Topic: So do you really think Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto? - page 2. (Read 5382 times)

i dont think he is real satoshi nakamoto,because i dont know who really he is,and donw know about his story,and why is he use "nakamoto" if he really satoshi nakamoto,oh this is make me confuse,and start from now idont really care about Craig and Nakamoto,i just care about bitcoin

More misdirection and confusion.... Craig never went out claiming he was Satoshi.  Wired and Gizmoto supposedly dug up documents and outed him against his will.  

I want to see a single incidence of Craig himself publically coming out after the stories were released and saying, "Yes, I am Satoshi".  Never happened.  He never wanted to be outed.  Now he is simply trying to figure out how to release his info - whether he has to prove Satoshiness, or can he release and pretend it is coming from the originally anonymous Satoshi - and everyone pretends none of this ever happened and we keep playing the game of Craig/Satoshi.

One thing is for sure.... Wired / Gizmoto released info no one, including Craig/Satoshi, wanted released.

Problem is.... you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  It is what it is.  Quit stalling.  Move on.  

The real issue is Bitcoin needs hte knowledge this man has because Bitcoin must scale and rise to challenge R3CEV/Hyperledger soon, or risk dropping forever into 2nd position.  IF R3CEV/Hyperledger succeeds,a nd IF they decide to introduce their own Fiatcoin - then Bitcoin may be regulated into an illegal blackmarket currency, or it may be allowed to survice as "digital silver" the 2nd place coin.  But their is a RISK - a POSSIBILITY - that Bitcoin loses everything if certain issues aren't addressed rapidly.

Yup - I think you should look into the "teapot theory" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot).

So if you're not *man enough* to admit there can't be a teapot out there then I guess there is - eh?

Seriously - the guy is a fraud - it is obvious to pretty much everyone apart from some people that probably also think there are teapots orbiting the sun.

I repeat... backpedaling.  The clear implication was the denial of the supercomputer story.  Again, perhaps this is above your intelligence level.  But I doubt it.  I think you are well aware of what the implications of your language are.  You start with the scary "He Lied!!!" then tie in the supercomputer.  

It is the same M.O. in all the evidence against Craig.  Big scary statement.... vague attachment to a subject.... allow people to jump to conclusions.  

But when pushed for specific facts / possibility of alternative theories... backpedaling on the solidity of the overall implications.

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 mean - show some guts you whimps.  Is it POSSIBLE Craig has a supercomputer - regardless of whether you misrepresented his statements of SGI involvement, or whether he flat out lied about it.  And if it IS possible, then is it POSSIBLE that he's telling the truth about using it for Bitcoin modeling?  And if that is possible, then is it possible that regardless of wheter he is Satoshi or not - that this could have big implications.

I guess the bottom line is that you can't play both sides of the fence.  Either take a stance that the Supercomputer absolutely 100% does NOT exist, or admit all these things are possible?

I do not believe he is him. His interest in claiming to be Satoshi, and the fact he does not provide the most simple proofs (signature, etc) is paradoxical.

If I want to show myself as myself, I would use the simplest proofs, not the complex ones (showing degrees and Bitcoin knowledge).

backpedalling?
maybe you should learn to read:

i did never edit that quoted post... so you for yourself what i have written.
but at least no i know why you still think he is satoshi... you only read what you want and not what is written 

Well look at you backpedaling. 

See how easy this was?  And it can be done across the board with almost all the rumour/gossip/assumptions surrounding Craig/Satoshi.

You can just go down the list regarding the "Proof".  In the end it all ends up being not quite what it is insinuated to be. 

And I love your backpedal style..... You plant a suggestion that maybe the entry is faked.  Then you cover your butt with a statement that you aren't actually suggesting it doesn't exist.  Then you go back on the attack and accuse him of being guilty of lying about something (which is only a possible interpretation of the evidence - and not even a very likely interpretation).

How did that go again..... POOF! 

besides that i learned that its not too hard to fake an entry on that list i did never say he did not have a supercomputer. i just said he lied about building it together with sgi.

"Prove".  not proof.

Go look at the 500 list.  Look at owner records.  Track owner records.  And with that PROOF, your theory goes POOF.

POOF!

NO

[/quote]

PS... more like oneLESSxmr.
I'd change my user name to avoid ridicule.  xmr will go to zero, unless you and your 5 friends that hold it want to keep play trading.  Just because it is possible to create a gazillion useless altcoins doesn't mean it is wise to.  Altcoins are all mostly just pyramid schemes.

proof it


again proof it. the statement from SGI i have read did not say he has one. they just said he did not buy one from them (but HE claimed he has built it together with them....so he lied)


ROFL

I think that the best solution is to check the Satoshi Nakamoto address in way to find if this "man" has sold its bitcoin for buying gold. There will be surely some movement on that address.

No - you are simply quoting assumptions, and misdirection.  He's got a lot of degree's so if one of them is misquoted then that just a non-issue.  And in regards to SGI, it is a PROVEN, FACTUAL Supercomputer.  And SGI itself has clearly acknowledged its existence and offered the simple, and very plausible, explanation in which it was simply built through the purchase of grey market parts.

But this is WAY above your intelligence capability.  It's basically a financial issue.  If you buy direct from SGI.... it costs you an arm and a leg.  If you purchase from grey market... it only costs you a few fingers.

Sort of financial supply chain math 101.

NO
he lied about his degree
he lied about building his supercomputer together with SGI (if he even has one)

why do you still think its him is beyond me (well except you think that this news is the reason for the last price spike or you are craig; or both)

Odds are that Craig = Satoshi.

But for now we will simply await the soon to be released Craig/Satoshi whitepapers regarding incorporating Turing architecture in Bitcoin, and other feedback from his years of SuperComputer use modelling bitcoin.

Comes at a good time.  Bitcoin is gaining momentum due to the global financial situation.   You can see from all the heavily publicized news story frenzy yesterday that R3CEV/Hyperledger is desperately trying to stall / redirect interest from Bitcoin to Blockchain.  They don't want Bitcoin to get ahead of itself and jeopardize their own option of establishing a Cryptocurrency.

I like the quote from the following story:
Source: http://www.afr.com/technology/blockchain-for-banks-still-at-the-gluten-stage-20151209-gljy9m
Excerpt: "Blockchain is a bit like gluten," says Tim Swanson, head of research at R3CEV, a New York start-up backed by 30 banks. "Everyone is talking about it but no one knows what it is in great detail."  Like all fads it could fade unless backed up, he adds. "People have to deliver something within the next 12 to 18 months or they will go back to their existing technology vendors."

Right now this is a footrace between Bitcoin & Hyperledger.  I feel that Ripple/Ethereum are pretty much effectively now going to simply just downward slope into eventual death by non-use.  They may survive in some sort of tiny pockets of use, but they are effectively being marginalized.  R3CEV/Hyperledger is currently THE potential competition to Bitcoin.

So how does Craig/Satoshi play into this.  Well, savior returns to give bitcoin a boost, incorporate Turing, solve some Scaling problems etc.  Problem is.... Satoshi has to remain Satoshi to do this.  Craig knows this, and so does rest of Bitcoin land.  Or at least they think they know it.  Craig/Satoshi got outed.  They considered running with the truth.  Got too wierd.  So he's been stuffed back in the bottle.

Regardless.... I will be curious as to Craig/Satoshi's next whitepaper, which according to Craig/Satoshi should be this coming year, hopefuly early year.

By now even Dorian seems more convincing than Craig

I wonder who the next Satoshi will be  

Yes, his personality is exactly the opposite of what we know of Satoshi. That alone would disqualify him from serious consideration.

I find it funny that he shared public keys to "prove" his worth, without signing any of them. Anyone minimally familiar with bitcoin ought to know enough to demand the latter. And the "evidence" cited by Wired (et al) was a joke as well. I hope the authors who broke this story learn a few lessons about reasonable skepticism and thinking through the strength of evidence provided (and how it could be faked, and how that can be tested).

I cannot believe that him is Satoshi Nakamoto. Cannot believe that such kind of character like Satoshi be able to appear publicly in that way. From being to many reserved and anonymous since the beginning in someone very open and mediatic like it is Craig Wright. To not mention here something heard from it which according to me is a bullshit (told that bitcoin is a commodity). Anyhow I am not an expert to be able to ask scientific proofs in order to verify his identity. So, if he is really Satoshi let give such kind of proofs and everything is solved immediately.

of course he is not, he is just one of those wanna be satoshi, that you will from here until the end of the time

many other like him will try to be satoshi in the future, and the same shit will rise everytime

i think that the real satoshi, if want to get out from his position again will do it anonimously at first

 No I don't and ifor me it is not important too. The main thing is that bitcoin is here and clearly hre to stay.
However the quest for Satoshi gives Bitcoin some nice (positive PR)