Gavin Andresen was the one who initially supported him and he was communicating with him, and we know that he later worked with Roger Ver aka MemoryDealers.
Wired and Gizmodo started spreading this bs propaganda circus back in 2015, but few years later they created new article claiming he might be a hoaxer.

I also believe there is someone else behind the scenes who was and still is helping him to keep up with this show for the masses.

This was one of the first posts about him in Bitcointalk forum:
You, Me, and BTC: YOUR Liberty + Bitcoin Podcast! E103: PGP Key or GTFO

Thanks Greg, but you sure know why I'd assume it was hard to trick Gavin. We already had some discussions about this topic. I never read about that contract you are talking about and it is absolute news to me and also to many others interested in this topic. I guess you found it somewhere in the file jungle of this trial. Mind to direct link to the source file?

Thank you gmaxwell for providing the contract information. Reading what you and dkbit98 said about the relationship between the three wild cat I think it could be the plan between them (Gavin, Ver and Craig) just to play with the mind of crypto currency enthusiast maybe they will succeed. Besides, Ver once make a statement this year that "I cant believe some people still think BTC is Bitcoin"  so it loom like a group plan and the last time I check Gavin is the only one I know that could have the knowledge to be yhe brain of Craig.

There is a possibility that either CSW or one of his associates were able to hack/take over Satoshi's email accounts and use the info to fool Gavin by referencing the messages the two exchanged in the past.

Not sure if CSW would write the message 'Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.' to @Theymos if he wanted everybody to believe that Satoshi is back. More possible that CSW (or one of his associates) bought the access to Satoshis emails later.




Which mailbox are you talking about? You mean the gmx account? So you say at least one of the BCF board members had full access to Satoshis gmx mailbox, just by naming him a board member and he posted emails from this account on their internal board communication?




I would think that Gavin is much smarter. I assume, he knows that claiming random addresses could be a problem and I assume he knows how signing a message with a Bitcoin private key works. If he was the brain behind this plot, he would choose different 'attack vectors'
I would be amazed if Gavin was part of the gang from the start. He must've had strong reasons to risk his image and position in the Bitcoin world.

No, that would clearly mean another change of ownership, so they could have bought it, hacked it, socially-engineered customer support or used other means to get ahold of the email account.

OTOH, wouldn't Satoshi periodically delete emails anyway if he was really privacy-conscious?

It seems the intention is to bog people down in legal fees rather than having any legitimate claims. I have not seen him try to enforce patent rights, which I see he has got some US ones issued. I see he is trolling people with the copyright claims already on the White Paper. Some of this stuff does not seem novel.

Here are some method patent Craig now owns:
US1071533
Claim 1: A computer implemented method of encrypting data at an electronic device (S), the electronic device being associated with a key device (C), wherein the electronic device is further associated with a first asymmetric cryptography pair having a first electronic device private key (V1S) and a first electronic device public key (P1S), and the key device is associated with a second asymmetric cryptography pair having a first key device private key (V1C) and a first key device public key (P1C); the method comprising:
determining, at the electronic device, a deterministic key (DK);
receiving, at the electronic device, the first key device public key (P1C) from the key device;
determining, at the electronic device, a second electronic device private key (V2S) based on at least the first electronic device private key (V1S) and the deterministic key (DK), and
determining, at the electronic device, a second key device public key (P2C) based on at least the first key device public key (P1C) and the deterministic key (DK);
determining a secret based on at least the second electronic device private key (V2S) and the second key device public key (P2C);
encrypting the data at the electronic device using the determined secret or an encryption key that is based on the determined secret; and
sending information indicative of the deterministic key (DK) to the key device where the information can be stored.

US10659223
Claim 1:A computer-implemented method of controlling access to a resource, the method comprising:
    splitting a verification element into a plurality of shares;
    determining a common secret at two or more nodes in a network; and
    using the common secret to transmit at least one share of the verification element between the two or more nodes, wherein: the common secret is determined by first (C) and second (S) nodes in the network, wherein the first node (C) is associated with a first asymmetric cryptography pair having a first node master private key (V1C) and a first node master public key (P1C), and the second node (S) is associated with a second asymmetric cryptography pair having a second node master private key (V1S) and a second node master public key (P1S); and wherein the method further comprises: determining a first node second private key (V2C) based on at least the first node master private key (V1C) and a Generator Value (GV); determining a second node second public key (P2S) based on at least the second node master public key (P1S) and the Generator Value (GV); and determining the common secret (CS) based on the first node second private key (V2C) and the second node second public key (P2S), wherein the second node (S) has the same common secret (S) based on a first node second public key (P2S) and a second node second private key (V2S), wherein: the first node second public key (P2C) is based on at least the first node master public key (P1C) and the Generator Value (GV); and the second node second private key (V2S) is based on at least the second node master private key (V1S) and the Generator Value (GV).

US10579779
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method of verifying integrity of a computer software for installation using a distributed hash table and a peer-to-peer distributed ledger, the method comprising:
    determining a metadata (M) associated with a transaction record stored on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger;
    determining an indication of an entry stored on the distributed hash table from the metadata (M);
    determining a third hash value (H3) based on the computer software;
    determining a fourth hash value (H4) from the entry on the distributed hash table;
    comparing the third hash value (H3) and the fourth hash value (H4); and
    verifying the integrity of the computer software based on the comparing of the third hash value (H3) and the fourth hash value (H4).

I am not sure on Copyrights, but in the case of Patents it is actually quite common to get them "thrown out". The simplest way probably, in this case, is to show prior art existed on any of the said subject matter. Likewise, something that is already in the public domain could also invalidate a patent. He has gotten quite a few granted.

The players behind the scenes will be a question mark, and Gavin Andresen is the key to opening the blinds. but we all know that nothing can penetrate how the information was leaked. Regardless of who is trying to be the brains of bad ideas have just been tricked to big impact until now.
and to clarify all of these scams, Wright and Andresen had to open their voices in public. and we also need to know for sure.

Interesting read. Why didn't you use your original account to post this?

Sorry dude. Your bs will stay here forever