Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgrahamc | Hacker News Reader

Don't need any more proof that transferring BTC from a block that Satoshi controlled. Don't need reams of explanation or blog posts or anything else.

View on HN

And why not now? Or indeed, why not a month ago?

If the goal is to convince people that he is Satoshi, and he really was Satoshi, this would never be his best choice of action. Given that goal, what conceivable reason is there to delay this simple action?

The most probable conclusion is pretty simple. I'll cop to hedging a bit with "probable", but in the event that this claim turns out to be true, it would be fair to ask questions about why on Earth this was considered to be the correct way to prove the claim.

Maybe, just maybe, he's enjoying dragging it out and watching all these doubters post their reasons why it's not him. Imagining this whole story a year from now, with Craig Wright incontrovertibly proved to be Satoshi, the way he's done it would give him maximum PR value.

Or he could be a lying douchebag who's assuming that he will be associated with Satoshi in the general public consciousness after the media gets bored of the story and expects to profit from that.

> Maybe, just maybe, he's enjoying dragging it out and watching all these doubters post their reasons why it's not him.

I have to admit, it would be awesome to see this as an elaborate way to get send a "fuck you" to all the people that accused him of fraud initially, when he claims we was trying to just lay low and let it pass. It would be the most elaborate trolling ever carried out.

"he's enjoying dragging it out and watching all these doubters post their reasons why it's not him."

Then, as Satoshi, who is the founder of BitCoin and owner of quite a lot of them, who must be quite intelligent to be able to have created the system in the first place, he must also be quite colossally stupid and bereft of self-interest to not realize that proving the founder of BitCoin deliberately generated that much drama is likely to significantly negatively affect his substantial BitCoin holding by making a lot of people reassess the stability of BitCoin if the creator is suddenly proved to be this drama-prone.

We must also hypothesize a very rapid flip between someone who has successfully hidden the identity for this many years, the very definition of Minimum Drama, suddenly flipping to Maximum Drama.

It's not an impossible theory... which I mean, it's not impossible, and should it prove to be true, I won't apologize for this analysis because I think it'll still hold.... but it's an awfully precise one.

True, but possession of private keys does not prove identity. Having Gavin confirm that this is indeed the person he spoke with thoughout the years is also important. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next. Craig has certainly left us with a cliffhanger...

He really hasn't. His ordinary proof has already been debunked, repeatedly and in detail, so now he's spinning a bunch of bullshit to convince the foolishly credulous they should trust him in spite of the plain facts of the matter.

I'm not sure. Gavin has high reputation, and he has not yet revoked his support for Craig's claim. Maybe there will come irrefutable cryptographic proof around the next days. Or maybe not.

AAMOF, in yesterdays post, he talked about crypto, but he did not claim it to be proof for anything. Today he is announcing proof for the next days. We'll see...

I'm not sure why Andresen's reputation has anything to do with the presence or absence of irrefutable cryptographic proof.

In the event, such proof is not merely absent but has been shown to be falsified, which is both dispositive of bad faith on Wright's part, and totally in keeping with his own reputation. He's a con man. This is a con. What more do you need, a couple stone tablets and a mountaintop?

Do we have any explanation on why Gavin hasn't revoked his post yet? He seems to be tweeting supportive articles as well. Are we still going with the "account was hacked" theory?

>>Are we still going with the "account was hacked" theory?

No he has appeared in person and confirmed the story.

People who get scammed are usually reluctant to admit it, even to themselves. I expect he'll come around in the next few days if and when there's no public proof forthcoming from Wright.

No, but possession is strong evidence that all scammers have avoided because they're fake. The parent's requirement is both obvious and simple for the real Satoshi. It should therefore be the minimum standard. More so given the layers and layers of bullshit that crop up around this particular claim.

Even if it doesn't prove identity, it's certainly significant. The ability to move around the genesis blocks is huge... whether or not he is the original Satoshi.

In his BBC interview he seemed to avoid directly saying that he was Satoshi or agreeing with the reporter that he was claiming to be him. When asked if he was Satoshi he skirted the issue by saying that he was one of the original people. So I'm not at all sure there is a single individual called Satoshi. We certainly know from his writing that Craig Wright is not the one who came up with the significant ideas behind bitcoin. He's not smart enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com