Of all the people that have been suggested to be satoshi - csw is the one that comes closest to what I would expect them to be. As sort of tragic character - lots of random academic degrees but no career - probably hard to work with, arrogant, rambling and terrible at public speaking.
The start of Bitcoin with a pseudo academic whitepaper and the grandiosity of the first message encoded rather than just going straight to code like a normal open source project hints at this.
This does not strike me as the comment of somebody who actually read any of Satoshi's writing. From what I've seen, neither "arrogant" nor "rambling" actually applied to him, which Justice Mellor's ruling also reflects upon.
This take requires one to ignore all of the obvious places Wright has stolen the work of others, his blatant attempts to pass off forgeries and screenshots as evidence, etc.
Grandiosity is a big ego without results - Bitcoin got the results!
There's the interesting moment when making a project, where you believe it could be successful. Most stuff doesn't make it, most creative work is internally rewarding at best.
How someone deals, copes with that little flicker of hope that what they're doing might matter is interesting.
If you are talking the real Satoshi, avoiding governments coming after you for aiding money laundering and the like and avoiding gangsters kidnapping you or loved ones for crypto ransom.
The real one has passwords and private keys if they need to claim stuff. He last popped up as Satoshi in 2014 to write "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" when that guy was getting hassled.
Gavin Andresen did for years. Even after a recent walkback statement, people are saying he still does and that his statement isn’t a complete repudiation. I haven’t really kept up with it, so this is just a summary of quick googling.
In which part does he say that? Because I just scan read it and couldn't find where he says he believed in Wright in 2020. He does say he isn't sure anymore which bits of what Wright told him were true or not i.e. he accepts that Wright is untrustworthy.
I have also only scanned, but I agree I didn't see somewhere he outright says he still believes Wright as of the deposition date in 2020.
I think these might be some of the strongest statements people are talking about:
* Page 88 in 590/5:
7 A Sitting here today, I think it's more
8 likely than not that I saw a proper signature, but
9 I -- but I do have some doubt.
* Page 163 in 590/5:
5 A I meant that he bamboozled me about the
6 gobbledygook proof, but I still think it's most
7 likely that he did not bamboozle me during the
8 signing ceremony.
From my viewpoint on the sidelines, these are too irrationally close to endorsing Wright as Satoshi, because they cling to some hazy jetlagged memories in a hotel that looked like a real signature, over every other sign pointing to Wright being a fraud.
I feel for Mr. Andresen -- the signature may have just barely been 50.5% credible to him and he can't arrive at another conclusion on it in isolation. But with all the other evidence, I suppose a lot of people feel like his refusal to clearly denounce Wright may as well be continued support.
Also, according to his blog post at http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi , it took until 2023 for him to state "I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did" (excerpted), yet he still doesn't outright denounce him. Maybe my original statement that Mr. Andresen believed him for years was not quite correct, but if he let his website support Wright for years (2016-2023), it's too close to a continuing endorsement.
(I regret having jumped into this earlier with such a strong statement, when I didn't really know.)
Yes some really did. Craig Wright was pretty good at faking it as long as you didn't get to close.
What kept me (and I suspect the majority) of tech people from it was his failure/refusal to use Satoshi's keys. IMHO if Satoshi were still alive, it's extremely unlikely that he would have lost those keys.
He was backed for quite a while by Canadian businessman Calvin Ayre, who runs Coingeek which used to go on about Craig being Satoshi. They apparently fell out in Sept 23 with Ayre calling him a moron. Some of that story here https://www.ft.com/content/83dc246e-99ca-4af3-bd07-a815fdafa...
Not a tech guy I guess but one of the main backers.
What I don't get is why he is so intent on claiming it. Didn't he mine and doesn't he still own a million Bitcoin? Doesn't he have something better to do being one of the richest people in the world? What is the point of wealth if you're still going to be a miserable attention seeker?
28 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 72.3 ms ] threadThe start of Bitcoin with a pseudo academic whitepaper and the grandiosity of the first message encoded rather than just going straight to code like a normal open source project hints at this.
This current moment of intense cultural fact-free ressentiment around anything tech-related is getting exhausting. How much longer until it ebbs?
There's the interesting moment when making a project, where you believe it could be successful. Most stuff doesn't make it, most creative work is internally rewarding at best.
How someone deals, copes with that little flicker of hope that what they're doing might matter is interesting.
The real one has passwords and private keys if they need to claim stuff. He last popped up as Satoshi in 2014 to write "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" when that guy was getting hassled.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/590/5/kleiman-v... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/590/6/kleiman-v...
I think these might be some of the strongest statements people are talking about:
* Page 88 in 590/5:
* Page 163 in 590/5: From my viewpoint on the sidelines, these are too irrationally close to endorsing Wright as Satoshi, because they cling to some hazy jetlagged memories in a hotel that looked like a real signature, over every other sign pointing to Wright being a fraud.I feel for Mr. Andresen -- the signature may have just barely been 50.5% credible to him and he can't arrive at another conclusion on it in isolation. But with all the other evidence, I suppose a lot of people feel like his refusal to clearly denounce Wright may as well be continued support.
Also, according to his blog post at http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi , it took until 2023 for him to state "I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did" (excerpted), yet he still doesn't outright denounce him. Maybe my original statement that Mr. Andresen believed him for years was not quite correct, but if he let his website support Wright for years (2016-2023), it's too close to a continuing endorsement.
(I regret having jumped into this earlier with such a strong statement, when I didn't really know.)
What kept me (and I suspect the majority) of tech people from it was his failure/refusal to use Satoshi's keys. IMHO if Satoshi were still alive, it's extremely unlikely that he would have lost those keys.
Not a tech guy I guess but one of the main backers.
After following this obvious fraud for nearly a decade, it's so, so satisfying to see him so thoroughly destroyed.
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40416629
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it
Incredible the amount of detail the judgement goes into in documenting how big a fraud Craig Wright is.