As I said over my head.
I dont believe he’s satoshi.
He got caught with faked proofs, now that in itself isn’t evidence.
Until someone signs a message from an address with satoshi coins I will not believe them.
As I said over my head.
That would be important evidence, but still not proof. People put a lot of store on this and on CW’s very public ‘failures’ wrt this, but not on trying to understand Satoshi from what we know about him, or the others we know were involved which include CW.
Why would CW go to the trouble of failing in very public ways to prove he is Satoshi - at least three times now? Why would anyone do that, knowing they would fail? If you are to conclude that CW is not Satoshi, I think you need a credible explanation of that.
I’ve not seen anyone explain that adequately compared to perhaps, ensuring that people who think he is Satoshi will be easily dismissed. Same with his periodic high profile claims to be Satoshi: these lead to very public dismissal and re-upping of his high profile failures to prove. If you think of it like that, all those actions are consistent.
I’m not aware of any explanation that fits what I understand to be the accepted facts (going right back to the beginning here, including supposed doxing, tax disputes etc) which makes more sense than the explanation that CW doesn’t want people to believe he’s Satoshi.
If you are thinking, oh but then why does he keep claiming he is? Then you’ve missed my point and are in fact evidence that his actions are consistent with him not wanting people to believe he is Satoshi, and I claim my reward
BTW I’m no fan of CW, he blocked me on Twitter for challenging him on other things. I’m just looking at what I know and think he’s still the most likely candidate, along with his late collaborator.
That does not mean anything as I know of some people who continually fail at proving something they are not, but still persist in trying to prove they are that thing they are not. Narcissists will do this.
Other actual mental disorders will do this.
Obviously I am not saying all Narcissists will do this or many do, just some do to the extent of CW. Others may just try and prove they are better than they are, but never succeed in convincing all. (eg expert in xyz field)
Failing at proving he is Satoshi 3 times does not give any credence to CW trying to pretend he is not Satoshi. There is so much more reason to believe he is trying to prove he is Satoshi because of some deep seated need to be recognised as Satoshi, be it because of some mental condition or feeling inadequate, or desire to be financially rich beyond his dreams, or because he wished to control the direction of BTC.
What you say does not prove that statement.
I’ve presented a valid hypothesis which you disagree with, but which you dismiss with absolute certainty (quotes above). Certainty which to me is not supported by evidence for the possibilities which you prefer.
I’m well aware there are other explanations, but I think the ones you put forward are not evidenced and so are speculative assertions, and not strong contenders for me.
CW is quite likely more narcissistic than the average person (a degree of narcissism is pretty universal), but it’s quite a leap to suggest he’s so damaged that he’s repeatedly trashing his reputation by trying to do something he knows will fail, and not learning from that.
It’s possible, just look at Trump. But I see the payback for Trump - he’s fuelled by cheering crowds who help him maintain the false world he’s built in his own mind. So long as people keep telling him he’s great he will continue. CW doesn’t appear to be to be of a similar type. But who knows, I really don’t have evidence either way.
BSV will provide the proof if he is satoshi or not. If BSV succeeds it is obviously thanks to CWS and his company nchain. Nchain and Craig hold more than 2000 patents and more to come. To be honest. I think they are going to absorb the whole market in a few years. You may call me delusional and I really don’t care. I follow Craig and the BSV community and they are original and genuine in their thought and path.
You are delusional, and it requires great mental gymnastics to ignore the mountains of bullshit.
Satoshi designed bitcoin script so he/she/they know it is not Turing-complete since it is impossible to force it into an infinite loop (or, in fact, into any loop) by design, while all Turing Machines can do that: case closed.
Wright stated the opposite once, probably on a whim, probably to sound deep/profound/radical, and has been trying to prove the impossible ever since, going even as far as plagiarizing a paper from the '60s that wasn’t even relevant because it described a language not analogous to bitcoin script.
Let’s also not forget that incident when he tried to present a digital signature as evidence but the forgot to make sure the timestamp checked out like some noob.
Based on just these two it’s impossible Wright is Satoshi unless he has early dementia.
I think you’ve missed the logic in my argument, which is that Wright is the most likely candidate if you accept that:
a) Satoshi would not want to be identified
b) Wright’s actions are consistent with trying to discredit the idea that he is Satoshi
People tend to take his claims to be Satoshi at face value even though they generally do not trust him to speak honestly.
If you believe he’s sincere in trying to prove he’s Satoshi, then given how easily his claims are debunked, I suggest that need an explanation for why he persists with these very public failures, which is more credible than b).
That goes a few steps too far.
Firstly, he never needed to discredit that idea in the first place. There came and went several other “he must be Satoshi” claims about random people, all forgotten pretty much immediately. The best discrediting would’ve been a simple “I wish” or “nah” comment.
Secondly, and correct me if I’m wrong, his “bitcoin is Turing-complete” b.s. goes back before anybody suggested (or was likely to ever suggest) he was Satoshi. Either he was already preparing his potential campaign to discredit the (at that point completely unlikely) “discovery” he was Satoshi or your premise is plain false.
If your premise is true, however, then why haven’t we seen other, similarly cunning, steps from him recently? His antics have been pretty boring as of late, nothing to suggest the caliber of mastermind your theory suggests.
I don’t think you’ve put forward a more credible theory or challenge to my reasoning. Anyone can make claims and say “correct me if I’m wrong”, so they carry little weight. Feel free to check them yourself, but I’m not sure the timing is important either way. All together, I don’t see reason to change my opinion.
That’s only if you forget which one of us had the burden of proof in the first place.
I’m not trying to prove one way or the other. I don’t have a belief I’m trying to assert, my contribution here is to give an explanation of why, given the information I’ve seen over the years is that it is more likely than not he is Satoshi.
I’ve no interest either way. You may be entirely correct in saying that he’s not.
All I’m saying is, one of the two needs way more unlikely things to check out than the other. Or, to go about it from another direction, when your two explanations require a) a genius mastermind and b) a manipulative crook, the likelihood for the latter to be the correct one is overwhelmingly higher.
You don’t have to be a genius (regardless, we assume Satoshi is a very smart cookie do we not?).
If you were Satoshi (pretty smart accepted?), and very very keen to hide your identity (no dispute there?), throwing chaff in the way Wright has been doing just requires a bit of showmanship, arrogance and motive. All of which Wright evidently has.
No more is needed for my suggestion to be more credible than the idea he is stupid, or has some other failing which leads him to claim to be Satoshi, and repeatedly try and fail to prove the claim to be Satoshi in ways that would so obviously and easily be debunked.
How people find that credible is what I don’t understand, and nobody has bothered to try and explain.
That suggests to me a wish to hold a belief that isn’t easily supported. My explanation of that is that people dislike Wright and so find it difficult to think of him being Satoshi, somebody who they might prefer to idealise.
Anyway my challenge to you is to explain why it’s credible to believe he isn’t Satoshi. I’m not looking for evidence here as to whether he is or isn’t, just the reasoning that explains why you think he behaves the way he does if he is not Satoshi. That’s either absent so far on this topic, or where it has been attempted seems less credible to me.
Your theory breaks down the moment you suggest Wright ever needed to prove he wasn’t Satoshi. Without that motive this theater that you suggest may be happening is meaningless.
He behaves the way he does to manipulate noobs into buying BSV. The whole reason he claimed to be satoshi was so he and Calvin could say BSV is the “real bitcoin.” I mean it’s one thing if he was like I am satoshi give me a medal. It’s quite another thing to be like I am satoshi so invest in this new coin I made. That to me seems like a reasonable explanation of his behavior (if he is not satoshi)… to shill his shitcoin.
If he was Satoshi, his actions are - and have proven to be - a very successful way to convince people he’s not Satoshi.
That you think he didn’t have to do this until people started suspecting he was makes little sense. Satoshi went to great care right from the beginning to hide his identity, and this can be seen as consistent with that.
This only holds if his claims were credible, and had a chance of not being exposed when the opposite of true. All have so far been quickly exposed as failures, and so amount to self ridicule.
Your hypothesis requires us to believe he made such easily ridiculed claims believing they would add to his credibility. Again, evidence is the opposite. Hardly anyone believes him to be Satoshi because the claims were so flimsy and immediately exposed.
I prefer reasoning as in this article. I posted that a couple week ago in the ‘What’s up today’-topic. The article is focused on what Satoshi left behind online (forum posts, emails, commits, …). Its Conclusion: it is very likely Satoshi is from London. And I remember the first time I heard (years ago) about Bitcoin and its origins. It was then also said Satoshi was probably someone or a group from London.
Also from the Article, concerning the likelihood that Satoshi is from Australia:
Unless Satoshi is a vampire, this one is not even remotely possible and you don’t need any more data to prove that. The next time you are having trouble convincing someone that Craig Wright isn’t Satoshi Nakamoto, feel free to send them the chart above.
I like some mystery to solve, but otherwise it doesn’t matter to me who Satoshi is.
most people on these forums are high IQ so it might be hard to understand how it makes any sense for him to put on this song and dance if not for self ridicule. But don’t underestimate how dumb some people are. He and Calvin have profited massively from people that truly believe BSV is the “real bitcoin” designed by satoshi himself. I mean if you can sell something to the 1% of people that are somehow smart enough to be in crypto but otherwise a complete hammer… that’s alot of the market still!