4 ms·

Not that I think Craig Wright has presented any evidence that he is Satoshi, but if the anonymous creator of Truecrypt can be an international drug lord and wea

by tcoppi 10y ago

Not that I think Craig Wright has presented any evidence that he is Satoshi, but if the anonymous creator of Truecrypt can be an international drug lord and weapons dealer, why can't the anonymous creator of a cryptocurrency be a serial fraud and tax evader?

manuelflara 10y ago
Well, when people say Craig Wright is a fraud they mean "he's not the real Satoshi". So obviously, he can't be a fraud in this context and also be the creator of Bitcoin. People really aren't caring at all wether he's been evading taxes or not, as that's something for the Australian government to worry about.
- tcoppi 10y ago
  I meant a fraud more in the sense of the fake doctorates and his specious resume.
- splintercell 10y ago
  In fact having committed fraud and evaded Tax would make you more qualified to be Satoshi.
- jjuel 10y ago
  Turns out a tax evader is a fraud. That is a conman. So it does actually turn out to be relevant here. If he lies about other things (taxes, degrees, etc.) why wouldn't he lie about this? If someone was really blackmailing him to come out because he is the real Satoshi (as he said in the BBC video) then wouldn't they want him to show true undeniable proof?
wcummings 10y ago
If anything, being a tax evader makes him more likely to be Satoshi, in my mind.
- curun1r 10y ago
  Yes, especially if he's been accused of being Satoshi previously and doesn't want the world to know that. What better way for the real Satoshi to throw people off his trail than to claim to be Satoshi and offer up proof that you know will eventually be debunked? If your goal is to eventually start spending the large quantity of initially-mined Bitcoins, it seems like the first step would be to ensure that they're never traced back to you, especially if you don't want to pay taxes on the proceeds. And getting crossed off the list of potential Satoshis is a good first step.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gothenburg 10y ago
It's not about that. Paul Le Roux never claimed to be the creator of TrueCrypt, what we have are clues that connect him to working on E4M, then working on SecurStar, porting encryption algorithms from SecurStar to E4M and getting fired due to that. And then a project named TrueCrypt and claiming to be based on E4M started to surface. I am not expecting Le Roux to be the true creator of TrueCrypt but this seems to be a pretty solid link between Le Roux and TrueCrypt. Now about Wright, he can't even write a proper blog post with proper working scripts about cryptography...
- tcoppi 10y ago
  As already stated I don't believe Wright's claims at all, and I find the whole thing pretty silly as we already have quite a few viable candidates/teams for Satoshi in the public record. I simply stated an interesting observation linking two related technologies and circumstances surrounding them :)

by tcoppi 10y ago

manuelflara 10y ago

Well, when people say Craig Wright is a fraud they mean "he's not the real Satoshi". So obviously, he can't be a fraud in this context and also be the creator of Bitcoin. People really aren't caring at all wether he's been evading taxes or not, as that's something for the Australian government to worry about.

tcoppi 10y ago
I meant a fraud more in the sense of the fake doctorates and his specious resume.
splintercell 10y ago
In fact having committed fraud and evaded Tax would make you more qualified to be Satoshi.
jjuel 10y ago
Turns out a tax evader is a fraud. That is a conman. So it does actually turn out to be relevant here. If he lies about other things (taxes, degrees, etc.) why wouldn't he lie about this? If someone was really blackmailing him to come out because he is the real Satoshi (as he said in the BBC video) then wouldn't they want him to show true undeniable proof?

wcummings 10y ago

If anything, being a tax evader makes him more likely to be Satoshi, in my mind.

curun1r 10y ago
Yes, especially if he's been accused of being Satoshi previously and doesn't want the world to know that. What better way for the real Satoshi to throw people off his trail than to claim to be Satoshi and offer up proof that you know will eventually be debunked? If your goal is to eventually start spending the large quantity of initially-mined Bitcoins, it seems like the first step would be to ensure that they're never traced back to you, especially if you don't want to pay taxes on the proceeds. And getting crossed off the list of potential Satoshis is a good first step.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gothenburg 10y ago

It's not about that. Paul Le Roux never claimed to be the creator of TrueCrypt, what we have are clues that connect him to working on E4M, then working on SecurStar, porting encryption algorithms from SecurStar to E4M and getting fired due to that. And then a project named TrueCrypt and claiming to be based on E4M started to surface. I am not expecting Le Roux to be the true creator of TrueCrypt but this seems to be a pretty solid link between Le Roux and TrueCrypt. Now about Wright, he can't even write a proper blog post with proper working scripts about cryptography...

tcoppi 10y ago
As already stated I don't believe Wright's claims at all, and I find the whole thing pretty silly as we already have quite a few viable candidates/teams for Satoshi in the public record. I simply stated an interesting observation linking two related technologies and circumstances surrounding them :)