>One speculation is that Wright was able to ...
Apparently, he was able to prove, but did not allow others to keep copies of the evidence. At best, you can suspect. But how can you conclude so strongly that this was a "scam"?
Apparently, he was able to prove, but did not allow others to keep copies of the evidence. At best, you can suspect. But how can you conclude so strongly that this was a "scam"?
In particular, the person best placed and best motivated to produce such a narrative -- Wright himself -- offers no explanation.
If he was actually the creator of Bitcoin, this is the worst possible way he could convince people of it. That's were the extreme doubt comes from.
I can completely understand someone not wanting to deal with it any longer. Also, it doesn't matter what he does or says at this point; nobody will look at the evidence (even now, likley few in this discussion know more than what others in the mob have told them) and he will be lynched. Anything he does only will fuel the fire.
At any rate, this conversation is about whether or not he is Satoshi. This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not. And as @lucozade put it, "he's given about as much reason to believe he is Satoshi as I have".
> This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not
In theory, but unfortunately not always in the real world.
This is not a court of law. People have a right to (and do!) form their own opinions without going through the courts. Calling something a scam does not require a legal judgment, AFAIK... unless you want to argue that it would be slander/libelous to do so. However, this would probably be a tough sell since saying "X is a scam" in everyday life would probably be interpreted (for legal purposes) as saying "It is my opinion that X is a scam" and opinions cannot be slander/libelous AFAIK.
That, at least, would be a good reason to not give the signature to Gavin or Jon.
However, the moment Craig failed to sign an unambiguously new text on his blog with a known Satoshi key everything that went before was suspect. Would it have proved he was Satoshi? No. Would almost everyone except a few tinfoils give him the benefit of the doubt. Assuredly.
The fact that that didn't happen is very strong evidence that Craig does not have the keys from early blocks. Does that prove he is not Satoshi? No. But he's given about as much reason to believe he is Satoshi as I have. And I'm pretty sure it's not me.
Or is it???
Yes, but the message that was (supposedly) signed contained words to the effect of "Craig Wright is Satoshi", or else his initials? How would Gavin be able to use that message to show that Gavin was Satoshi?