<pedantry>
Well, but he's not really "cryptographically provable" con man. It's just that, if he were not a con man, his innocence would have been cryptographically provable. Right?
</pedantry>
Maybe not just pedantry ... there were serious discussions on a previous thread that he's really Satoshi but is intentionally deflecting so that a close inspection makes it seem as if he's not. Doesn't seem likely to me, though.
Serious discussions with priors that could lead to anyone claiming to be anyone and ending up being someone else on closer inspection?
May I have a link for that?
Sure there's a prior for that, as 0 and 1 are not probabilities.
He said something was X, we have cryptographic proof it's Y.
I'm not familiar with all the details, but don't you just have an absence of proof that it's X?
That's exactly what makes this cool! Since we know the signed hash is a chunk from the Blockchain that is most assuredly not Sartre, we also know with cryptographic certainty that Wright does not possess a copy of Sartre with that hash. That would be what's known as a preimage attack -- given the hash from the Blockchain, find another SHA256 file with that hash. Wright could not even generate a malicious Sartre document with that property, without having executed a much larger crypto hack than Bitcoin itself.
here[1] is the text that he claims he signed. I wasn't able to tweak it in any reasonable way to make it match the supposed hash. You can give it a go if you want.