23 ms·

Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto

584 points by rdl 11y ago

spriggan3 11y ago
Hard to say. Gavin Andresen says he is, but Wright didn't publish an unquestionable proof. Why would Gavin risk his reputation on that without the confidence that he really is Satoshi ?
- Buge 11y ago
  Not just that he hasn't published good proof. It's that he published fake proof. I don't see any reason satoshi would publish fake proof besides trying to troll people or something like that.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- webkike 11y ago
  he could have been paid an enormous sum of money
  - showoraskme 11y ago
    Exactly this. Plenty of motivation.
    - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
      That's silly, there was no play here. Nobody will believe Wright solely on Gavin's word in anything but the extreme short term, which has already passed (without a play, like Wright announcing he is Satoshi, owns half a billion in bitcoin and will sell it, thereby manipulating the price). What did Wright and Gavin gain from this? Yet Gavin lost a lot of credibility. In short, I don't this this is likely.
      - webkike 11y ago
        I don't think Wright gained anything. Gavin, however, gained an enormous sum of money. If Wright paid him.
        danielweber 11y ago
        Assume incompetence (or normal human gullibility) over malice.
        webkike 11y ago
        I do assume. But my point is I think most people would probably sacrifice their credibility for a lump sum, especially if they knew the person wasn't going to be able to convince the public.
        saint_fiasco 11y ago
        But why would Wright pay Gavin? What did he expect to gain?
        PeterisP 11y ago
        The article goes a bit into detail - Wright is on the hook for a few million dollars of tax issues, and seems to urgently need a plausible (to a judge) legal source of extremely large amounts of bitcoin or face persecution (possibly criminal) for tax fraud.
        disposeofnick9 11y ago
        Regardless of is/not, Wright says he did it to never do it again.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  Why would Gavin risk his reputation on that without the confidence that he really is Satoshi? People who are smart, even experts in their field, can be fooled by conmen. Remember that while the experts are experts in their field, the conman is also an expert in their field. Their field just happens to be exploiting human nature to fool people. Without more information, it's hard to know if that's what happened, but it's a reasonable answer to the question.
  - Aqueous 11y ago
    Theory: Andresen met with Wright on Wright's terms, in a hotel conference room prepared and controlled by Wright. Wright anticipated that Andresen would ask for a clean-room laptop to work with. One of two things happened: either (a) Wright had his "assistant" go out and "shop" for a "brand-new" laptop that was actually a pre-bought laptop with a modified copy of Electrum on it. This is the copy of Electrum that was running when Andresen thought that his freshly-downloaded copy was running. Or (b) Wright actually did have a clean laptop bought, but suggested that Andresen connect to a Wi-Fi Network set up and controlled by Wright with a password provided by Wright, by which he then provided the false copy of Electrum through a MITM attack. Both scenarios require the ability to modify Electrum in a deceptive way (presuming Andresen is familiar with Electrum and uses it frequently). The complexity of either scenario would require considerable literacy both with networking and code, and perhaps months of practice to make sure everything went off without a hitch. Thus, they seem pretty implausible. But if anything out of this scenario is true, I give props to the guy for really committing, you know?
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  I fully expect Gavin to come to his senses in the next 48 hours, acknowledge that there was a chance he was misled, acknowledge Wright is a shady character making a huge claim, realise a proper proof is necessary (which is trivially easy, without any excuses of 'leaks' left), and demand it. I then expect Wright to come up with some bs, and then we'll all move on. Gavin is only human, I can say I'm surprised to the extent he stated so adamantly 'without a reasonable doubt', but again, he's human.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    Gavin is only human, I can say I'm surprised to the extent he stated so adamantly 'without a reasonable doubt', but again, he's human. He said "I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt." That's still a very high standard, but he left room for some doubt.
- 6nf 11y ago
  Gavin fell for a con job.
jgrahamc 11y ago
This all could have been so simple. Publish a single signature to a very recent news story signed using a key Satoshi controlled. Instead we get this mess. The mess makes me believe Satoshi is still out there.
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  As a complete outside observer entirely disconnected from Bitcoin, I had a thought that the way in which it's being done is intentional. I like the possibility that this guy actually is Nakamoto, and he did it in a very suspicious way to draw all the people out of the woodwork who will yell about it on blogs and knee-jerk revoke commit access (lol) and accuse people of things and so on, then he'll offer the incontrovertible proof everybody is after. The entire Bitcoin community practically shit itself when this news dropped and everybody tripped over themselves to deny it's the truth. People are, at length, ascribing more difficult computer science problems such as subverting cryptography itself to this guy in an aim to conclusively say that he could not possibly have invented Bitcoin. (So he didn't do something really cryptographically cool, and your theory is that he can compromise cryptography to prove that he did something cryptographically cool. Huh.) Some of the theories involve like three MITM attacks on services and extensive planning with million-to-one odds. Some of the theories describe things that are impossible. It is absolutely hilarious to watch people rail against this for something that, let's be honest, they can't possibly know. (Including OP, who is oddly authoritative without hedging in a quite-libelous world.) Imagine if it's true. God, that'll be awesome. If I were coming out as Satoshi Nakamoto, that's how I'd do it. Let the frothers froth to lose credibility, then checkmate them a couple days later. Again, no stock in this, don't care, just an amusing thought. I will say, watching the community tear itself apart over the block size and now this reinforces for me that I never want to run software with a community. Ever. Bitcoin's community is terrifying in a number of ways (no disrespect, just an outside observation). Another angle on that is that if this guy actually is Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin community has done a pretty good job of kicking their beloved founder in the teeth. I really want it to be true to see the pieces of that picked up. This'll be a good third act of the Bitcoin movie, by the way, and I look forward to the stinging Sorkin dialogue.
  - 11y ago
fao_ 11y ago
I do not think that Wright is Nakamoto. However, posting in the form of a screenshot could be a smart move generally, because of the possibility of the text being changed[0], or people cutting and pasting code that does not present as malicious, but is embedded in the website to be so. [0]: Of course, this can still happen with an image!
dc2 11y ago
It is beyond me that anyone would actually try to fake such a significant identity. Does this man have any self-respect?
- mizzao 11y ago
  People don't have self respect in a lot of situations. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironman-triathlon-cheat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironma...
  - danielweber 11y ago
    "and that the only thing she did wrong, besides winning too often, was to lose her timing chip in a couple of races." Geeze.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  It sounds like he might be a scam artist, so I guess the answer is no. If you're going to con the tax man out of millions of dollars, creating a fake identity probably isn't going to worry him too much. But I'm wondering: what if he is a scam artist and he actually is Satoshi?
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    If I walk into the room and you see me, you'll (subconsciously) assign a zero-chance that I'm the queen on England. Why would that become non-zero when I present obviously faked proof (a paper crown, etc). Why would CW's obviously faked evidence provide any support for his claims?
miander 11y ago
Theory: Wright made promises that he would use his weight as Satoshi to overcome current political conflict within the Bitcoin community in a way that would satisfy Gavin. Gavin sees him as an ally and has vouched for him. A distasteful ally, but for the greater good. Given how swiftly people are attacking Wright, chances are this would fail before the political situation can be resolved.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  I feel like there should be some way for Gavin to conclusively demonstrate that Wright = Satoshi. Something in an email, a person preference for something, his favorite song. Some kind of unique information that was shared between the two that only they would know.
- TillE 11y ago
  This seems extremely unlikely for several reasons, not least of which is that of course the bitcoin community would demand simple cryptographic proof of identity. As others have pointed out in previous threads, citing James Randi, you don't have to be stupid to fall for a con. It's quite easy to be tricked even when you think you're being skeptical.
nostrademons 11y ago
Plot twist: Wright as Satoshi isn't the con. Bitcoin is the con. After all, what better con is there to convince millions of people that you've invented a currency, and that they should hand over real money for bits and bytes on computers you don't even control. Wright had recurrent run-ins with Australian tax authorities, so he has a strong motive to shelter his wealth in a virtual currency. The article admits that all his business relationships say Wright is the best con-man they know. And the Bitcoin con has netted Satoshi over a billion dollars. Double plot-twist: Bitcoin isn't the con. Money is the con. All the reasons why Bitcoin is a hoax apply to the U.S. dollar and other forms of currency as well.
- jhh 11y ago
  Money is not a con. It is a very valuable invention that makes exchange of goods way more efficient. Just because something unfairly advantages some people it doesn't follow that it's not useful. PS: Yes I heard the sarcasm in your post. It's all good.
- zanny 11y ago
  > And the Bitcoin con has netted Satoshi over a billion dollars. A huge amount of faith in bitcoin will be lost if Satoshi ever starts moving his btc. Its like the founder or CEO of a company - if you try to sell your stake confidence in the business evaporates.
- dguaraglia 11y ago
  Dude, you better be careful. Don't diss the idea of Bitcoin on the internet or you'll get embroiled in a flamewar of epic proportions. The Bitcoin-acolytes are few but extremely vocal.
  - jsmthrowaway 11y ago
    I have never once commented upon Bitcoin without being immediately downvoted on any forum, this thread included. Not once. Watching the community fight is kind of depressing, because that's a lot of energy that could be channeled into positive endeavors.
IgorPartola 11y ago
I see two dimensions to this situation: is Wright actually Satoshi or does Wright know who the real Satoshi is, and does Satoshi want to be found. Condition A: Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi wants to be found. In this condition, Wright's actions make no sense. Why publish an obviously fake proof? I suppose if Wright/Satoshi lost the original private keys this would make some sense, but is really unlikely. Condition B: Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi does not want to be found. Here things actually make perfect sense. Wright/Satoshi is trying to discredit himself by publishing fake proofs. This is a sort of hiding in the open thing that might work. Condition C: Wright is not Satoshi but knows who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi wants to be found. In this condition, Wright is trying to prevent Satoshi from being found for some reason, and he is doing this by trying to muddle the waters and throw doubt. If the real Satoshi shows up and provides a proof, non-technical people can now say "well Wright provided proof, but that turned out to be fake. Do we trust that this is real?". Condition D: Wright is not Satoshi but knows who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi does not want to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi, or is trying to protect Satoshi from being found. Condition E: Wright is not Satoshi and does not know who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi wants to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi, or is trying to muddle the waters for the real Satoshi. Condition F: Wright is not Satoshi and does not know who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi does not want to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi. Thoughts?
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  >>> I suppose if Wright/Satoshi lost the original private keys this would make some sense. Holy Jesus this makes my head hurt just thinking about this possibility.
- joezydeco 11y ago
  Condition E/F seem most likely, but the most confounding. Why would you want to publicly tell everyone you're worth $200MM in Bitcoin when you aren't? Aside from the bad actors that will try to wring the key out of you (politely or violently), you also have the Tax Office to deal with.
alcio 11y ago
Electrum verifies signatures offline (https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/5ae2f30fa52ebcec3773958fee45b462dd12c04e/lib/bitcoin.py#L407 https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/5ae2f30fa52ebcec37...). So the `fake server` theory is wrong.
- mortehu 11y ago
  Whence does it get the public key with which it verifies the signature? How is the public key verified?
  - alcio 11y ago
    I don't know how the public key has been obtained, but it's present in many places in the Internet (blockchain.info, blockr.io, etc..).
  - chjj 11y ago
    That piece of code likely gathers all the key recovery candidates it can from the signature, hashes and tests each one against the hash in the address to find the correct key. Then it performs the verification. Obviously the verification would fail if none of the keys hash to the hash contained in the address.
- nikcub 11y ago
  OP here. After discussing this with a few people I updated the post to lay out some other possibilities. It is true that Electrum verifies locally, and in this case it was simply used as a replacement for running openssl or an alternative. You still need to verify the address and key, tho - and it isn't stated what the process was in this case.
therealmarv 11y ago
We are seeing the Apprentice/Padawan here which does a good but not excellent magic illusion show in proving he is the one. Meanwhile the Sith-Master himself is hiding in the shadows and has probably an evil grin on his face.
return0 11y ago
If this individual can pull these shenanigans, is it fair to conclude that the real satoshi does not exist (or is not alive), and mr Wright knows it?
- jonny_eh 11y ago
  Reminds me of the Howard Hughes hoax autobiography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Irving#Fake_autobiography_of_Howard_Hughes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Irving#Fake_autobiogr...
johnmoore 11y ago
plot twist - Satoshi Nakamoto is Keyser Söze
timmytokyo 11y ago
This is getting old. Given the frequency of these fraudulent or mistaken Satoshi identifications, it's probably time that someone puts together a simple, publicly visible procedure for verifying Satoshi's identity. Make a web-site, call it something like satoshi-test.com, and include a step-by-step procedure for journalists to follow. If they can't get their Satoshi claimant to complete the test, then they shouldn't write the story. If they ignore the test, then we should ignore their story.
- throwaway_java 11y ago
  Way you go then.
- csomar 11y ago
  Here it is: https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017#.1tcqn0urw https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017#.1t... Many journalists will jump on the opportunity even if they know that it is 100% fake.
  - ihuman 11y ago
    Could you explain what is going on in that post?
    - timmytokyo 11y ago
      I somehow doubt a typical journalist would be able to do anything with that.
      - rdl 11y ago
        We need better journalists, then. I'm pretty comfortable with the technical competence of a subset of tech journalists -- nikcub is one of them. Other fields often get fairly competent journalists; tech journalism deserves the same. The key thing here isn't necessarily technical competence but skepticism, which is the thing journalists are supposed to be oversupplied with.
aerovistae 11y ago
Just checking: by show of hands, how many people here really understand what bitcoins are or how the system works, beyond knowing they're a new form of currency, cryptography is involved, and anonymity comes into play somehow? I am just now beginning to try to research it to really understand it, because despite being a developer and having a decent understanding of public-key cryptography, I am at a total loss to understand how this system works or achieves its apparent purposes. My impression is that it's actually quite complex, and that the press (and developer community at large) is failing to really explain it in any meaningful way to people who don't already get it. Not that this is out of the norm with tech topics, but this is very flagrant.
- arcticfox 11y ago
  Plenty of people understand what's going on? I'm unsure where you're going with this.
  - aerovistae 11y ago
    "Where I'm going" is that bitcoin keeps coming up in the news in various forms like this thread, yet I don't think most people really understand what it is. You understand the bitcoin software and how the system is built and functions, end to end? Cool, I'm jealous. You think most other developers share that understanding? Given that in my experience most developers have only a so-so understanding of basic cryptography to begin with, I find that very, very dubious. I just read the original whitepaper and it isn't exactly trivial. Statements of the form "Because we do X in the implementation, bitcoin has property Y" are where it takes a fairly strong knowledge to truly follow along with the logic. The implications of the methodologies are not obvious, or else this whitepaper (and by extension the identity of Nakamoto) wouldn't be quite so important.
    - esoteric_nonces 11y ago
      'end to end' is probably an unattainable goal. I'd go for understanding it at some level given some axioms, and gradually dig in to the axioms. I think it's difficult to create an all encompassing post for that reason. It's a bit like trying to describe how any application protocol works - can you assume knowledge of TCP/IP? Do you just black-box it? etc. My contact details are in my profile and I'm happy to lend a hand if you think that might be useful.
nickysielicki 11y ago
Who cares? Put the whole lore of bitcoin on the backburner for a moment and think about what this would really mean if he was Satoshi. Pretend that the proof was more than adequate, and pretend that Satoshi-signed messages started popping up on the Bitcoin mailing list again. What should that matter? He's got millions of dollars of Bitcoin. He dropped out of the bitcoin world 5 years ago. If Satoshi came out on the mailing list with a signed message talking about the block size, would it matter at this point?
- reddytowns 11y ago
  Of course it would matter. It would be like George Washington being somehow magically resurrected and chiming in on the 5th amendment and the controversy of the government coercing people into revealing their password.
rasz_pl 11y ago
"administrative assistant working with Wright left to buy a computer from a nearby store, and returned with what Andresen describes as a Windows laptop in a “factory-sealed” box." suckers, every day
- rbobby 11y ago
  Really though. I wouldn't even trust going to the nearest computer shop myself and picking out a computer. Presumably the assistant was believable because they weren't dressed in spandex and sequins.
macinjosh 11y ago
As I see it, it is pretty clear to me. If I add together that Wright had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull a con like this and the fact he hasn't done the one simple thing that could absolutely prove it really is him it adds up to Wright clearly not being Satoshi.
Ileca 11y ago
The perfect proof: a guy whose blog is titled _Dr._ Craig Wright and has a huge picture of his ugly face as a banner (look at that "about" section > pretty hard to fix those pictures more than two seconds) can't be a guy who used a pseudo for years and created something that would give the fame he seeks. Psychology > cryptography.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  The thing that convinced me of his insincerity is that his website has right-click "protection." And it alert()s if you press ctrl-C in another hamfisted attempt at "copy protection". What genuine computer expert does that, let alone in 2016? Especially one who has thought seriously about cryptography.
jay_kyburz 11y ago
This whole thing is like some 90's cyberpunk novel.
- nolta 11y ago
  More like The Grifters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFBajRQIpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFBajRQIpg
outworlder 11y ago
> On his LinkedIn profile, Wright claimed to hold two Phd’s from Charles Sturt University. The University told Forbes that it never granted Wright those Phd’s. My goodness. At which point does it become possible to press charges? Can one just go around faking that they have degrees?
- eng_monkey 11y ago
  He also claims to have about 8 master degrees, which is ridiculous by itself. Plus tens of certifications including the 'prestigious' Microsoft ones. Just red flags all over the place. Cached Linkedin profile: https://archive.is/Q66Gl https://archive.is/Q66Gl
  - cromulent 11y ago
    According to that link, he is the CEO of a company called DeMorgan, which is listed on that page as "DeMorgan Ltd (Panama)". I wonder if there is any connection to the Panama Papers leak. Time will tell, I guess.
cantrevealname 11y ago
You have a priceless Stradivarius violin. For some unfathomable reason, you stamp your violin with the words "Made in China". Now, no one believes it's a Strad. You take it to an appraiser, and he immediately says it's a fraud. "Strads are not made in China and you're a con man," he says. Why would you stamp "Made in China" on a treasure like that? Maybe you were trying to make it less tempting for thieves, maybe you were trying to hide its value from the tax authorities, maybe you forget to take your meds and were acting irrationally that day. It is a defaced Stradivarius, but still a Stradivarius. It doesn't matter because no one believes you. Craig Wright does some silly things. Now, no matter what he says, ...
- RUBwkVjwLsDKgPw 11y ago
  Now if only there were a way to mathematically prove it was a Stradivarius...
- Sacho 11y ago
  Your analogy doesn't really exemplify what actually happened. I think this is a better one: Craig brings a set of high-resolution pictures of a Stradivarius violin to an appraiser. The appraiser(Gavin) goes over them - they all look exactly how a Stradivarius violin would look. However, his colleague(public commentators, in this case) says the only way to really appraise a Strad is to see it in person, and that going through all the trouble of getting high-res pictures when you could just bring it over was pointless. Further, the colleague notes one of the pictures shows a "Made in China" stamp on the Strad, and as such guesses that Craig is trying to con them. If a "Made in China" stamp in itself made an appraiser instantly discard the violin, then they haven't done their job. Similarly, if Craig had provided a strong crypto proof that he was Satoshi(the physical violin, in this scenario), but people disregarded it just because it's him, then we would match your analogy. The analogy still doesn't really match reality - the reason why Gavin was convinced is because he used tools that gave him a high confidence that he wasn't being conned. Still, the way Craig decided to demonstrate that he was Satoshi was long-winded and complicated, for no discernible reason.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bunkydoo 11y ago
People are still asking the question? The story is obvious. He didn't pay his taxes since '08, he needed an excuse, he can't move original coins. End of story. It ain't him
devishard 11y ago
This is ridiculous. If Craig Wright came to me and said he was Satoshi Nakamoto, I'd say, "Sign it with the genesis block's private key or GTFO." This is crypto, bitcoin is built on incontrovertible, mathematical proof. Why the hell would Satoshi do anything else? If it ever comes to light that Craig Wright is trying to use this lie for some monetary advantage, he should be arrested for fraud, which is what this is.
- state 11y ago
  Right. And Wright and everyone involved must know that. So can anyone explain their motives? I truly can't figure that part out. Edit: alain makes a good point. It's not the 'motives' I want to know. I want the whole story.
  - alain94040 11y ago
    Megalomaniacs will keep lying and dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves. You start with a small lie, and just can't stop, you have to keep going. What's surprising though is the lack of judgment from BBC and other major news media. That same person made the same bogus claim 6 months ago. How does that not trigger major red flags? The only story worth writing about here is how he pulled off such a trick. This is like God's existence. There is a simple way for God to tell us He exists, and which religion is right. But He never does. Instead, we must rely on testimony from various people, contradicting each other, and none of it is reproducible. Sure, you can believe... </controversial statement>
    - clarkmoody 11y ago
      > lack of judgment from BBC and other major news media Probably got more clicks / views that any other story today, so good business move to print the story, even if it's totally false. I can't understand Gavin's angle though. It's amazing that he agrees that Wright is Satoshi. I would like to know his motivations in this whole thing. > There is a simple way for God to tell us He exists, and which religion is right. But He never does. Many religions would argue that this is a false statement :-) From the Christian view, the existence of God is self-evident in Creation. And when it comes down to it, I think it takes more faith to believe that life exists because of random chance than because of a creator. But God does not fit into a scientific proof framework whereby you can prove or disprove the existence of God, which is why it boils down to having faith. On the other hand, there is a way for Satoshi to prove his/her/their existence.
iamgopal 11y ago
I don't know much about cryptography, but can his keys be recreated with all the computing power all Bitcoin miners have ?
- xseven 11y ago
  Bitcoin would be useless if that were possible.
  - gruez 11y ago
    To answer the question directly, no.
maverick_iceman 11y ago
I searched for Craig Wright's Linkedin profile. It's not available any more. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine doesn't track Linkedin. Does anyone have a cached copy of his Linkedin profile?
- ino 11y ago
  It was linked above: https://archive.is/Q66Gl https://archive.is/Q66Gl
atomical 11y ago
After Newsweek named Dorian Nakamoto as the bitcoin creator I remember reading a post on Hacker News where a coffee shop owner's wife remembered seeing the same man use bitcoin to pay for a coffee. Was there any truth to this story?
- jonah 11y ago
  Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad. Confirmation Bias. Power of suggestion. etc.
- riprowan 11y ago
  Wouldn't surprise me: as I recall, there was a fund raised for him by some people in the community as a gesture for having been a victim of "Bitcoin blowback."
c1498535 11y ago
Wright is a liar. Sorry M. Satoshi have never been a public person. It is sad, but Satoshi died.
amluto 11y ago
Something else that stinks about all this that I haven't seen commented on: Supposedly, Chris Wright did his ridiculous laptop dance with Gavin Andresen because he didn't want Gavin to leak the signature early. What a load of crap. These are supposedly real cryptographers we're talking about here. If you ask a cryptographer (including, presumably, Satoshi) how they would prove their identity to someone else such that the other person couldn't leak the proof, the answer doesn't involve airplanes and fishy laptops running dubiously authentic Windows programs. The answer is deniable authentication. In the bitcoin case, it's trivial. Satoshi's public key is g^p for some p that only Satoshi knows (using multiplicative notation) on a well-known and hopefully secure elliptic curve. You can use this key for ECDSA, but you can also use it for, drumroll please, Diffie-Hellman. Gavin picks a random scalar b and tells Craig Wright g^b. Chris replies with (g^b)^p [1]. Gavin checks that the result is the same as (g^p)^b. This is deniable: Gavin can trivially make up the transcript of the protocol, so Gavin can't use it to prematurely convince anyone of anything. No airplanes needed. There are plenty of other ways to do this. Pretty much any zero-knowledge proof of knowledge would work. [1] In practice, this should be blinded to avoid cross-protocol attacks and relay attacks. Craig could send something like H("Hi Gavin, I am Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto" || (g^b)^p). A real cryptographer could double-check me here.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  I am going to take your word for it that this makes sense. However, I think what you may be missing is that it doesn't matter if Wright convinces you or even "any" of the crypto/alt coin community. While mathematical proofs are hard/impossible to fake, you are a subset of people that understand them to the degree that you could employ them here. I have no idea what Wright's end game is, as you are obviously correct: his assertions make no sense. However, if somehow he believed there was value in convincing non-technical members of the public he was Satoshi, I think that is quite possible. I find this truth to be self-evident: A quick witted conman or charismatic person can certainly convince an untrained group that he is X, much easier than even a charismatic person could convince a group how to understand and employ a non-trivial group of mathematical equations. We see this every day. It is totally possible, likely even, that if I can't understand your math- even if it is correct, and even if it is corroborated by others who understand it, I am weighing(or the general idea of "I" as the population) which person is correct based on a standard that is subjective. Possibly: * He said he was Satoshi * He had a crypto key I read about in wired. * Gavin Andreessen appeared to corroborate and I googled him and he is important. So, you are totally correct. I agree with you as even if I don't understand your math, I am sure there is a mathematical way to prove he was Satoshi by using a different set of keys, a signature or other mathematical proof. Unfortunately, he will likely be able to exploit Satoshi's name.
afro88 11y ago
Another theory: he destroyed the genesis block signing key and everything else that could prove he's satoshi in the beginning. Because, well, he didn't want to be linked to Bitcoin in case of unsavory government or corporate interactions. But now Bitcoin has more or less gone mainstream and it's safe for him to reveal his identity, his human is kicking in and he's trying everything he can to claim the fame
known 11y ago
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer is Satoshi :)
ekiara 11y ago
If this is a hoax, I really don't understand what a Craig Wright can materially gain from claiming he is Satoshi. Unless he's playing some sort of long con, where he claims he doesn't want publicity or to profit from it, but then accepts a deal from someone to trade his non-existent genesis block Bitcoins for real hard currency. It'd be like a grifter in Las Vegas claiming he was a Sheikh or a Saudi Prince and refusing all inquiries from public, but then allowing one person to reach him and then swindling that person in a deal. Or maybe the 'real' Satoshi Nakamoto offered Craig Wright a big chunk of bitcoins if he would claim to be Satoshi, so that his true identity would never be revealed.
- ageofwant 11y ago
  Or maybe he is just taking the piss. As an Australian, I'd applaud that.
- mfukar 11y ago
  The con is plausible. If I could point to a BBC article claiming I was indeed the founder of Bitcoin, I'd be able to turn some heads that wouldn't otherwise turn..
ajonit 11y ago
Forget any of the crypto stuff, just ask Mr Wright to open another thread here (http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto) or any of the other forums he used to interact or edit one of his own forum posts! This should be trivially easy for the real Satoshi.
dineshp2 11y ago
FYI, Electrum has stated that there was no download of a signature file of Electrum from a UK IP address on April 7 [1]. This in itself does not prove that there was no download of an Electrum signature file to the laptop that Gavin was given. He could have connected using Tor or other services through which the real IP address is hidden, but this could be another reason to suspect there was some kind of MITM hack that Wright used. Also worth mentioning that the laptop was supposedly a factory sealed unit [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/727366861592076288 https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/727366861592076288 [2] http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi
keypusher 11y ago
Here's the thing. Craig Wright was probably there, he may have even had the original idea, but it was his coworker/friend David Kleiman that actually implemented it. Or perhaps contracted someone else to implement it, as he was involved in the security industry and may have known players heavy enough to develop such algorithms. Either way, it was Kleiman that had the keys. It has become painfully obvious that Wright does not possess the technical skills to have created Bitcoin, and it also should be very obvious that he does not have the coins. He may have even written or at least contributed to the original paper. He might even be as close to a living "Satoshi Nakamoto" as there is, because David Kleiman died of MRSA in 2013. At this point, I don't think anyone alive has those keys, and Craig is trying to parlay his former role into something that he can actually turn into cash.
dunkelheit 11y ago
I am starting to think that all this is a postmodernist spectacle designed to instill the thought that searching for Satoshi is a lost cause.
jernfrost 11y ago
Man this is turning into something like the Kennedy assassination or Jack the ripper. There will be endless speculations and theories. At some point we will be all so confused that even if the real Satoshi stepped forward we wouldn't be able to believe it.
lordnacho 11y ago
The whole thing seems to be handwaving that only a non technical person could believe. Because when you're not a technical person, you won't have good priors for what constitutes proof. You'll be falling back on the same intuition you use when reading a detective story. Who has motive, who has skill, and so on. None of which take you out of the zone of doubt (say between 10 and 90 percent certain) which is why detective stories are fun. If you're a technical person, you can see how big a deal being able to sign is. For me, it's pretty easy. If someone says they're Satoshi, we ask him to move some BTC from one of his addresses to another. They'll still be in trust (crappy excuse). If you can do that, you're either him or he essentially gave you his identity by giving you the key.
mouzogu 11y ago
Why did he lie? Is he a serial liar trying to take credit for someone else's work or is this an elaborate attempt to get the real SN to reveal himself?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
damian2000 11y ago
A lot of Craig Wright's presence on the Internet - wikipedia, linkedin, etc. is full of ego-inflating hyperbole. To go to these lengths though, for the sake of publicity (or notoriety) is pretty incredible.
msowygqogd 11y ago
Warning: hate speech ahead. Sad fact: a single impostor clown wasted millions of hours of experts' and other smart people's time that could have been spent productively otherwise. Real question: has Gavin got insane or what game is he playing? Speculation: I lost my faith in Gavin in 2014 in Amsterdam where I could observe him joining The Bitcoin Foundation while it was already clear that TBF was full of shit, pedophiles and nonentities focused on self-promotion and earning a quick buck (with few exceptions). So my bet is on Gavin's gullibility. He's got tricked by the con artist to the level that he is going to defend his position against the evidence.
redcalx 11y ago
Another option to consider: Craig is being pressured to make this claim to flush out the real Satoshi.
partycoder 11y ago
What if he presented a fake proof, so people can refute it, and in this way he can finally stop people from accusing him from being Satoshi? What is the benefit of having people know you are Satoshi? probably none. Any money he can make from being recognized as the creator of Bitcoin is not comparable to the money he could have made from early bitcoins.
machinelearning 11y ago
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet. From Gavin's reddit account, "Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1. That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum. I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement). I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post." src:https://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen https://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen
jbrambleDC 11y ago
What are the chances that Gavin is Satoshi, or knows who Satoshi is and wants to corroborate Wright in order to protect Satoshis identity.

584 points by rdl 11y ago

Hard to say. Gavin Andresen says he is, but Wright didn't publish an unquestionable proof. Why would Gavin risk his reputation on that without the confidence that he really is Satoshi ?

Buge 11y ago
Not just that he hasn't published good proof. It's that he published fake proof. I don't see any reason satoshi would publish fake proof besides trying to troll people or something like that.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
webkike 11y ago
he could have been paid an enormous sum of money
- showoraskme 11y ago
  Exactly this. Plenty of motivation.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    That's silly, there was no play here. Nobody will believe Wright solely on Gavin's word in anything but the extreme short term, which has already passed (without a play, like Wright announcing he is Satoshi, owns half a billion in bitcoin and will sell it, thereby manipulating the price). What did Wright and Gavin gain from this? Yet Gavin lost a lot of credibility. In short, I don't this this is likely.
    - webkike 11y ago
      I don't think Wright gained anything. Gavin, however, gained an enormous sum of money. If Wright paid him.
      - danielweber 11y ago
        Assume incompetence (or normal human gullibility) over malice.
        webkike 11y ago
        I do assume. But my point is I think most people would probably sacrifice their credibility for a lump sum, especially if they knew the person wasn't going to be able to convince the public.
      - saint_fiasco 11y ago
        But why would Wright pay Gavin? What did he expect to gain?
        PeterisP 11y ago
        The article goes a bit into detail - Wright is on the hook for a few million dollars of tax issues, and seems to urgently need a plausible (to a judge) legal source of extremely large amounts of bitcoin or face persecution (possibly criminal) for tax fraud.
      - disposeofnick9 11y ago
        Regardless of is/not, Wright says he did it to never do it again.
dsp1234 11y ago
Why would Gavin risk his reputation on that without the confidence that he really is Satoshi? People who are smart, even experts in their field, can be fooled by conmen. Remember that while the experts are experts in their field, the conman is also an expert in their field. Their field just happens to be exploiting human nature to fool people. Without more information, it's hard to know if that's what happened, but it's a reasonable answer to the question.
- Aqueous 11y ago
  Theory: Andresen met with Wright on Wright's terms, in a hotel conference room prepared and controlled by Wright. Wright anticipated that Andresen would ask for a clean-room laptop to work with. One of two things happened: either (a) Wright had his "assistant" go out and "shop" for a "brand-new" laptop that was actually a pre-bought laptop with a modified copy of Electrum on it. This is the copy of Electrum that was running when Andresen thought that his freshly-downloaded copy was running. Or (b) Wright actually did have a clean laptop bought, but suggested that Andresen connect to a Wi-Fi Network set up and controlled by Wright with a password provided by Wright, by which he then provided the false copy of Electrum through a MITM attack. Both scenarios require the ability to modify Electrum in a deceptive way (presuming Andresen is familiar with Electrum and uses it frequently). The complexity of either scenario would require considerable literacy both with networking and code, and perhaps months of practice to make sure everything went off without a hitch. Thus, they seem pretty implausible. But if anything out of this scenario is true, I give props to the guy for really committing, you know?
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
I fully expect Gavin to come to his senses in the next 48 hours, acknowledge that there was a chance he was misled, acknowledge Wright is a shady character making a huge claim, realise a proper proof is necessary (which is trivially easy, without any excuses of 'leaks' left), and demand it. I then expect Wright to come up with some bs, and then we'll all move on. Gavin is only human, I can say I'm surprised to the extent he stated so adamantly 'without a reasonable doubt', but again, he's human.
- danielweber 11y ago
  Gavin is only human, I can say I'm surprised to the extent he stated so adamantly 'without a reasonable doubt', but again, he's human. He said "I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt." That's still a very high standard, but he left room for some doubt.
6nf 11y ago
Gavin fell for a con job.

jgrahamc 11y ago

This all could have been so simple. Publish a single signature to a very recent news story signed using a key Satoshi controlled. Instead we get this mess. The mess makes me believe Satoshi is still out there.

jsmthrowaway 11y ago
As a complete outside observer entirely disconnected from Bitcoin, I had a thought that the way in which it's being done is intentional. I like the possibility that this guy actually is Nakamoto, and he did it in a very suspicious way to draw all the people out of the woodwork who will yell about it on blogs and knee-jerk revoke commit access (lol) and accuse people of things and so on, then he'll offer the incontrovertible proof everybody is after. The entire Bitcoin community practically shit itself when this news dropped and everybody tripped over themselves to deny it's the truth. People are, at length, ascribing more difficult computer science problems such as subverting cryptography itself to this guy in an aim to conclusively say that he could not possibly have invented Bitcoin. (So he didn't do something really cryptographically cool, and your theory is that he can compromise cryptography to prove that he did something cryptographically cool. Huh.) Some of the theories involve like three MITM attacks on services and extensive planning with million-to-one odds. Some of the theories describe things that are impossible. It is absolutely hilarious to watch people rail against this for something that, let's be honest, they can't possibly know. (Including OP, who is oddly authoritative without hedging in a quite-libelous world.) Imagine if it's true. God, that'll be awesome. If I were coming out as Satoshi Nakamoto, that's how I'd do it. Let the frothers froth to lose credibility, then checkmate them a couple days later. Again, no stock in this, don't care, just an amusing thought. I will say, watching the community tear itself apart over the block size and now this reinforces for me that I never want to run software with a community. Ever. Bitcoin's community is terrifying in a number of ways (no disrespect, just an outside observation). Another angle on that is that if this guy actually is Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin community has done a pretty good job of kicking their beloved founder in the teeth. I really want it to be true to see the pieces of that picked up. This'll be a good third act of the Bitcoin movie, by the way, and I look forward to the stinging Sorkin dialogue.
- 11y ago

fao_ 11y ago

I do not think that Wright is Nakamoto. However, posting in the form of a screenshot could be a smart move generally, because of the possibility of the text being changed[0], or people cutting and pasting code that does not present as malicious, but is embedded in the website to be so. [0]: Of course, this can still happen with an image!

dc2 11y ago

It is beyond me that anyone would actually try to fake such a significant identity. Does this man have any self-respect?

mizzao 11y ago
People don't have self respect in a lot of situations. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironman-triathlon-cheat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironma...
- danielweber 11y ago
  "and that the only thing she did wrong, besides winning too often, was to lose her timing chip in a couple of races." Geeze.
cpncrunch 11y ago
It sounds like he might be a scam artist, so I guess the answer is no. If you're going to con the tax man out of millions of dollars, creating a fake identity probably isn't going to worry him too much. But I'm wondering: what if he is a scam artist and he actually is Satoshi?
- EdHominem 11y ago
  If I walk into the room and you see me, you'll (subconsciously) assign a zero-chance that I'm the queen on England. Why would that become non-zero when I present obviously faked proof (a paper crown, etc). Why would CW's obviously faked evidence provide any support for his claims?

miander 11y ago

Theory: Wright made promises that he would use his weight as Satoshi to overcome current political conflict within the Bitcoin community in a way that would satisfy Gavin. Gavin sees him as an ally and has vouched for him. A distasteful ally, but for the greater good. Given how swiftly people are attacking Wright, chances are this would fail before the political situation can be resolved.

at-fates-hands 11y ago
I feel like there should be some way for Gavin to conclusively demonstrate that Wright = Satoshi. Something in an email, a person preference for something, his favorite song. Some kind of unique information that was shared between the two that only they would know.
TillE 11y ago
This seems extremely unlikely for several reasons, not least of which is that of course the bitcoin community would demand simple cryptographic proof of identity. As others have pointed out in previous threads, citing James Randi, you don't have to be stupid to fall for a con. It's quite easy to be tricked even when you think you're being skeptical.

nostrademons 11y ago

Plot twist: Wright as Satoshi isn't the con. Bitcoin is the con. After all, what better con is there to convince millions of people that you've invented a currency, and that they should hand over real money for bits and bytes on computers you don't even control. Wright had recurrent run-ins with Australian tax authorities, so he has a strong motive to shelter his wealth in a virtual currency. The article admits that all his business relationships say Wright is the best con-man they know. And the Bitcoin con has netted Satoshi over a billion dollars. Double plot-twist: Bitcoin isn't the con. Money is the con. All the reasons why Bitcoin is a hoax apply to the U.S. dollar and other forms of currency as well.

jhh 11y ago
Money is not a con. It is a very valuable invention that makes exchange of goods way more efficient. Just because something unfairly advantages some people it doesn't follow that it's not useful. PS: Yes I heard the sarcasm in your post. It's all good.
zanny 11y ago
> And the Bitcoin con has netted Satoshi over a billion dollars. A huge amount of faith in bitcoin will be lost if Satoshi ever starts moving his btc. Its like the founder or CEO of a company - if you try to sell your stake confidence in the business evaporates.
dguaraglia 11y ago
Dude, you better be careful. Don't diss the idea of Bitcoin on the internet or you'll get embroiled in a flamewar of epic proportions. The Bitcoin-acolytes are few but extremely vocal.
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  I have never once commented upon Bitcoin without being immediately downvoted on any forum, this thread included. Not once. Watching the community fight is kind of depressing, because that's a lot of energy that could be channeled into positive endeavors.

IgorPartola 11y ago

I see two dimensions to this situation: is Wright actually Satoshi or does Wright know who the real Satoshi is, and does Satoshi want to be found. Condition A: Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi wants to be found. In this condition, Wright's actions make no sense. Why publish an obviously fake proof? I suppose if Wright/Satoshi lost the original private keys this would make some sense, but is really unlikely. Condition B: Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi does not want to be found. Here things actually make perfect sense. Wright/Satoshi is trying to discredit himself by publishing fake proofs. This is a sort of hiding in the open thing that might work. Condition C: Wright is not Satoshi but knows who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi wants to be found. In this condition, Wright is trying to prevent Satoshi from being found for some reason, and he is doing this by trying to muddle the waters and throw doubt. If the real Satoshi shows up and provides a proof, non-technical people can now say "well Wright provided proof, but that turned out to be fake. Do we trust that this is real?". Condition D: Wright is not Satoshi but knows who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi does not want to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi, or is trying to protect Satoshi from being found. Condition E: Wright is not Satoshi and does not know who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi wants to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi, or is trying to muddle the waters for the real Satoshi. Condition F: Wright is not Satoshi and does not know who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi does not want to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi. Thoughts?

at-fates-hands 11y ago
>>> I suppose if Wright/Satoshi lost the original private keys this would make some sense. Holy Jesus this makes my head hurt just thinking about this possibility.
joezydeco 11y ago
Condition E/F seem most likely, but the most confounding. Why would you want to publicly tell everyone you're worth $200MM in Bitcoin when you aren't? Aside from the bad actors that will try to wring the key out of you (politely or violently), you also have the Tax Office to deal with.

alcio 11y ago

Electrum verifies signatures offline (https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/5ae2f30fa52ebcec3773958fee45b462dd12c04e/lib/bitcoin.py#L407 https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/5ae2f30fa52ebcec37...). So the `fake server` theory is wrong.

mortehu 11y ago
Whence does it get the public key with which it verifies the signature? How is the public key verified?
- alcio 11y ago
  I don't know how the public key has been obtained, but it's present in many places in the Internet (blockchain.info, blockr.io, etc..).
- chjj 11y ago
  That piece of code likely gathers all the key recovery candidates it can from the signature, hashes and tests each one against the hash in the address to find the correct key. Then it performs the verification. Obviously the verification would fail if none of the keys hash to the hash contained in the address.
nikcub 11y ago
OP here. After discussing this with a few people I updated the post to lay out some other possibilities. It is true that Electrum verifies locally, and in this case it was simply used as a replacement for running openssl or an alternative. You still need to verify the address and key, tho - and it isn't stated what the process was in this case.

therealmarv 11y ago

We are seeing the Apprentice/Padawan here which does a good but not excellent magic illusion show in proving he is the one. Meanwhile the Sith-Master himself is hiding in the shadows and has probably an evil grin on his face.

return0 11y ago

If this individual can pull these shenanigans, is it fair to conclude that the real satoshi does not exist (or is not alive), and mr Wright knows it?

jonny_eh 11y ago
Reminds me of the Howard Hughes hoax autobiography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Irving#Fake_autobiography_of_Howard_Hughes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Irving#Fake_autobiogr...

johnmoore 11y ago

plot twist - Satoshi Nakamoto is Keyser Söze

timmytokyo 11y ago

This is getting old. Given the frequency of these fraudulent or mistaken Satoshi identifications, it's probably time that someone puts together a simple, publicly visible procedure for verifying Satoshi's identity. Make a web-site, call it something like satoshi-test.com, and include a step-by-step procedure for journalists to follow. If they can't get their Satoshi claimant to complete the test, then they shouldn't write the story. If they ignore the test, then we should ignore their story.

throwaway_java 11y ago
Way you go then.
csomar 11y ago
Here it is: https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017#.1tcqn0urw https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017#.1t... Many journalists will jump on the opportunity even if they know that it is 100% fake.
- ihuman 11y ago
  Could you explain what is going on in that post?
  - timmytokyo 11y ago
    I somehow doubt a typical journalist would be able to do anything with that.
    - rdl 11y ago
      We need better journalists, then. I'm pretty comfortable with the technical competence of a subset of tech journalists -- nikcub is one of them. Other fields often get fairly competent journalists; tech journalism deserves the same. The key thing here isn't necessarily technical competence but skepticism, which is the thing journalists are supposed to be oversupplied with.

aerovistae 11y ago

Just checking: by show of hands, how many people here really understand what bitcoins are or how the system works, beyond knowing they're a new form of currency, cryptography is involved, and anonymity comes into play somehow? I am just now beginning to try to research it to really understand it, because despite being a developer and having a decent understanding of public-key cryptography, I am at a total loss to understand how this system works or achieves its apparent purposes. My impression is that it's actually quite complex, and that the press (and developer community at large) is failing to really explain it in any meaningful way to people who don't already get it. Not that this is out of the norm with tech topics, but this is very flagrant.

arcticfox 11y ago
Plenty of people understand what's going on? I'm unsure where you're going with this.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  "Where I'm going" is that bitcoin keeps coming up in the news in various forms like this thread, yet I don't think most people really understand what it is. You understand the bitcoin software and how the system is built and functions, end to end? Cool, I'm jealous. You think most other developers share that understanding? Given that in my experience most developers have only a so-so understanding of basic cryptography to begin with, I find that very, very dubious. I just read the original whitepaper and it isn't exactly trivial. Statements of the form "Because we do X in the implementation, bitcoin has property Y" are where it takes a fairly strong knowledge to truly follow along with the logic. The implications of the methodologies are not obvious, or else this whitepaper (and by extension the identity of Nakamoto) wouldn't be quite so important.
  - esoteric_nonces 11y ago
    'end to end' is probably an unattainable goal. I'd go for understanding it at some level given some axioms, and gradually dig in to the axioms. I think it's difficult to create an all encompassing post for that reason. It's a bit like trying to describe how any application protocol works - can you assume knowledge of TCP/IP? Do you just black-box it? etc. My contact details are in my profile and I'm happy to lend a hand if you think that might be useful.

nickysielicki 11y ago

Who cares? Put the whole lore of bitcoin on the backburner for a moment and think about what this would really mean if he was Satoshi. Pretend that the proof was more than adequate, and pretend that Satoshi-signed messages started popping up on the Bitcoin mailing list again. What should that matter? He's got millions of dollars of Bitcoin. He dropped out of the bitcoin world 5 years ago. If Satoshi came out on the mailing list with a signed message talking about the block size, would it matter at this point?

reddytowns 11y ago
Of course it would matter. It would be like George Washington being somehow magically resurrected and chiming in on the 5th amendment and the controversy of the government coercing people into revealing their password.

rasz_pl 11y ago

"administrative assistant working with Wright left to buy a computer from a nearby store, and returned with what Andresen describes as a Windows laptop in a “factory-sealed” box." suckers, every day

rbobby 11y ago
Really though. I wouldn't even trust going to the nearest computer shop myself and picking out a computer. Presumably the assistant was believable because they weren't dressed in spandex and sequins.

macinjosh 11y ago

As I see it, it is pretty clear to me. If I add together that Wright had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull a con like this and the fact he hasn't done the one simple thing that could absolutely prove it really is him it adds up to Wright clearly not being Satoshi.

Ileca 11y ago

The perfect proof: a guy whose blog is titled _Dr._ Craig Wright and has a huge picture of his ugly face as a banner (look at that "about" section > pretty hard to fix those pictures more than two seconds) can't be a guy who used a pseudo for years and created something that would give the fame he seeks. Psychology > cryptography.

roywiggins 11y ago
The thing that convinced me of his insincerity is that his website has right-click "protection." And it alert()s if you press ctrl-C in another hamfisted attempt at "copy protection". What genuine computer expert does that, let alone in 2016? Especially one who has thought seriously about cryptography.

jay_kyburz 11y ago

This whole thing is like some 90's cyberpunk novel.

nolta 11y ago
More like The Grifters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFBajRQIpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFBajRQIpg

outworlder 11y ago

> On his LinkedIn profile, Wright claimed to hold two Phd’s from Charles Sturt University. The University told Forbes that it never granted Wright those Phd’s. My goodness. At which point does it become possible to press charges? Can one just go around faking that they have degrees?

eng_monkey 11y ago
He also claims to have about 8 master degrees, which is ridiculous by itself. Plus tens of certifications including the 'prestigious' Microsoft ones. Just red flags all over the place. Cached Linkedin profile: https://archive.is/Q66Gl https://archive.is/Q66Gl
- cromulent 11y ago
  According to that link, he is the CEO of a company called DeMorgan, which is listed on that page as "DeMorgan Ltd (Panama)". I wonder if there is any connection to the Panama Papers leak. Time will tell, I guess.

cantrevealname 11y ago

You have a priceless Stradivarius violin. For some unfathomable reason, you stamp your violin with the words "Made in China". Now, no one believes it's a Strad. You take it to an appraiser, and he immediately says it's a fraud. "Strads are not made in China and you're a con man," he says. Why would you stamp "Made in China" on a treasure like that? Maybe you were trying to make it less tempting for thieves, maybe you were trying to hide its value from the tax authorities, maybe you forget to take your meds and were acting irrationally that day. It is a defaced Stradivarius, but still a Stradivarius. It doesn't matter because no one believes you. Craig Wright does some silly things. Now, no matter what he says, ...

RUBwkVjwLsDKgPw 11y ago
Now if only there were a way to mathematically prove it was a Stradivarius...
Sacho 11y ago
Your analogy doesn't really exemplify what actually happened. I think this is a better one: Craig brings a set of high-resolution pictures of a Stradivarius violin to an appraiser. The appraiser(Gavin) goes over them - they all look exactly how a Stradivarius violin would look. However, his colleague(public commentators, in this case) says the only way to really appraise a Strad is to see it in person, and that going through all the trouble of getting high-res pictures when you could just bring it over was pointless. Further, the colleague notes one of the pictures shows a "Made in China" stamp on the Strad, and as such guesses that Craig is trying to con them. If a "Made in China" stamp in itself made an appraiser instantly discard the violin, then they haven't done their job. Similarly, if Craig had provided a strong crypto proof that he was Satoshi(the physical violin, in this scenario), but people disregarded it just because it's him, then we would match your analogy. The analogy still doesn't really match reality - the reason why Gavin was convinced is because he used tools that gave him a high confidence that he wasn't being conned. Still, the way Craig decided to demonstrate that he was Satoshi was long-winded and complicated, for no discernible reason.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bunkydoo 11y ago

People are still asking the question? The story is obvious. He didn't pay his taxes since '08, he needed an excuse, he can't move original coins. End of story. It ain't him

devishard 11y ago

This is ridiculous. If Craig Wright came to me and said he was Satoshi Nakamoto, I'd say, "Sign it with the genesis block's private key or GTFO." This is crypto, bitcoin is built on incontrovertible, mathematical proof. Why the hell would Satoshi do anything else? If it ever comes to light that Craig Wright is trying to use this lie for some monetary advantage, he should be arrested for fraud, which is what this is.

state 11y ago
Right. And Wright and everyone involved must know that. So can anyone explain their motives? I truly can't figure that part out. Edit: alain makes a good point. It's not the 'motives' I want to know. I want the whole story.
- alain94040 11y ago
  Megalomaniacs will keep lying and dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves. You start with a small lie, and just can't stop, you have to keep going. What's surprising though is the lack of judgment from BBC and other major news media. That same person made the same bogus claim 6 months ago. How does that not trigger major red flags? The only story worth writing about here is how he pulled off such a trick. This is like God's existence. There is a simple way for God to tell us He exists, and which religion is right. But He never does. Instead, we must rely on testimony from various people, contradicting each other, and none of it is reproducible. Sure, you can believe... </controversial statement>
  - clarkmoody 11y ago
    > lack of judgment from BBC and other major news media Probably got more clicks / views that any other story today, so good business move to print the story, even if it's totally false. I can't understand Gavin's angle though. It's amazing that he agrees that Wright is Satoshi. I would like to know his motivations in this whole thing. > There is a simple way for God to tell us He exists, and which religion is right. But He never does. Many religions would argue that this is a false statement :-) From the Christian view, the existence of God is self-evident in Creation. And when it comes down to it, I think it takes more faith to believe that life exists because of random chance than because of a creator. But God does not fit into a scientific proof framework whereby you can prove or disprove the existence of God, which is why it boils down to having faith. On the other hand, there is a way for Satoshi to prove his/her/their existence.

iamgopal 11y ago

I don't know much about cryptography, but can his keys be recreated with all the computing power all Bitcoin miners have ?

xseven 11y ago
Bitcoin would be useless if that were possible.
- gruez 11y ago
  To answer the question directly, no.

maverick_iceman 11y ago

I searched for Craig Wright's Linkedin profile. It's not available any more. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine doesn't track Linkedin. Does anyone have a cached copy of his Linkedin profile?

ino 11y ago
It was linked above: https://archive.is/Q66Gl https://archive.is/Q66Gl

atomical 11y ago

After Newsweek named Dorian Nakamoto as the bitcoin creator I remember reading a post on Hacker News where a coffee shop owner's wife remembered seeing the same man use bitcoin to pay for a coffee. Was there any truth to this story?

jonah 11y ago
Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad. Confirmation Bias. Power of suggestion. etc.
riprowan 11y ago
Wouldn't surprise me: as I recall, there was a fund raised for him by some people in the community as a gesture for having been a victim of "Bitcoin blowback."

c1498535 11y ago

Wright is a liar. Sorry M. Satoshi have never been a public person. It is sad, but Satoshi died.

amluto 11y ago

Something else that stinks about all this that I haven't seen commented on: Supposedly, Chris Wright did his ridiculous laptop dance with Gavin Andresen because he didn't want Gavin to leak the signature early. What a load of crap. These are supposedly real cryptographers we're talking about here. If you ask a cryptographer (including, presumably, Satoshi) how they would prove their identity to someone else such that the other person couldn't leak the proof, the answer doesn't involve airplanes and fishy laptops running dubiously authentic Windows programs. The answer is deniable authentication. In the bitcoin case, it's trivial. Satoshi's public key is g^p for some p that only Satoshi knows (using multiplicative notation) on a well-known and hopefully secure elliptic curve. You can use this key for ECDSA, but you can also use it for, drumroll please, Diffie-Hellman. Gavin picks a random scalar b and tells Craig Wright g^b. Chris replies with (g^b)^p [1]. Gavin checks that the result is the same as (g^p)^b. This is deniable: Gavin can trivially make up the transcript of the protocol, so Gavin can't use it to prematurely convince anyone of anything. No airplanes needed. There are plenty of other ways to do this. Pretty much any zero-knowledge proof of knowledge would work. [1] In practice, this should be blinded to avoid cross-protocol attacks and relay attacks. Craig could send something like H("Hi Gavin, I am Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto" || (g^b)^p). A real cryptographer could double-check me here.

vonklaus 11y ago
I am going to take your word for it that this makes sense. However, I think what you may be missing is that it doesn't matter if Wright convinces you or even "any" of the crypto/alt coin community. While mathematical proofs are hard/impossible to fake, you are a subset of people that understand them to the degree that you could employ them here. I have no idea what Wright's end game is, as you are obviously correct: his assertions make no sense. However, if somehow he believed there was value in convincing non-technical members of the public he was Satoshi, I think that is quite possible. I find this truth to be self-evident: A quick witted conman or charismatic person can certainly convince an untrained group that he is X, much easier than even a charismatic person could convince a group how to understand and employ a non-trivial group of mathematical equations. We see this every day. It is totally possible, likely even, that if I can't understand your math- even if it is correct, and even if it is corroborated by others who understand it, I am weighing(or the general idea of "I" as the population) which person is correct based on a standard that is subjective. Possibly: * He said he was Satoshi * He had a crypto key I read about in wired. * Gavin Andreessen appeared to corroborate and I googled him and he is important. So, you are totally correct. I agree with you as even if I don't understand your math, I am sure there is a mathematical way to prove he was Satoshi by using a different set of keys, a signature or other mathematical proof. Unfortunately, he will likely be able to exploit Satoshi's name.

afro88 11y ago

Another theory: he destroyed the genesis block signing key and everything else that could prove he's satoshi in the beginning. Because, well, he didn't want to be linked to Bitcoin in case of unsavory government or corporate interactions. But now Bitcoin has more or less gone mainstream and it's safe for him to reveal his identity, his human is kicking in and he's trying everything he can to claim the fame

known 11y ago

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer is Satoshi :)

ekiara 11y ago

If this is a hoax, I really don't understand what a Craig Wright can materially gain from claiming he is Satoshi. Unless he's playing some sort of long con, where he claims he doesn't want publicity or to profit from it, but then accepts a deal from someone to trade his non-existent genesis block Bitcoins for real hard currency. It'd be like a grifter in Las Vegas claiming he was a Sheikh or a Saudi Prince and refusing all inquiries from public, but then allowing one person to reach him and then swindling that person in a deal. Or maybe the 'real' Satoshi Nakamoto offered Craig Wright a big chunk of bitcoins if he would claim to be Satoshi, so that his true identity would never be revealed.

ageofwant 11y ago
Or maybe he is just taking the piss. As an Australian, I'd applaud that.
mfukar 11y ago
The con is plausible. If I could point to a BBC article claiming I was indeed the founder of Bitcoin, I'd be able to turn some heads that wouldn't otherwise turn..

ajonit 11y ago

Forget any of the crypto stuff, just ask Mr Wright to open another thread here (http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto) or any of the other forums he used to interact or edit one of his own forum posts! This should be trivially easy for the real Satoshi.

dineshp2 11y ago

FYI, Electrum has stated that there was no download of a signature file of Electrum from a UK IP address on April 7 [1]. This in itself does not prove that there was no download of an Electrum signature file to the laptop that Gavin was given. He could have connected using Tor or other services through which the real IP address is hidden, but this could be another reason to suspect there was some kind of MITM hack that Wright used. Also worth mentioning that the laptop was supposedly a factory sealed unit [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/727366861592076288 https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/727366861592076288 [2] http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

keypusher 11y ago

Here's the thing. Craig Wright was probably there, he may have even had the original idea, but it was his coworker/friend David Kleiman that actually implemented it. Or perhaps contracted someone else to implement it, as he was involved in the security industry and may have known players heavy enough to develop such algorithms. Either way, it was Kleiman that had the keys. It has become painfully obvious that Wright does not possess the technical skills to have created Bitcoin, and it also should be very obvious that he does not have the coins. He may have even written or at least contributed to the original paper. He might even be as close to a living "Satoshi Nakamoto" as there is, because David Kleiman died of MRSA in 2013. At this point, I don't think anyone alive has those keys, and Craig is trying to parlay his former role into something that he can actually turn into cash.

dunkelheit 11y ago

I am starting to think that all this is a postmodernist spectacle designed to instill the thought that searching for Satoshi is a lost cause.

jernfrost 11y ago

Man this is turning into something like the Kennedy assassination or Jack the ripper. There will be endless speculations and theories. At some point we will be all so confused that even if the real Satoshi stepped forward we wouldn't be able to believe it.

lordnacho 11y ago

The whole thing seems to be handwaving that only a non technical person could believe. Because when you're not a technical person, you won't have good priors for what constitutes proof. You'll be falling back on the same intuition you use when reading a detective story. Who has motive, who has skill, and so on. None of which take you out of the zone of doubt (say between 10 and 90 percent certain) which is why detective stories are fun. If you're a technical person, you can see how big a deal being able to sign is. For me, it's pretty easy. If someone says they're Satoshi, we ask him to move some BTC from one of his addresses to another. They'll still be in trust (crappy excuse). If you can do that, you're either him or he essentially gave you his identity by giving you the key.

mouzogu 11y ago

Why did he lie? Is he a serial liar trying to take credit for someone else's work or is this an elaborate attempt to get the real SN to reveal himself?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

damian2000 11y ago

A lot of Craig Wright's presence on the Internet - wikipedia, linkedin, etc. is full of ego-inflating hyperbole. To go to these lengths though, for the sake of publicity (or notoriety) is pretty incredible.

msowygqogd 11y ago

Warning: hate speech ahead. Sad fact: a single impostor clown wasted millions of hours of experts' and other smart people's time that could have been spent productively otherwise. Real question: has Gavin got insane or what game is he playing? Speculation: I lost my faith in Gavin in 2014 in Amsterdam where I could observe him joining The Bitcoin Foundation while it was already clear that TBF was full of shit, pedophiles and nonentities focused on self-promotion and earning a quick buck (with few exceptions). So my bet is on Gavin's gullibility. He's got tricked by the con artist to the level that he is going to defend his position against the evidence.

redcalx 11y ago

Another option to consider: Craig is being pressured to make this claim to flush out the real Satoshi.

partycoder 11y ago

What if he presented a fake proof, so people can refute it, and in this way he can finally stop people from accusing him from being Satoshi? What is the benefit of having people know you are Satoshi? probably none. Any money he can make from being recognized as the creator of Bitcoin is not comparable to the money he could have made from early bitcoins.

machinelearning 11y ago

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet. From Gavin's reddit account, "Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1. That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum. I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement). I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post." src:https://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen https://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen

jbrambleDC 11y ago

What are the chances that Gavin is Satoshi, or knows who Satoshi is and wants to corroborate Wright in order to protect Satoshis identity.