Topic: [VIDEO] Craig Wright, inventor of Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto), speaks on Bitcoin. (Read 2550 times)

It's clear to me now. It's not a coincidence that this happened after this lecture. He planned to auto leak those "document/evidence" after this to get notoriety, he has tons of problems with tax so being satoshi would bring him fame and millionaire deals for interviews.

Exactly this! A poor guy that just tried to shed some light on himself, nothing else! But you cannot fool millions of people for God's sake!

what? he should have a proof that he is satoshi not us that he isn't

the burden of proof is on the accuser..., until he sign the msg of the first or second transaction(first block) he can not be seen as a satoshi

Watching this video made me cringe and stopped watching after like 4 minutes... It's just pretty obvious to me he is trying to make him self seem more prominent than what he probably really is.  He may have been a very early adopter and knew a lot about the code and probably worked with Satoshi him self, but in no way I think that he is single handedly "Satoshi". At best, he was probably on the core dev team that was labeled a single entity as "Satoshi". If this is the case, he has probably pissed off the rest of his team because he's essentially taking all the credit... and what could they do in this case? Just come out, and say yeah "We are all Satoshi".. which apparently there was some sketchy email that was sent around apparently to some email list saying exactly just that.

Perhaps when he named this computer "tulip," he spelled it two-lip, meaning double-speak.

 

Satoshi probably doesn't exist. I can't believe Bitcoin was invented by one guy, Satoshi is probably a team, not just one person. I don't see it possible otherwise, unless he's a fucking genius.

But what I don't understand is that you're all talking about a "mathematical proof". What kind of proof are you expecting?

You gotta change the title of this thread. There's nothing factual about it. Craig Wright is not the confirmed inventor of Bitcoin (nor Satoshi Nakamoto).

He's suspected of it, but even the writer of the WIRED article didn't truly believe that this guy is Satoshi. There's so much after the fact (post dated) blog post edits and such that support manipulation of the truth.

I hope people are reading all the facts about this and keeping a fair mind about it.

I agree with the guys saying that it is easy to proof he is him by signing or providing math evidence. To try to convince people he is Satoshi giving other (more complicated) proof, makes not much sense.

This guy is not satoshi he is just a braggart trying to get attention to himself well he might find himself in trouble with doing this.

Relevant:
http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/09/20/united-states-bitcoin-regulated-by-cftc-irs-fincen-sec-and-what-next/

"While CFTC calls bitcoin a commodity, other departments like Internal Revenue Services (IRS), Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) are not far behind. Each of the different organizations classifies bitcoin as property, money and currency respectively. This kind of classification can throw anyone off balance, mostly by wondering how one thing can be everything the financial world could have ever thought of, especially when it is supposed to be decentralized, secure and transparent."

The guy is clearly a Wacko conman. I guess this was all a marketing staging. The guy needs someone to finance his company so he went out playing Satoshi...

in this video he is only bragging. Besides I don't see him saying something significant, just plain old shit

Let me pose this question. What purpose does a bitcoin have other than money? Can use a bitcoin for anything else....not talking blockchain now?

Ha, ha. The Big warrior is back. With its ignorance and the security of the ignorant. At the beginning I guessed that was a crafty but seems that is an poor person. Who cannot understand what is written. And making the crafty. Or I'm wrong. Who knows.  The Big warrior who need war and make fear is to deep to be understood. Anyhow Warrior, your above brilliant twenty words excellent two sentences has an answer since my first post (which, as I see is totally incomprehensible for you).

Short explanation (without references):

The being "tangible" is an essential quality of the being "good". And not directly connected with  the being an "economic commodity". But being the economic commodity or good or services (and nothing else) and being bitcoin classified as a "good" within the economic commodities (because of you and Dr. Wright) mean that an "economic commodity" FOR SURE (as a "good") must be tangible. I hope that you and Dr. Wright don't classify bitcoin as a service. If so I have no words and explanations to do.

This kind of reasoning is called logic dear need for war who make fear. Do you know you what is this? As a conclusion (always using the logic as above made) your game of words given as scientific answer must go and must do to your friends with whom make war games with Xbox.

Long explanation (with references) is given to my first post. Read it again need for war who make fear (if capable to understand and if will be able to understand what does it mean logic). Or better I'm giving again only the part which interests this discussion here:

According to Wikipedia https://en.hwikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics):

In economics, a good is a material that satisfies human wants and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (also called goods) and services, which are non-physical.

Then always according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property :

Tangible property in law is, literally, anything which can be touched, and includes both real property and personal property (or movable property), and stands in distinction to intangible property.

Dear Warrior who need war and make fear, concentrate your sharp attention at the words in bold and with colors if you will find yourself unable to understand all the sentences. And then answer to this my question: In which day of the week you have touched a bitcoin?

You can find all the long explanation in my first post made in this thread. I hope that you will not made more such "intelligent" and "provocative" posts (telling me to prove things that everyone know that are true like the bought of everyday bread with bitcoin at the bakery because bitcoin is a fungible good) because are in vain with me. I have seen very many warriors like you in my life. And even you make me fear i will be able to vanish my big fear and confront you.    

Szabo and Mises disagree. Perhaps you've never read them. Which should be evidence to you of your ignorance of the subject matter.

It is always like that with Dunning-Kruger fools. They tell the expert that the expert is full of shit because the expert is too busy to do the schooling for the person who is too lazy to do it for themselves.

Sigh. Go read the damn links I provided you.

Figured as much. Until you do you are full of shit. All you are is one personal attack after another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money

It's not commodity money. It just isn't. Just because you are twisting the definition of commodity to suit your purposes doesn't make it so. I'm sorry.

I don't feel compelled to your homework for you. You are entitled to remain as ignorant as you wish.

The opening sentence at Wikipedia is a guide. You can research deeper if you wish. Or you can continue to spout nonsense and those who have done some research in economics will continue to tell you are wrong.

You might start on the origins of money and why raw materials were originally used for fungible exchange. The conflation began there.

Edit: Nick Szabo can help you:

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html

And Mises:

https://mises.org/library/origin-money-and-its-value

Ok, prove it. Find literature to support what you are saying and post it.

I never said that "he said he was Satoshi" so please don't put words into my mouth (a bad habit that you seem to have for someone who supposedly cares so much for accurate details).

The stuff about his qualifications came from the Perth university in question so it is a fact that he had false qualifications in his LinkedIn profile (the university stated as much).

About whether or not he is a conman - sure I'll accept that as an "opinion" (you can call it a judgement if you like although I am willing to change my mind if evidence to the contrary appears).

I can't make judgements about the ATO because I am not privy to all the findings in the case.

I already stated numerous times that I can't find any where he claimed to be Satoshi.

You are judging a man for something he hasn't even claimed.

I have already realized what is really going on pyschologically. The Bitcoin supporters view Satoshi as an idol or a God. And they will react irrationally to slay any personality that is counter to their ideals of that idol.

This is precisely the pattern of MOB religion which causes ISIS to cut off the limbs of girls and the Christian Crusades.

Humans never seem to learn...



Is it strange that I fight for libertarian ideals consistently because I am not a fake (min)anarchist.

The last part made me chuckle. My marketing plan doesn't depend on any person nor aggrandizing my own reputation. It depends only what the users want and will do about what they want.