Topic: Whats up with Craig Wright? - page 7. (Read 1491 times)

Like some other people that dupe people around this space (... say someone who posted earlier in this thread...) Wright compensates for cluelessness by applying an abusive attitude, technobabble, and choir preaching insults at respected authorities to both elevate his standing and make his audience feel superior (like "I knew it! all along those respected folks were really worst than me!").

People without the relevant background can't judge the content, but they hear the the tone and attitude and they can't imagine using that approach unless they were telling the truth.  They just cant imagine being a pathological liar with testicles of neutronium themselves... and so, improbable as it seems, they actually find Wright's spiel credible even though to the rest of us it wouldn't even make for a credible conman act in a movie.

In fact, his utter implausibility works in his favour in another way: it discourages competent people from spending their time discrediting him, and when they do it they find themselves saying something like "wtf. how could you _possibly_ believe this crap. I can't even.", -- not exactly the most effective, even though it's actually a fair response considering the utter absurdity of the situation.

Also, since no one has linked it and to avoid myself being guilty of just giving a "I can't even" response, the bitcoin wiki page on Wright is obligatory reading: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright

Maybe true but I only heard of him before in retrospect after watching an interview with him.

I must have been under a rock lol.

that's incredible to me, because he comes off like an obvious conman to me. maybe it's just the fact that i've seen him caught in lies---like the time he tried to trick people into believing he controlled satoshi's PGP key. it was an obvious scam.

there are other things too. he gets incredibly angry and flustered when bitcoin discussions turn highly technical which never seemed quite right.

Satoshi obviously want to stay as anonymous, so anyone who claim as Satoshi doesn't make sense at all.

Additionally CSW barely have technical knowledge and even random user on reddit have better knowledge.


It's more likely people will think the one who claim as Satoshi found flaws on PRNG/CSPRNG used to generate private key on early version of bitcoin client software

craig appeared public in 2015.. i been here since 2012
chicken.. egg..

what you dont realise is craig is not as smart as he makes out to be. so pretending craig influences people is a big laugh..

also. my opinion is mine. made from many sources human, code, running scenarios... basically research.. u might wanna try it as your echo's are echo's heard many times before by a known group.
but nice try playing the echo game against me.. shame it didnt work due to lack of proper research

so yea ill still yawn and facepalm you. have a nice day
P.S ive never been into the altcoin drama. my mindset is on diversity WITHIN BITCOIN. but you continue highlighting altcoin and social drama stuff

but maybe stick to eastenders next time

Even if he did, that would not be proof that CSW is Satoshi, and I think it would be more likely that he had somehow "acquired" Satoshi's keys than he was actually Satoshi himself.

You only have to compare Satoshi's writing and philosophies to CSW's ranting, scamming, faking and incompetence to see that they are not the same person, regardless of which keys CSW may or may not be in possession of.

There is no point in listening to anyone claiming to be the creator of bitcoin, until and unless someone can sign and verify using the genesis known wallet, there is no point in claiming he is the creator, what is the reason to come out and say that he is the creator and not willing to prove anything, if he plans to come out in the public, he has to validate rather than telling clumsy reasons for not revealing everything. Who ever created bitcoin abandoned within the first year of existence and if that person has to come back, he would have appeared when there was the block size limit issue and prove himself he created it and made some opinions as to how the development has to go.

1. We don't have to prove his statement right or wrong, just as no one has to prove the hundreds of claims right or wrong. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. No one has proven it, least of all CW.
2. Benefit of doubt is not the privilege of a claimant. If I claim to be Satoshi, should I be given the benefit of doubt?
3. It's an assumption to think Bitcoin's creator would or would not do anything. Therefore, until proof is forthcoming, any theories we would have would have to be based on quite a bit of assumption.

He seems to have influenced you pretty strongly.  You appear to use a number of his arguments when you talk about how you think Bitcoin should work.  Let's look at some comparisons:

---

---

---

---

Looks like you two have got a great deal in common.  Like two peas in a pod bits of corn in a turd.  I wonder why you don't want to talk about him?  I guess we'll just let people form their own conclusions.  

Since Franky answered and explained your question very nicely, I won't go into that details. Just one thing I am willing to mention, there's no way we can prove his statement right or wrong! So he is just taking the "benefit of doubt" of this dilemma. If he was the creator of bitcoin, then why he would create another coin? If your son is behaving badly, will you abandon your son or would you try to fix his behavior? 

Thank you and that does explain a lot of my question. Heard of him before, never gave it much consideration. And that is where I should leave it. Appreciated.

-CTS-

long story short
he doesnt write bitcoin code
in 2013+ he pretended to own bitcoin of pre 2012 and make a false name for himself by pretending to own coins of bitcoins inventor(due to certain addresses being well known(part of his ploy/plot))

he does not own the coins and just grabbed publicly available data, which anyone has access to, to fake a 'trustfund' to then use the trust fund as collateral to scam many businesses including the australian government.
the aussy government tried chasing him with civil court actions so he fled australia
he is now just trying to grab fresh money from many places to hope to repay old money (run a ponzi) so now he is geting deeper into trouble

he is now trying social drama techniques to continue false faming himself. and hopes the fame would be the proof of ownership without having to prove ownership. and hope he can dig himself out of his hole using social drama, although he is just digging his hole deeper

in short he is not a bitcoin coder, not a bitcoiner, and not a bitcoin influencer.
no point talking more about him as he has nothing really relating him to bitcoin but scams. thus lets not give him more attention. let his name die out and let his faked fame evaporate

Today I happened across a recent interview with him, in a bitcoin discussion.

He stated at the end, "I was Satoshi".

The interesting thing I noted is a well educated smart individual using the word "was", is very past tense.

It could have been nothing really, but from someone who hasn't even begun to touch his wallets for some time, sounded odd.

Is he for real? He doesn't seem fraudulent to me.

But that is a big statement to make to the crypto world.

I apologize if this has been posted to death, I didnt want to necro any old stuff.