i choose no,no doubt. and the poll is also have 96 person dont agree.
its hard to believe if craig wright is satoshi nakamoto.
Topic: POLL Is Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto? - page 6. (Read 14479 times)
im new. idk who craig wright is or satoshi nakamoto is. do i need to? do i need to care even after knowing?
the software is good and thats all that matters. imo.
the software is good and thats all that matters. imo.
Of course you need to know! You should also know how I take my coffee. Double, Double.
im new. idk who craig wright is or satoshi nakamoto is. do i need to? do i need to care even after knowing?
the software is good and thats all that matters. imo.
the software is good and thats all that matters. imo.
Look into his records and also into his alibi. With his movement and business ventures when this was launched, it almost makes it impossible for him to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I have said this before in other posts, Satoshi Nakamoto is not an individual.
But if he is not only one person, chances are that it would have leaked already. The only way to stay truly anonymous at Satoshi levels for so many years, is not telling anyone that you are satoshi, if you tell someone even your best friend and member of the team, inside info may end up leaking, so there is a strong possibility Satoshi is only one person because of this imho.Likely the person that passed away that was quoted as also involved in making Bitcoin was the MAIN guy doing so. I'm beginning to think it is something like that. Too bad the myth if it is really this guy is gonna get pretty tattered...being just another human and all.
The actual 'interesting' part that would happen is IF he proved he was Satoshi and then had to go to court and deal with all the Australian Tax issues...and say he was convicted and had to settle with them....300,000 to 1,000,000 million BTC seized by Australian Tax Authorities and auction would really liven up the BTC world. (can you say 50 buck btc again?)
Would not bode well to have him be an unstable scumbag who goes FU and tries to sell all the BTC at once just to truly play 'anarchist' if not this guy say they find someone else is Satoshi always a danger of something like this (slight thou it may be)
(should get popcorn the possibilities of all this going 'pear shaped' has all the horror of a horror movie..and makes me crave popcorn (off to make popcorn good to have a goal)
Look into his records and also into his alibi. With his movement and business ventures when this was launched, it almost makes it impossible for him to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I have said this before in other posts, Satoshi Nakamoto is not an individual.
But if he is not only one person, chances are that it would have leaked already. The only way to stay truly anonymous at Satoshi levels for so many years, is not telling anyone that you are satoshi, if you tell someone even your best friend and member of the team, inside info may end up leaking, so there is a strong possibility Satoshi is only one person because of this imo. 
Look into his records and also into his alibi. With his movement and business ventures when this was launched, it almost makes it impossible for him to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I have said this before in other posts, Satoshi Nakamoto is not an individual.
First time i read this story i was near to accept that this guy is Satoshi. Now i say that this guy is only a scammer
You'd have to be a fucking retard to think this guy was SN.
You made the New Yorker; I'm not joking:
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/bizarre-saga-craig-wright-latest-inventor-bitcoin?intcid=mod-latest
I find it funny this dude just happens to have an ipo going and a story leaks about him.. Hmms
Wright is not Satoshi. It's becoming clear that he scammed the Australian tax office with a fraudulent R&D expenditure claim to gain tax credits, in a scam involving bitcoin mining claims.
Here is some other evidence debunking Wright, from what I recall about Satoshi:
1. Satoshi's posting and email patterns show he slept from Midnight-6 AM eastern standard time (USA). Not that he had to be in that time zone, but that's when he apparently slept. Very odd for an Australian on the opposite side of the world.
2. Satoshi valued anonymity VERY highly and was disciplined about it. This Wright guy teased Wired and gave them enough "evidence" to cause this story. That is TOTALLY out of character from what we know of Satoshi.
3. Wright has a flamboyant writing style with lots of "mouthing off". To the extent I've seen Satoshi's writings, he doesn't "mouth off", was concise and to-the-point in his writing and kept logic and reason ahead of emotion, unlike Wright.
4. Likewise, Wright's writing samples include many typos - clearly unlike Satoshi who was pretty impeccable about what he wrote.
Here is some other evidence debunking Wright, from what I recall about Satoshi:
1. Satoshi's posting and email patterns show he slept from Midnight-6 AM eastern standard time (USA). Not that he had to be in that time zone, but that's when he apparently slept. Very odd for an Australian on the opposite side of the world.
2. Satoshi valued anonymity VERY highly and was disciplined about it. This Wright guy teased Wired and gave them enough "evidence" to cause this story. That is TOTALLY out of character from what we know of Satoshi.
3. Wright has a flamboyant writing style with lots of "mouthing off". To the extent I've seen Satoshi's writings, he doesn't "mouth off", was concise and to-the-point in his writing and kept logic and reason ahead of emotion, unlike Wright.
4. Likewise, Wright's writing samples include many typos - clearly unlike Satoshi who was pretty impeccable about what he wrote.
It would be interesting to compare the writing style of Satoshi with that of Daid Kleiman - a Florida man (EST time zone). I'm baffled as to how many people are completely dismissing the Wired/Gizmodo story (meaning also dismissing the connection between Wright and Klieman) all the while there is evidence that even Kleiman's senile father (92 years old) knew in 2014 his son was somehow involved in the creation of Bitcoin.
The right question to ask is this: How exactly did Wright and Kleiman know each other, if at all?
What do you think?
http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/
To me seems legit...
you just have 17 person who agree with you,and so many people not sure. for me,i just vote probably,because i dont care about that,just read some article about it. http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/
To me seems legit...
If I could vote, I would vote no, no doubt. There's just not enough prove that he is the real satoshi.
Case seems to be done
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax
It was a very good article. Very thorough, very detailed, well written. It was also very clearly inconclusive. The writer clearly has an opinion that Craig does Not = Satoshi, but also clearly left the possibility open, even if only slightly in his own mind, the acknowledgement that the evidence against is NOT conclusive.
Also - Wired provided a quite satisfactory response to the contrary.
There is ONE POSSIBILITY that I have seen no one throw out yet, and while I do not know if it is true, it is a plausible theory that fits the overall scenario.....
Wired/Gizmoto was getting close to Craig/Satoshi. He knew it was coming and he knew if he could muddy the waters, he could have his cake and eat it too. He planted the flawed evidence in the midst of the valid evidence discovered by Wired/Gizmoto. He knew this would launch a firestorm of seeking/looking. He knew this would muddy things and that it would most likely allow the storm to pass over - but in the meantime he would advantage the publicity.
Personally I don't buy this theory, but it is just as likely in my opinion as the possibility that Craig does not = Satoshi. Lots of valid options to choose from
NOTHING settled conclusively though. THAT is the only thing settled.Hi, Craig c;!
Considering how much of a hobby this is for people and how voracious the media at present are I wonder what'll happen if BTC really starts to gain traction in the years to come. There'll be mountain temples filled with shaven headed acolytes devoting every waking moment to studying his identity. I wonder if he realised how curious people would be and whether he covered every possible track. It's only just begun.
I really doubt that this guy is the real satoshi. I don't believe it because I don't think sathosi will come out like the previous ones have.
I don't think he/she will ever come out. At least I know I wouldn't.
I don't think he/she will ever come out. At least I know I wouldn't.
I've voted 'no, no doubt'. I don't think that guy is satoshi, or even an early adopter of bitcoin. He cannot sign the genesis address (which mined block #0 at 3rd Jan 2009), or even an old address with unspent output from 2009 (but the real satoshi have many of them). Signed message is the proof of identity in the bitcoin world.
We are no better than those talk shows on TV: why do we keep on chattering about this guy? No proof, no Satoshi that's it. Simple.
Our poll will not solve anything.
For your own reference:
Our poll will not solve anything.
For your own reference:
Quote
In sum:
Only one key, the Original Key, is actually known to be associated with Satoshi.
The Wired and Gizmodo Keys that supposedly lead back to Satoshi weren’t previously known to be linked to Satoshi, and their 2008 creation date could have been faked.
Both keys use a longer and less-common key size than the Original Key.
Both keys use a list of cipher-suites that don’t match up to the Original Key, and weren’t added to GPG until 2009.
The Wired key was retroactively added to a 2008 blogpost sometime between 2012 and 2014, as noted in its story.
A core Bitcoin developer who’s been involved from nearly the beginning looked back at 2011 chatlogs referring to “fake” Satoshi keys on keyservers, and found no reference to either the Gizmodo or Wired keys. He thinks that those keys weren’t yet uploaded to the keyserver in 2011.
Only one key, the Original Key, is actually known to be associated with Satoshi.
The Wired and Gizmodo Keys that supposedly lead back to Satoshi weren’t previously known to be linked to Satoshi, and their 2008 creation date could have been faked.
Both keys use a longer and less-common key size than the Original Key.
Both keys use a list of cipher-suites that don’t match up to the Original Key, and weren’t added to GPG until 2009.
The Wired key was retroactively added to a 2008 blogpost sometime between 2012 and 2014, as noted in its story.
A core Bitcoin developer who’s been involved from nearly the beginning looked back at 2011 chatlogs referring to “fake” Satoshi keys on keyservers, and found no reference to either the Gizmodo or Wired keys. He thinks that those keys weren’t yet uploaded to the keyserver in 2011.
I voted no doubt, he's not Satoshi. I think it's pretty obvious as why would satoshi, who is trying to hide his identity so desperately, make a youtube video publicly about bitcoins?
Something is just not right.
Something is just not right.
It's not entirely impossible that it could happen that way. Many gay people stay hidden for years and suddenly come out of the closet, and then their whole persona change, and they react in a total opposite way, than they did before. Not saying Wright is gay, but just using the example of how people can change.
Time for Satoshi, to come out of the closet. ^heh^
I voted no doubt, he's not Satoshi. I think it's pretty obvious as why would satoshi, who is trying to hide his identity so desperately, make a youtube video publicly about bitcoins?
Something is just not right.
Something is just not right.
This must be a government scam lol who would want to put their btc on BTC BANK?
Its like the story of Jesus really. Even if the real Satoshi comes, i might not believe either especially if he want to corrupt the system instead. And I mean BTC bank?
Jump to: