Topic: Questions for Jon Matonis regarding Craig Wright (Read 733 times)

Please read more information available on the internet about this issue and all others related to CSW.
This is an old story, and he has been debunked on almost every issue. He has been setting this up for years.

Let's not discuss issues that are not related to asking Matonis the OP's questions.

How about they were intentionally falsified by him to disprove he is Satoshi when he was alleged to be him after the emails hack?

im betting that it was block nine newly generated coins.. and block 248 (the actual block that contained the transaction to hal finney).

because both block 9 and block 248 contain the same public key which the signature:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
responds to.

because that signature IS the transaction input used in block 248 where the public ke was also used in block 9

i doubt any verification using the genesis block took place.

by the way that blog of jons.. sounds very much verbatim the same script as gavins schpeal

Very good questions.  I would also like to know if his standards of proof would have been different had he been aware of the "manipulative" nature of Wright's blog post proofs and subsequent revelations concerning his character.

One thing that I think is being overlooked is that in Gavin's description of the events, Wright signed the message on his machine, transferred that to a USB, then Gavin downloaded that to the "newly unwrapped" machine to confirm the signature....the signature wasn't broadcast over the internet.  That seems like a possible point of failure there.  I wonder if Matonis would provide a more descriptive narrative concerning the mechanics of how the proof was delivered to him?

ADDENDUM: I might add, Gavin was not permitted to take the USB with him when he requested it.

ADDENDUM2:  I might also add, he wasn't allowed to take the newly bought machine either which might have been able to prove that it was infected by the USB drive.

This is the real money shot in my opinion. This I believe is where the error was made.
So many things do not add up and have actually proved to be falsified or backdated with CSW.
If you keep all the data about CSW we know in mind, and are currently looking into, the question becomes:

What is the probability that CSW is Satoshi performing a grand show or conspiracy of lies and misdirection,
when there is a publicly provable way to sign messages with the addresses associated with Blocks 1 & 9?

Jon's blog post concluding Craig Wright is Satoshi:
http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.co.uk/

Questions:
1. You mention three lines of proof: cryptographic, social and technical. Can you explain how the "early drafts of the bitcoin white paper" that Dr. Wright shared with you constitute evidence? If you did not see Satoshi's drafts prior to the publication of the white paper in 2008 how can you conclude that a version presented by Wright constitutes evidence that he is Satoshi? Anyone could alter the published white paper and create what they claim was an unpublished draft.

2. You also mention Wright providing emails - if I understand you correctly, you are saying he showed early emails you had sent to Satoshi. Is that correct? Or did Wright provide something different? What timing/details of those emails that Wright shared can you relate?

3. You mention a "unique personality" as evidence that Wright = Satoshi. What does this consist of, objectively? Have you or anyone else who corresponded with Satoshi previously described these unique personality characteristics in print, prior to your meeting with Wright, so the public can evaluate this claim?

4. What were the answers you got regarding the registration of bitcoin.org and the timing of Satoshi's posts (I infer this relates to Satoshi's presumed sleep pattern)?

5. What is your take on the fraudulent nature of Dr. Wright's May 2 "signature" blog post? Do you agree or differ with Gavin's reaction (in response to Dan Kaminsky's query)?

6. Can you share any precise details of Wright's private cryptographic proof demonstration on a new "factory-sealed" computer? Did you or Gavin make any requests or suggestions that were denied or ignored that relate to how this proof was performed and presented to you?

***********
PS: I submitted the link here to his blog's Contact page, so hopefully we will have a response.