Topic: So do you really think Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto? (Read 5382 times)
I do not think that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto because Satoshi Nakamoto was too smart to get caught up into some of the stuff in which Craig Wright got caught up. It is that simple in my mind! How could the creator of a cryptographic platform, that was nominated for the Nobel Prize, have sensitive emails intercepted by some boneheaded reporters? Nope, wouldn't have happened to the Satoshi that I came to know.
Nope, I think this issue has been cleared few days ago that proved Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.. I think its not really important to know who is Satoshi Nakamoto, just my though indeed
I think there was never an issue. Craig Wright is obviously not even close to what could be Satoshi. It's once again the media/news sites that spread this nonsense everywhere to attract some traffic to their sites.
It does make Bitcoin more popular, and that's a nice thing,
Nope, I think this issue has been cleared few days ago that proved Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.. I think its not really important to know who is Satoshi Nakamoto, just my though indeed
I think there was never an issue. Craig Wright is obviously not even close to what could be Satoshi. It's once again the media/news sites that spread this nonsense everywhere to attract some traffic to their sites.
Not at all. Satoshi wouldn't be publicly talking about bitcoins.
Another misdirection by the media.
Another misdirection by the media.
Definitely. We don't know who the real satoshi is until he signs a legitimate PGP key. All I can say is that Craig Wright is not satoshi.
This would only prove key possession, not that that the person signing a message with a given key is real satoshi
100% bullshit, there's no way Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. He just know a lot about bitcoin 
Also, there's no way Satoshi Nakamoto sell his bitcoin for gold since he's the founder.
It's just usual misdirection by media
If Craig Wright was the real Satoshi Nakamoto, then why would he sell that much Bitcoin to buy gold. The maker of Bitcoin would be a smart guy, he would know how good Bitcoin is. Also, there's no way Satoshi Nakamoto sell his bitcoin for gold since he's the founder.
It's just usual misdirection by media
There is absolutely no chance that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Not at all. Satoshi wouldn't be publicly talking about bitcoins.
Another misdirection by the media.
Another misdirection by the media.
Definitely. We don't know who the real satoshi is until he signs a legitimate PGP key. All I can say is that Craig Wright is not satoshi.
https://bitcointalk.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc is satoshi's public key, for what it's worth.
Satoshi could actually really be lurking the forum, not impossible...
100% bullshit, there's no way Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. He just know a lot about bitcoin
Also, there's no way Satoshi Nakamoto sell his bitcoin for gold since he's the founder.
It's just usual misdirection by media
If Craig Wright was the real Satoshi Nakamoto, then why would he sell that much Bitcoin to buy gold. The maker of Bitcoin would be a smart guy, he would know how good Bitcoin is. Also, there's no way Satoshi Nakamoto sell his bitcoin for gold since he's the founder.
It's just usual misdirection by media
There is absolutely no chance that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Not at all. Satoshi wouldn't be publicly talking about bitcoins.
Another misdirection by the media.
Another misdirection by the media.
Definitely. We don't know who the real satoshi is until he signs a legitimate PGP key. All I can say is that Craig Wright is not satoshi.
Not at all. Satoshi wouldn't be publicly talking about bitcoins.
Another misdirection by the media.
Another misdirection by the media.
Definitely. We don't know who the real satoshi is until he signs a legitimate PGP key. All I can say is that Craig Wright is not satoshi.
I am not dorian... 
There's a little
I am not dorian...
There's a little
I am not dorian...
Without SOLID proofs (Ssatoshi's original keys, signed message from one of his oldest addresses etc.) I refuse to accept anyone who claims to be Satoshi.
Other evidence can be fabricated quite easy as we see in Wright case, example: entry of his blog supposedly dated 2009 was manipulated and added at later date.
Other evidence can be fabricated quite easy as we see in Wright case, example: entry of his blog supposedly dated 2009 was manipulated and added at later date.
I will repeat, I want to see a single incidence of Craig himself (OR ANYONE SO FAR) publically coming out after stories were released identifying them as Satoshi, and saying, "Yes, I am Satoshi. It is me. I admit it.".
Quit inferring that Craig/
Everytime I see people posting "Craig Wright keeps claiming he is Satoshi", it simply increases my belief it might be him. I mean, why else would everyone have to resort to dramatic overexageration and lying - unless there was something more to the story.
How's that old saying go.... "I think thee protests too much"
Totally agree with this.
IMO, it sounds more like he is a very early miner with potential development involvement, but I don't know if he is or is not Satoshi. To me, the reason he could be is because he never publicly claimed to be. Though, he still stands to gain a lot if he was outed, and my alternate opinion is that he is the 'hacker' that outed himself.
If he were the real Satoshi, and wanted people to know, he'd have admitted it. If he weren't, he should do the right thing and admit that. Therefore, one way or another, he's still lying by omission.
Nope, I think this issue has been cleared few days ago that proved Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.. I think its not really important to know who is Satoshi Nakamoto, just my though indeed
Its 100% bullshit hes just an attention seeking businessman.
To be honest from all the articles i have read i havent been convinced yet that he is definatly not Satoshi. however does it really matter, i think bitcoin is better off if satoshi is never identified. the link to a single man could be bad for its image, and the whole mystery thing is great also. 
i have no problem admitting 1 and 2.
i doubt 3 but yes, it is possible.....
i doubt 3 but yes, it is possible.....
I would admit that it's possible........
Sort of speechless how easy that was. Simple truthful discussion about possibilities, without any drama. In regards to what actually ends up coming out of this... I reckon time will tell. My thinking is that Craig = Satoshi will eventually be pretty much apparent to all, and proved. But I may be wrong. I am open to that possibility.
please dont misquote me and change the meaning of what i said:
Quote
i doubt 3 but yes, it is possible - but this has nothing to do with 1 and 2. you, me and anyone else can say very important things about bitcoin technology. a supercomputer does not qualify for that.
actually if satoshi come back his opinion should not be valued more than anyone else's. its a decentralized consensus system which doesnt need any leader. IMHO a leader could even destroy it - just because it can be a single point of failure. luckily i think current bitcoin ecosystem is leader resistant ;-)
but i think i get a feeling what your agenda is: you stated you have one and we should find out... so lets give me a try:
the whole craig-story is made up by some bigger btc fund (or only craig itself) which wants the following:
- influence on bitcoin (eg the scaling simulation and the important things about bitcoin technology you mentioned)
- higher price (not sure why price should be higher if satoshi is found, but if current rise is fabricated by them they would only do that if they think the price would rise even higher)
i cant prove it... its just a guess ;-)
i have no problem admitting 1 and 2.
i doubt 3 but yes, it is possible.....
i doubt 3 but yes, it is possible.....
I would admit that it's possible........
Sort of speechless how easy that was. Simple truthful discussion about possibilities, without any drama. In regards to what actually ends up coming out of this... I reckon time will tell. My thinking is that Craig = Satoshi will eventually be pretty much apparent to all, and proved. But I may be wrong. I am open to that possibility.
Here is an interesting test for you. I will star with your statement that you never claimed he didn't have a supercomputer. Lets stick with that for a second.
So, #1 - Are you man enough to admit that it is POSSIBLE that Craig is running / in control of a Globally Top 20 Ranked Supercomputer?
#2 - If you can admit to #1, can you admit that it is possible that he has indeed been using it to model bitcoin scalability issues for the past years?
#3 - Are you man enough to admit that if #1 & #2 are possible, then it is possible that he may be in a position to soon be releasing Very Important information in relation to the entire Bitcoin Tecnology?
Again, I just want to see if anyone out there is man enough to admit that it is POSSIBLE. Because I don't see anyone willing to absolutely with 100% certainty state that Craig's SGI Supercomputer doesn't exist.
I would admit that it's possible, but very unlikely to be true. imho your point doesn't have value; the same would be for me to say that it's possible that
you can generate identical wallet as someone else - once again it would be possible, but not probable at all.
Here are some fact for you; Satoshi didn't move any of his known coins, which you can hardly say for C.W. , and there was story how C.W invested in gold,
which under no circumstances Satoshi would do; why invest in something you are fighting against..
Here is an interesting test for you. I will star with your statement that you never claimed he didn't have a supercomputer. Lets stick with that for a second.
So, #1 - Are you man enough to admit that it is POSSIBLE that Craig is running / in control of a Globally Top 20 Ranked Supercomputer?
#2 - If you can admit to #1, can you admit that it is possible that he has indeed been using it to model bitcoin scalability issues for the past years?
#3 - Are you man enough to admit that if #1 & #2 are possible, then it is possible that he may be in a position to soon be releasing Very Important information in relation to the entire Bitcoin Tecnology?
Again, I just want to see if anyone out there is man enough to admit that it is POSSIBLE. Because I don't see anyone willing to absolutely with 100% certainty state that Craig's SGI Supercomputer doesn't exist.
i have no problem admitting 1 and 2.
i doubt 3 but yes, it is possible - but this has nothing to do with 1 and 2. you, me and anyone else can say very important things about bitcoin technology. a supercomputer does not qualify for that.
Without SOLID proofs (Ssatoshi's original keys, signed message from one of his oldest addresses etc.) I refuse to accept anyone who claims to be Satoshi.
Other evidence can be fabricated quite easy as we see in Wright case, example: entry of his blog supposedly dated 2009 was manipulated and added at later date.
Other evidence can be fabricated quite easy as we see in Wright case, example: entry of his blog supposedly dated 2009 was manipulated and added at later date.
I will repeat, I want to see a single incidence of Craig himself (OR ANYONE SO FAR) publically coming out after stories were released identifying them as Satoshi, and saying, "Yes, I am Satoshi. It is me. I admit it.".
Quit inferring that Craig/
Everytime I see people posting "Craig Wright keeps claiming he is Satoshi", it simply increases my belief it might be him. I mean, why else would everyone have to resort to dramatic overexageration and lying - unless there was something more to the story.
How's that old saying go.... "I think thee protests too much"
Without SOLID proofs (Ssatoshi's original keys, signed message from one of his oldest addresses etc.) I refuse to accept anyone who claims to be Satoshi.
Other evidence can be fabricated quite easy as we see in Wright case, example: entry of his blog supposedly dated 2009 was manipulated and added at later date.
Other evidence can be fabricated quite easy as we see in Wright case, example: entry of his blog supposedly dated 2009 was manipulated and added at later date.
Jump to: