Is Craig Wright Satoshi?

Having been named as Mr Nakamoto once, unconvincingly, Mr Wright has a steep hill to climb to convince the world that he is indeed bitcoin’s founder. Evaluating his claim involves the application of a multi-step paternity test. First comes the factual evidence: can Mr Wright prove that he is in possession of cryptographic keys that only Mr Nakamoto should have? Second, does he have convincing explanations for the holes in the story which came to light when he was first outed in December? Third, does he possess the technical knowledge which would have enabled him to develop a system as complex and clever as bitcoin? And fourth, to what extent does he fit the image that people have of Mr Nakamoto; in particular, what do those software developers who have collaborated online with the founder of bitcoin think of Mr Wright’s claim?

Here is a very good Economist article, I say p = 0.415.  There is some legitimate evidence and some serious endorsers, but the whole thing still doesn’t smell right to me.  You?

Update from my iPad: uh-oh,


"what do those software developers who have collaborated online with the founder of bitcoin think of Mr Wright’s claim?"

This could be the basis of an effective test. Find someone who has had a private correspondence with Satoshi, and let him ask Wright about their discussion.

Well Bitcoin guru Gavin Andersen is it says he, Wright, is the real McCoy. Apparently though Wright only has Satoshi's public key, not the private key, so this might be a hoax. - is the best technical analysis of the claim.

I read the Wired/Gizmodo stuff back in December and found it persuasive. My mind is closed. p=0.005.

Here's the link to a short piece explaining monetary policy implications of blockchain, which helped me understand its purpose and relevance. This may be elementary to an expert like Cowen, but for the rest of us, it's not.

Unfortunately this has been essentially debunked before being posted here. The Economist didn't link to Patrick McKenzie's -- and this is hard to explain to non-technical people, but that's enough to prove with extremely high certainty this guy isn't for real. It isn't just some data anyone can find if they know where to look, like the economist says. It's an obviously wrong thing chosen very specifically to confound people who cannot run the cryptographic tests themselves. There would be no reason this guy would even have that data around unless he was intent on perpetrating a lie.

Wright uses technical flimflam when talking with journalists.

Wright uses legalistic flimflam with talking with technologists.

The consistent pattern is flimflam.

Weird that he pronounces "moniker" as "monkier".

Smells totally fishy to me.
"I won't accept a nobel prize"

Well, I will. See, it proves I am Satoshi Whatever.


Maybe you should not try to sleep and argue at the same time. You won't be able to do either decently.

Your scepticism is well placed. The 'demonstration' appears to be a slickly executed con. Here is a link to a good summary:

From The Economist's article:

"If so, he is trying to do the opposite of what Sartre argued in his Nobel rejection speech: “The writer must therefore refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honourable circumstances, as in the present case.”
Seems to be a strong point against Wright's case. The original Satoshi sounds philosophically closer to the faction that doesn't want Bitcoin to grow too fast.

Curious why 0.415 and not 0.4 or 0.49.

Echoing leppa (above): why so precise a figure?

Normally, people use false precision to fake others out. TC is really messing with our brainz here. It's not Satoshi.

At this point, I'm going to say he is, mainly because everyone seems so determined to believe he isn't.

No matter who the real Satoshi is, nobody is going to believe it. Too many people have too much (emotionally) invested in him being a mysterious coding demi-god.

I too believe Craig Wright is Satoshi . He was certainly an early bitcoin miner (2009). Jon Matonis said he signed and verified a message using the private key from block #1

There is no need to have a third-party vouch for his signature. He can just publish his signed message to the world and everything would be taken care of.

I am Satoshi Nakamura.

I am just going to go with the least likely person being Satoshi- Mulp.

On the contrary , there are many who believe Mulp is never Satishfied.

As past wrok has shown, the case the Mr Wright is pulling a con is more probable than Mr is Satoshi Nakamoto.

The best informed case, by far, paints Nick Szabo as the most likely candidate

The linguistics statistics are pretty compelling.

From the Usual Suspects:

"Who is Keyser Soze? He is supposed to be Turkish. Some say his father was German. Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew. That was his power. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that, poof. He's gone."

Who knows, could be just a CIA agent ;)

I'm Spartacus.

No, I am Spartacus.

bitcoin gives a chance, to otherwise oblivious people, to protect their capital from their politicians, what's wrong with that? compare a graph of holding your savings in the 'bolivar' and 'bitcoin' (whatever that is) for example. Have you ever saved a peso? where does your saved peso go? you won't be taught that in government schools where they preach "profit" as an evil, while they legislate their raises thru force.

Lots of people save pesos, they are called Mexicans, Uruguayans, Argentines, etc. And seriously... Bolivars? You forgot to mention the Zimbabwean Dollar and the Continental Dollar. For most people, Bitcoin is a solution in need of a problem.

"For most people, Bitcoin is a solution in need of a problem"

Operative word is most.

OK, drug dealers, smugglers, terrorists, tax dodgers and people who live in Venezuela and can't just get black market dollars have an use for bitcoin. Anyone else?

This story is a perfect example of why I stopped reading the MSM for actual informational purposes (versus entertainment) about 10 years ago.

I have been following Bitcoin since 2011. I was out shopping when my phone pinged that the BBC, and all the other 'reputable' news sources, had PROVED Wright was Satoshi. It took me under 10 minutes to find information from people who actually know something about bitcoin – as opposed to journalists – to realise that the story was factually incorrect.

Wright may indeed be Satoshi. But the story does not PROVE that he is. Far, far from it.
Wright has a history of fraud. The onus is on him to prove he is not a fraud. All he has to do is transfer 1 Satoshi of Satoshi's original Bitcoin to a new wallet to prove he is Satoshi. Instead he does a weird convoluted hack (that has quickly unravelled).

Now, considering how long this story had been in the works at those reputable news sources, why were knowledgeable amateurs able to completely debunk the story within a few minutes? This is the pattern that I see time and time again across what seems like all subjects. It's one of the reasons why I trust websites like Marginal Revolution, Slate star Codex et cetera.

Mainstream media journalists rail against below the line commentators. But I will take the expert wisdom over their ill informed generalism any day.

No, he is almost certainly not Satoshi. Were he Satoshi and wanted to prove to the public who he was, he would not need anyone to vouch for him. He could use his own invention to prove beyond all reasonable doubt to everyone in the world that he is Satoshi. He could either move coins known to be held by Satoshi or he could sign and post a unique, never before signed message to the public using one of Satoshi's known keys. If he did either of those two things, then he either is Satoshi or he has Satoshi's private keys. Satoshi, acting as himself, used these means to prove to the public that he was who he said he was while using his pseudonym. There is absolutely no reason why he should refuse to do so now.

What happened in a hotel lobby in London is most likely an elaborate hoax. There are many means through which the demonstration could have been falsified through either low- or high-tech methods. Even a very technically competent person such as Gavin Andresen may not be able to detect that sort of hoax. I would view it as similar to going to a magic show, except in this case the audience didn't know that they were being tricked.

Comments for this post are closed