a new and different light I think...
But but... why he did any scripts while he could just do that signature thing ? -> 100% proof, no questions asked. 100% accepted by the community.
Think about it:
You are a Satoshi and after years you just decide "no I am not gonna take this quessing game anymore. I come out". Should you allready know that what you're going to offer must be a real proof. What is the most easiest way to do it? Well it is that signature thing what I told you earlier.
I am sorry but this just smells way too much for me
Hey moderators!
So I cannot write about my opinions here ?
Look at the subject of this thread -> my post definitely was not off-topic !
I just wanted to say my opinion in this matter. I apologize the last line that was not a good behaviour from me so it can be deleted.
Here is the message without it:
--- My opinion in this matter is as follows:
The procedure for proving private key ownership involves a simple standard task. Someone sends you a message, you sign it with your private key, return the signed message to the sender who is then able to verify your private key signature with your corresponding public key.
Craig Wright has avoided this self-evident, simple procedure at every request.
What could be the reason for this ?
So I cannot write about my opinions here ?
Look at the subject of this thread -> my post definitely was not off-topic !
I just wanted to say my opinion in this matter. I apologize the last line that was not a good behaviour from me so it can be deleted.
Here is the message without it:
--- My opinion in this matter is as follows:
The procedure for proving private key ownership involves a simple standard task. Someone sends you a message, you sign it with your private key, return the signed message to the sender who is then able to verify your private key signature with your corresponding public key.
Craig Wright has avoided this self-evident, simple procedure at every request.
What could be the reason for this ?
Again, I don't believe craig wright is Satoshi, but I was in previous posts playing the scare game.
so to continue the scare game
IF he is Satoshi the main reason he would NOT prove he is such conclusively is that Craig Wright owes the Australian Goverment Millions in back
taxes for a supposed tax break he got back before KNC miners, for a data farm in Europe and equipment he never bought. (I believe he thought
he bought gold instead, but the guy disappeared with that money)
Thus, IF he was to prove he was Satoshi, the Australian Gov't would want to be paid promptly and directly or he would go to jail.
Now he can muddy the waters with the Austalian Gov't, get duboius investors in his patent everything bitcoin and crypto related and stall
till Jan 1st 2010 as he has stated when he has access to all of the trust funds from him, hal finey and the other guy...both who passed away.
See ..went and scared myself again I did.....shudder
Hey moderators!
So I cannot write about my opinions here ?
Look at the subject of this thread -> my post definitely was not off-topic !
I just wanted to say my opinion in this matter. I apologize the last line that was not a good behaviour from me so it can be deleted.
Here is the message without it:
--- My opinion in this matter is as follows:
The procedure for proving private key ownership involves a simple standard task. Someone sends you a message, you sign it with your private key, return the signed message to the sender who is then able to verify your private key signature with your corresponding public key.
Craig Wright has avoided this self-evident, simple procedure at every request.
What could be the reason for this ?
So I cannot write about my opinions here ?
Look at the subject of this thread -> my post definitely was not off-topic !
I just wanted to say my opinion in this matter. I apologize the last line that was not a good behaviour from me so it can be deleted.
Here is the message without it:
--- My opinion in this matter is as follows:
The procedure for proving private key ownership involves a simple standard task. Someone sends you a message, you sign it with your private key, return the signed message to the sender who is then able to verify your private key signature with your corresponding public key.
Craig Wright has avoided this self-evident, simple procedure at every request.
What could be the reason for this ?
Edit : reporting milagm for necro posting ~1 year and 1/2
ROFLMAO you just revealed what side you're playin in this game.
Btw. This topic is NOT CLOSED, LOCKED or NEWLY OPENED TOPIC so people are free to comment. I think this is a purpose of the whole message forum systems.
My nightmare is he says he has access to a trust with some ungodly billions of $$$ of bitcoin that he can access
Jan 1st 2020....
As badly as he has been treated...(correctly I may add .Satoshi or not he is an ass) ....by the bitcoin community and
the worldwide press
he could laugh and sell and flush the whole works down to 400 buck btc just for giggles and still come away with millions
not saying it is true...only 1 out of 1,000 chance he is Satoshi...but my version of a crypto nightmare indeed on that date...
(brahahahaha scared you!)
Also, hal finney and the other guy he claims were in his group...all passed away..my view is he was not really the inventor
just part of the group if it was true....and as last man standing...if what he says is true...we are beyond screwed...
and not to point it out too much ...if/and/or/but he still is and always will be imho, the biggest ass hat in crypto
(bruahahaha scared self!)
Jan 1st 2020....
As badly as he has been treated...(correctly I may add .Satoshi or not he is an ass) ....by the bitcoin community and
the worldwide press
he could laugh and sell and flush the whole works down to 400 buck btc just for giggles and still come away with millions
not saying it is true...only 1 out of 1,000 chance he is Satoshi...but my version of a crypto nightmare indeed on that date...
(brahahahaha scared you!)
Also, hal finney and the other guy he claims were in his group...all passed away..my view is he was not really the inventor
just part of the group if it was true....and as last man standing...if what he says is true...we are beyond screwed...
and not to point it out too much ...if/and/or/but he still is and always will be imho, the biggest ass hat in crypto
(bruahahaha scared self!)
LoL searing, you didn't pay attention to the necro dude
Edit : reporting milagm for necro posting ~1 year and 1/2
The procedure for proving private key ownership involves a simple standard task. Someone sends you a message, you sign it with your private key, return the signed message to the sender who is then able to verify your private key signature with your corresponding public key.
Craig Wright has avoided this self-evident, simple procedure at every request.
Ha hah! What else can prove better this guy really is a scam artist?
Craig Wright has avoided this self-evident, simple procedure at every request.
Ha hah! What else can prove better this guy really is a scam artist?
Good job on the necro, dude...
My nightmare is he says he has access to a trust with some ungodly billions of $$$ of bitcoin that he can access
Jan 1st 2020....
As badly as he has been treated...(correctly I may add .Satoshi or not he is an ass) ....by the bitcoin community and
the worldwide press
he could laugh and sell and flush the whole works down to 400 buck btc just for giggles and still come away with millions
not saying it is true...only 1 out of 1,000 chance he is Satoshi...but my version of a crypto nightmare indeed on that date...
(brahahahaha scared you!)
Also, hal finney and the other guy he claims were in his group...all passed away..my view is he was not really the inventor
just part of the group if it was true....and as last man standing...if what he says is true...we are beyond screwed...
and not to point it out too much ...if/and/or/but he still is and always will be imho, the biggest ass hat in crypto
(bruahahaha scared self!)
Jan 1st 2020....
As badly as he has been treated...(correctly I may add .Satoshi or not he is an ass) ....by the bitcoin community and
the worldwide press
he could laugh and sell and flush the whole works down to 400 buck btc just for giggles and still come away with millions
not saying it is true...only 1 out of 1,000 chance he is Satoshi...but my version of a crypto nightmare indeed on that date...
(brahahahaha scared you!)
Also, hal finney and the other guy he claims were in his group...all passed away..my view is he was not really the inventor
just part of the group if it was true....and as last man standing...if what he says is true...we are beyond screwed...
and not to point it out too much ...if/and/or/but he still is and always will be imho, the biggest ass hat in crypto
(bruahahaha scared self!)
If Wright IS (still) Satoshi (give me a bit here)
And wanted to 'deflect' his 'outing'
You do this dog and pony show....wait a month...make Satoshi email announcement and say 'I am not Craig Wright' We are all Satoshi!
And move 1 million coins out and back and go poof for good
2020 comes Craig Wright touches NO early wallets of Satoshi
Folk. By then would be utterly convinced and Satoshi pulls off the double fake😄
( I don't buy it either just saying) 😇
Heh. Deflection Score!
And wanted to 'deflect' his 'outing'
You do this dog and pony show....wait a month...make Satoshi email announcement and say 'I am not Craig Wright' We are all Satoshi!
And move 1 million coins out and back and go poof for good
2020 comes Craig Wright touches NO early wallets of Satoshi
Folk. By then would be utterly convinced and Satoshi pulls off the double fake😄
( I don't buy it either just saying) 😇
Heh. Deflection Score!
I voted "probably nope" because none of it made sense strategically.
How about this:
It would have been the perfect opportunity for the real Satoshi to move all his coins with a message saying, "I, Craig Wright, am Satoshi Nakamoto." This would have allowed him to get away with his stake in the project while remaining perfectly anonymous.
Maybe Craig Wright ran a game theory analysis and gambled that that would be an optimal maneuver for Satoshi. Satoshi would get his preferred outcome, anonymity, while Wright would get his preferred outcome, notoriety. One step ahead of the game?
Cake white is satoshi.
100%.
I never liez.
100%.
I never liez.
Yeah just because it wasn't at the start it is a thing now.
There is no excuse for not being able to do so, unless he lost the original wallet an or private keys.
There is no excuse for not being able to do so, unless he lost the original wallet an or private keys.
haha, those who said yes no doubt should feel silly these days.
Actually I just voted Probably yes. I looked through some previous interviews with him and the more I saw the more I was convinced it's him. I don't think today is the time to say it's definitely not him. And how to explain this btw:
Jump to: