<<  >> (p.2)
    Author Topic: Evidence that Craig Wright might be Satoshi after all  (Read 2411 times)

    • jbreher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3094
    Merit: 1716


    lose: unfind ... loose: untight


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 06:08:50 PM
     #21
    Quote from: thejaytiesto on June 20, 2016, 04:02:50 PM
    This is 0 evidence.
    Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.

    True, there is no conclusive evidence. For any of the above.
    Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to claim that Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.
    However, it could be plausible to claim that Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more plausible candidates.

    I'd lol if future evidence shows CSW to be Satoshi.
    I'd lol also if it turned out that CSW was the exploiter of the DAO's recursive withdrawal. <- wild speculation, apropos of nothing.
    Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

    I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

  • jbreher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3094
    Merit: 1716


    lose: unfind ... loose: untight


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 06:11:20 PM
     #22
    Quote from: funkenstein on June 20, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
    Lol!!  

    What a moron.

    Thanks for reasons number 2001-2051 that nobody will believe this guy is Satoshi.  

    In what way does filing Bitcoin-related patents provide reasons that CSW is not Satoshi? There may be a moron in this post, but it does not seem to be CSW.
    Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

    I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

  • jbreher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3094
    Merit: 1716


    lose: unfind ... loose: untight


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
     #23
    Quote from: helloeverybody on June 20, 2016, 04:47:52 PM
    hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.

    Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.
    Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

    I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

  • jbreher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3094
    Merit: 1716


    lose: unfind ... loose: untight


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 06:17:18 PM
     #24
    Quote from: franky1 on June 20, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
    have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.

    Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.
    Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

    I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

  • tmfp
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1932
    Merit: 1737


    "Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 06:57:44 PM
     #25
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
    Quote from: helloeverybody on June 20, 2016, 04:47:52 PM
    hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.

    Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.

    That's a bit harsh.
    See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia  Cheesy )
    Quote
    In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

    Especially when the "evidence" had been provided by someone who would directly benefit from it proving his assertion, it failing to do that and then being effectively withdrawn in what could be described as a "huff".
    Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence

  • franky1
    Legendary
    *
    Online Online

    Activity: 4690
    Merit: 5199



    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 07:03:47 PM
     #26
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 06:17:18 PM
    Quote from: franky1 on June 20, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
    have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.

    Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.

    ill just leave this here
    MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B

    wait.. i must be satoshi too
    I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
    Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both researched opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at

  • jbreher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3094
    Merit: 1716


    lose: unfind ... loose: untight


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 07:37:13 PM
     #27
    Quote from: tmfp on June 20, 2016, 06:57:44 PM
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
    Quote from: helloeverybody on June 20, 2016, 04:47:52 PM
    hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.

    Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.

    That's a bit harsh.
    See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia  Cheesy )

    Not harsh at all. And fully consistent with your sig (I don't know what Copi is). Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. Period.

    You can call it evidence supporting a _conclusion_ of Not-A. I'd even agree with you. But it ain't proof.
    Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

    I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

  • jbreher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3094
    Merit: 1716


    lose: unfind ... loose: untight


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 07:38:53 PM
     #28
    Quote from: franky1 on June 20, 2016, 07:03:47 PM
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 06:17:18 PM
    Quote from: franky1 on June 20, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
    have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.

    Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.

    ill just leave this here
    MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B

    wait.. i must be satoshi too

    Show me where either Andresen or Matonis have indicated that the 'proof' they were given was the replay trickery to which you refer.

    Oh, you mean you can't find any such claim? Interesting.
    Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

    I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

  • tmfp
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1932
    Merit: 1737


    "Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 08:36:33 PM
     #29
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 07:37:13 PM
    Quote from: tmfp on June 20, 2016, 06:57:44 PM
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
    Quote from: helloeverybody on June 20, 2016, 04:47:52 PM
    hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.

    Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof.

    That's a bit harsh.
    See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia  Cheesy )

    Not harsh at all. And fully consistent with your sig (I don't know what Copi is). Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. Period.

    You can call it evidence supporting a _conclusion_ of Not-A. I'd even agree with you. But it ain't proof.


    Copi's an Irving not an it, wrote "Introduction to Logic".
    My view, fwiw, is that by failure to provide proof for A (that CW=SN), in this case Not-A is assumed as default as it was before the claim was made, as A only ever existed in the claim, subsequently unproven, made by the potentially benefiting party.
    One logical? step further would be that by failure of proof for A, the likelihood of Not-A is increased.
    But yeah, I give you that CW≠SN isn't 100% proven, although neither is (insert any name)≠SN.
    Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence

  • Minor Miner
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2758
    Merit: 1044


    Be A Digital Miner


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
     #30
    So, why could he not access the address and send the bitcoin dust back to gavin as he said he would from Satoshi's account?

    Don't you think a more like scenario is that Craig is in SERIOUS legal jeopardy for what appears to be a tax scam and wanted to be "outed" as satohsi so he could justify his right to patent and then sell all the patents to that company to get a lot of money fast (and save his bacon)?
    Free now...

  • jbreher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3094
    Merit: 1716


    lose: unfind ... loose: untight


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 09:32:01 PM
     #31
    Quote from: Minor Miner on June 20, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
    So, why could he not access the address and send the bitcoin dust back to gavin as he said he would from Satoshi's account?

    While we know that he _did_not_, we do not know whether he _could_not_. Though admittedly that would be a plausible conclusion.

    Quote
    Don't you think a more like scenario is that Craig is in SERIOUS legal jeopardy for what appears to be a tax scam and wanted to be "outed" as satohsi so he could justify his right to patent and then sell all the patents to that company to get a lot of money fast (and save his bacon)?

    I don't think enough facts are in evidence to call that scenario more likely. There is insufficient data to quantify probabilities. Again, I'll grant you plausible.
    Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

    I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

  • Minor Miner
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2758
    Merit: 1044


    Be A Digital Miner


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 09:34:41 PM
     #32
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 09:32:01 PM
    Quote from: Minor Miner on June 20, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
    So, why could he not access the address and send the bitcoin dust back to gavin as he said he would from Satoshi's account?

    While we know that he _did_not_, we do not know whether he _could_not_. Though admittedly that would be a plausible conclusion.

    Quote
    Don't you think a more like scenario is that Craig is in SERIOUS legal jeopardy for what appears to be a tax scam and wanted to be "outed" as satohsi so he could justify his right to patent and then sell all the patents to that company to get a lot of money fast (and save his bacon)?

    I don't think enough facts are in evidence to call that scenario more likely. There is insufficient data to quantify probabilities. Again, I'll grant you plausible.

    Let's ask William of Ockham what he thinks on the matter.....

    Yup, Craig ain't satoshi.      QED.   End of scam attempt.
    Free now...

  • franky1
    Legendary
    *
    Online Online

    Activity: 4690
    Merit: 5199



    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 09:47:55 PM
     #33
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 07:38:53 PM
    Quote from: franky1 on June 20, 2016, 07:03:47 PM
    Quote from: jbreher on June 20, 2016, 06:17:18 PM
    Quote from: franky1 on June 20, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
    have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.

    Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK.

    ill just leave this here
    MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B

    wait.. i must be satoshi too

    Show me where either Andresen or Matonis have indicated that the 'proof' they were given was the replay trickery to which you refer.

    Oh, you mean you can't find any such claim? Interesting.
    search "gavin matonis wright block 9" to see lots of people discussing how wright showed them a signature that is validated by the address held in block 9

    then look at the address that can verify the MEUCIQDBK... sig.. wait for it             wait for it                here comes the revelation..
    Bam
    you have finally caught up with the whole situation
    I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
    Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both researched opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at

  • hikedoon
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 143
    Merit: 100


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 10:29:26 PM
     #34
    Quote from: jbreher on June 19, 2016, 08:05:08 AM
    Hmm. You may have had more activity if you entitled your post "Evidence of Wright maybe being Satoshi" or some such.

    <I found it a compelling read...>

     I found it a compelling read too but it left me thinking he was a conman that tried to bite of more than he could chew.
     It took me 5 minutes to learn how to verify my address by signing a message and I'm clueless with computers.
     So it seems extremely fishy to me that Wright made such a palaver of providing proof.
     And this "trust holding the bitcoins" business seems like it's straight out of a crappy b movie plot.
         
     

     
     
     

  • practicaldreamer
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 770
    Merit: 500


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 10:29:45 PM
     #35
    OK - 1) who is this Calvin guy in Antigua, and whats his role ?   2) who are the trustees ?  3) where does Ross Ulbricht come into it exactly ?



    What a fantastic film this is going to make - one day, when we know the ending.

    How incredibly moving the story of Dave Kleiman, his relationship to Craig Wright, and his ultimate demise (shortly before the price took off).

    You couldn't make this shit up.

  • Hide_ip112
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 196
    Merit: 100


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 10:32:39 PM
     #36
    I don't care who exactly created the bitcoin, however I want that after the owner/creator of the bitcoin is already present and claiming patent rights bitcoin. Bitcoin became stable and better yet, because the bitcoin has some constraints in several improvement and its system

  • chek2fire
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3430
    Merit: 1142


    Intergalactic Conciliator


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 10:33:06 PM
     #37
    not again with this scammer!
    http://www.bitcoin-gr.org
    4411 804B 0181 F444 ADBD 01D4 0664 00E4 37E7 228E

  • countryfree
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3080
    Merit: 1047

    Your country may be your worst enemy


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 10:55:29 PM
     #38
    OK, still no conclusive evidence but it's clear M. Wright is not your average scammer. He's hugely familiar with everything BTC. If he's not Satoshi, he has spent months learning about it, so much that he convince plenty others that he's the man.
    I used to be a citizen and a taxpayer. Those days are long gone.

  • chek2fire
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3430
    Merit: 1142


    Intergalactic Conciliator


    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 10:58:36 PM
     #39
    Quote from: countryfree on June 20, 2016, 10:55:29 PM
    OK, still no conclusive evidence but it's clear M. Wright is not your average scammer. He's hugely familiar with everything BTC. If he's not Satoshi, he has spent months learning about it, so much that he convince plenty others that he's the man.

    lol hahahahaha ahhahahjhahahahahahahahahahahah  Grin you dont really believe that this guy has nothing to do with bitcoin? He is scammer Cheesy
    http://www.bitcoin-gr.org
    4411 804B 0181 F444 ADBD 01D4 0664 00E4 37E7 228E

  • franky1
    Legendary
    *
    Online Online

    Activity: 4690
    Merit: 5199



    View Profile
    June 20, 2016, 11:06:42 PM
     #40
    Quote from: countryfree on June 20, 2016, 10:55:29 PM
    OK, still no conclusive evidence but it's clear M. Wright is not your average scammer. He's hugely familiar with everything BTC. If he's not Satoshi, he has spent months learning about it, so much that he convince plenty others that he's the man.

    if i was to say that i could give you tens of millions from the government. and then hundreds of millions from private investors. wouldnt you spend more than a passing glance at all the satoshi quotes and email leaks that are publicly available
    I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
    Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both researched opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
    Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
      Print  
Page 1
Viewing Page: 2

IRLBTC™ © 2025 IRLBTC.com