Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbgaxyz | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

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?

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.

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

No he has appeared in person and confirmed the story.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com