Topic: Why Craig Wright is unquestionably a con artist? (Read 249 times)

try not to confuse hal finney with dave klieman

CSW had a "cyber security" partnership with an american guy called dave klieman. they had no involvement in bitcoin
they started up a "cyber security research" company (W&K info defense)in feb 2011 where CSW was trying to start up a gold trading exchange. and also con the american Department of Defence out of research grants for cyber security software research.
https://mylegacykit.medium.com/faketoshi-the-early-years-part-1-9964fc1639e3
filed 3 research grant proposals in feb 2011 - responded(rejected) may 2011
BAA 11-02-TTA 05-0155-WP: TTA 05 Secure Resilient Systems and Networks - $1,800,000 -DK
BAA 11-02-TTA 01-0127-WP: TTA 01 Software Assurance through Economic Measures - $650,000 -CSW
BAA 11-02-TTA 09-0049-WP: TTA 09 Cyber Economics - $2,200,000 -CSW
all attempts failed and DK dissolved the partnership and stopped communicating with CSW in 2011. partly (presumed) due to a failed scam and party due to DK's health deteriorating


CSW then shifted gears researching other industries/opportunities to scam. where he first heard about bitcoin in july 2011 and made some comments about it. but that was all.(CSW wanted wikileaks to use bitcoin, funnily the real satoshi was against wikileaks support of bitcoin)

he returned to cyber security drivel discussing highschool level stuff of email headers and website metadata.. and nothing really happened for 2 years

CSW first BTC purchase(of 15btc) was in april 2013.  never bought or mined coin before that point.

he tried to reach out to DK again to re-establish a partnership but found out DK had died

at this point CSW started his bitcoin related scams, trying to get grants from aussie government and such saying he was a bitcoin miner saying he had millions of dollars of super computers. thus getting tax rebates and such

he gained in total about 45btc in late 2013-early 2014.. but lost about 45btc in the mtgox saga of february 2014 which cost him not being able to pay off liabilities in a business he had(hotwire) thus the scamming really ramped up trying to scam investments after feb 2014..
he in feb 2014 he rebranded an old cyber security company Strasan Pty Ltd to C01n Pty Ltd now wanting to start a "bitcoin bank" (i guess the mtgox custodian karpeles "money missing" inspired CSW to do the same )
where he started backdating things. he transfered the defunct W&K info defense brand in april 2014 to his new scambuddy investor ugen nguygen. and then expanded his scambuddy investor list

It had been made public knowledge he did break into one of the first adopters of bitcoins house and stole some articles which were probably containing these addresses.
It was brought into a court of law and he was proven guilty to the crime.
If I am not mistaken he had been brought into court several times in the past few years about being satoshi and in all instances proven wrong by the judge in all cases. So he is certainly not the creator of bitcoin.
Only in his own mind but that is about it.

I think that this man tries to find some loopholes in everything related to this task to legally claim that he is the founder of bitcoin, which, of course he isn't and will never be claimed to be because it's as easy as ABC, just make a transaction from your wallet or sign a message or do both. He can't do, so he is full of shit and I have no idea why the court case is still open and why is the taxpayers' money spent on this bullshit.

You know what's funny? Craig Wright started this bullshit after the death of Hal Finney. This and the fact that wallets/keys are untouchable, says who was who and who is who.

After the recently trial, I think there are 70-something examples of doctored evidence that say might use the word fraud to describe. Personally though, I think it’s the display of ideals that run contrary to satoshi’s that I find the most damning. There is little reason for satoshi to want to come out, and billions of reasons for individuals to want to force litigation to unlock coins. It can’t happen though and even the legal system will have difficulty enforcing any action to do so.

grabbing a public key, of an era of coins that were sent to a P2PK address is not proof of ownership.
a signature is proof of ownership. which CSW never shows

listing just public address and public key. is not proof of money, its proof of dummy(for those that believe its proof of ownership)

as for the fear some people have about address re-use and p2pk

the actual satoshi gave some coin to hal in january 2009 using P2PK. and then used same address 5 more times to make other transactions. meaning the key was re-used x6..
..yet, nearly 14 years later, lots have tried but no one has succeeded in brute forcing the public key to raid the value still linked to that address

which shows how powerful and secure bitcoin is

How does it make sense to you that Satoshi would give Craig any public address or key?  How do you illegally obtain an address if all of them are publicly known and recorded in the Bitcoin ledger.  It makes no sense at all.

All he did was just look for addresses old enough with the right history to try his game plan.  There is no sign of intelligence in what he ever did at all.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Maybe Craig Wright received this public addresses from satoshi or from somebody else. Maybe he even obtained them illegally. We can not know it. With bitcoin there are very specific and easy ways, to prove ownership. The public adress is not one of them.


Ok that makes sense.

There is an important distinction to make here.

If an address has only received coins, then the public key is unknown (unless the owner has revealed it in some other way). Whenever coins are sent from an address, then the public key is revealed. This is the case for all recent P2PKH (pay to public key hash) outputs.

However, the transaction being discussed in this thread is not paying a P2PKH output. It is paying a P2PK output. Rather than paying to a hash of the public key (which we encode as an address), it is paying to the public key directly. As soon as a raw public key has received coins, then that public key is revealed on the blockchain.

100% this. If CSW ever did provide a valid signature (he won't), then given his long history of technical incompetence, plagiarism, poor knowledge regarding how bitcoin works, and multiple blatant and child-like forgeries, the balance of probabilities makes it exponentially more likely he has simply found the private key belonging to an early block as opposed to him being Satoshi.

I see no reason for any further extension of talks about Craig Wright since he's unable to prove himself right with the only authenticated means for an identification by signing a message, well lots had been talked about through the entire period till now onbthe mega thread created by o_e_l_e_o, there's much to this than we are thinking because he's trying to get the world's attention just like as bitcoin had been globally recognized by through his shitty puppet.

I’ve used this as what I thought was proof he is not before but I’m now unsure of my understanding of this and if any highly skilled cryptographer has agreed that it would be proof he’s not Satoshi ..I asked Craig if he thought smart contracts on bitcoins blockchain were a good idea or something to that effect and he replied “I built smart contracts in to bitcoin from day one” …can anyone confirm whether this would be proof he’s full of shit or could this possibly be interpreted as him saying he built in the ability for SCs since day one , or would that also perhaps not be true? 

Even then.  He would not prove he is Satoshi.  He would only prove he is under control of the address he signed from.

As the real Satoshi, you can not make so many gaffes.  He is clearly just a con artist.  Gathering control over one of the first addresses used by Satoshi is Craig's dream.  Let us not make it a dream come true if he ever signs off one of them.  The fact that out of frustration he created his own Coin that serves nothing to the Cryptocurrency space makes things even clearer.

Not to mention Satoshi wanted to provide an alternative to the collapsing Fiat system and Craig at some point kept saying stuff like Know Your Customer are very important to the future of Bitcoin.  Like, shut up already Craig.  No institution or government will lick your boots and support your false identity just because you start promoting the idea that Bitcoin was meant to have no Privacy.  But nice try, anyway.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

So does it mean he is Satoshi?
I'd still want to see if he could spend the BTC and sign message because it's the most ultimate test to see whether he owns the address.

It's much like pinging a server and responding back to you to confirm the network connection but browsing a website will confirm its access to the internet. If you catch that drift.

OP means that these addresses had incoming transactions but not one outgoing transaction. (in this case: no outgoing transaction = unused address)

Yes but you state that Craig Wright can't know the public key, because the address was not used. This is not Tre, the address was used many times.

The locking script for early P2PK outputs is simply as follows:

So simply look at the locking script, remove the 0x41 from the start and the 0xac from the end, and you have the public key.

This is a pretty misleading statement. Even with a known public key, the best known attack would require 2¹²⁸ operations, which is so far outside of the the realms of possibility it is not even worth considering. Any additional security which comes from having an unknown public key is the difference between deducing your private key being "impossible" and "no really, it's impossible". There are millions of bitcoin held on P2PK outputs which have known public keys, on reused P2PKH addresses with known public keys, and P2TR outputs now use public keys directly rather than pubkey hashes, so also have known public keys. The whole point of public keys is that it is perfectly safe for them to be public.

Yes you shouldn't reuse addresses, but this is a privacy issue, not a security one.

You're right. I do see the public keys.



When you spend your Bitcoin, you reveal the public key to the public.  This effectively cuts your security in half.

Reusing an address exacerbates the problem.

---

The title of the topic has been updated.

Craig Wright and his associates, such as Calvin Ayre, are unquestionably con artists!


Craig Wright is unable to pay even $8 for Twitter blue due to legal fees  :

https://twitter.com/Dr_CSWright/status/1605758679386492928

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Well the address has spent bitcoins many times, so I dont really get your point. You can simply see in the block explorer that there are many transactions, and from that you can also see the public key. If you want you can explain your point a little bit more, since like that I dont know what you mean.

If you read the blockchain for block 1 (that includes the address above) you will get the transaction 0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098

raw data:
01000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fffff fff0704ffff001d0104ffffffff0100f2052a0100000043410496b538e853519c726a2c91e61ec1 1600ae1390813a627c66fb8be7947be63c52da7589379515d4e0a604f8141781e62294721166bf6 21e73a82cbf2342c858eeac00000000

This raw data contains the public key in plain text. So the public keys for the early addresses are known. Because they were "pay-to-pubkey" addresses instead of the later introduced "pay-to-pubkeyhash" addresses.

Wrong! Knowing the public key is sufficient.

---

Another critical point is this:



Cryptsoft is based in Brisbane, Australia.  Craig Wright born in the same city.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

If he had the private key, he would just sign a message proving his is Satoshi. He can't do that, so he isn't. Simple as that.

There are also some addresses which Craig said it was his own, which the owner signed a message saying the opposite:



https://news.bitcoin.com/over-a-hundred-10-year-old-bitcoin-addresses-signed-calling-craig-wright-a-fraud/

While I have long opposed such an idea, there is something that bothers me greatly.

I'm not sure how this man obtained the public keys to the Bitcoin addresses listed in this PDF file: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf

12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX is the first Bitcoin address on the list.

The address has never spent any Bitcoin, and its public key should not be known to anyone, but the following is included in the PDF file:

0496b538e853519c726a2c91e61ec11600ae1390813a627c66fb8be7947be63c52da7589379515d 4e0a604f8141781e62294721166bf621e73a82cbf2342c858ee

This public key is, in fact, 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX's public key.

The same is true for all of the other addresses in the file that I checked.

It is impossible to guess the public key for a Bitcoin address that has never spent Bitcoin.