The cryptographically provable con man
dankaminsky.com
dankaminsky.com
http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-...
May I have a link for that?
Craig is Satoshi, and people were on the verge of discovering that. So, smart as he is, he decides to reveal he is Satoshi, but in the worst way possible, so people thinks he is a fraud, and hence making sure he is off the radar for good and ever.
Bitcoin was exceptional in a lot of ways -- most importantly, getting traction! -- decentralization, the ramping up, etc.
If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today?
I do not believe, for an instant, that Wright is Satoshi. But given the history, it seems plausible that Wright might have once been in the know as to Satoshi's true identity. Should he know the real Satoshi(s) to now be absent, it would likely embolden him to undertake this scam...
One reason he might disclaim Dorian is that he simply wanted the poor man left alone. The claim that Dorian was the creator of Bitcoin was not only completely ridiculous on its face, but also a huge intrusion in the life of a clueless old man.
Wright has brought a bunch of ridicule upon himself, but it's his own fault.
His @gmx.com email account had been compromised so it's very possible the poster gained access just by issuing a password reset. Some old CMS systems also issue generated passwords sent to your email upon registration, so the password could have been obtained that way as well.
Further reading: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0
(the date used was the day of the year that eo6102 made private gold ownership unlawful, and 1975-- when it became lawful again)
If I were Satoshi, I really wouldn't like to make a precedence to come forward whenever some clown claims he's Satoshi. As jere mentioned, the first time (Dorian case) Satoshi probably felt pity for an old man.
This was easily spoofed via SMTP, and has been discussed as such
What if he knows the real Satoshi and that the real Satoshi wouldn't out him? For example he knows that the real Satoshi is deceased and/or won't come forward.
https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-dav...
There are only a handful of people in the world who can reliably design crypto protocols and have them not fail disastrously in practice. It's not something you do correctly at first try, so you can limit your search to academics who have published research on digital cash systems. You can count those people on one hand (and rule out most).
Dave Kleiman isn't one of them, he only wrote stuff on forensics (hard drive wiping and stuff).
Kleiman has a plausible background for this. He was an obsessive self-learner, collecting professional certifications like baseball cards. He was familiar with academic writing but not an academic, familiar with programming but not a professional developer. He was active on many security and crpytography oriented mailing lists, including the metzdowd list where bitcoin was introduced.
Yes, it is pretty amazing, if Kleiman is the guy, that his first and only shot at introducing a cryptosystem had no major flaws. But that part would be amazing from just about anyone.
But that part would be amazing from just about anyone.
Thing is, you don't have to assume it if you posit that Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, or Hal Finney - or some combination of them - wrote it. They were working on a very closely related concept, Bit gold. Szabo's Bit gold paper may be the academic counterpart to Satoshi's technical white paper directed at the crypto mailing list community.
It's also plausible, but more farfetched, that a senior cryptographer like David Chaum could have done it. This would still be impressive, since they would have had to have done the groundwork in secret (unlike if it's Szabo and friends, in which case it would be in public in the form of the Bit Gold stuff). But someone like Kleiman - no.