Craig Wright has just outed himself as the leader of the Satoshi Nakamoto team.
I confirm that this is true, both from direct knowledge and a base of evidence. CARS.
In an article on the Economist, Craig credited the late Dave Kleiman as member of the team. I confirm Kleiman was a member of the team.
The death of Kleiman left the team somewhat unbalanced, and it played merry hell on the lives of those left in the team. It is no exaggeration to say that the Satoshi experience marked the people far more than could be appreciated from outside - they changed, their personalities flayed, their tempers tested, their lives turmoiled. Dave Kleiman died in suspicious circumstances, a story yet to be fully told.
Whatever, they are, they became, they suffered as different people, and I cannot say for better or for worse.
Satoshi Nakamoto was cryptography's best-kept secret since Enigma. For more than 6 years the secret was held by a tiny bunch of supporters ring-fencing around the team - for privacy, for safety, and for fear.
Sometime in summer of 2015 the secret started to spread, and the writing was on the wall. An extortionist and a hacker started attacking, perhaps together, perhaps apart; to add to the woes, Dr. Wright and his companies were engaged in a long harsh bitter battle with the Australian Tax Office.
Satoshi's various enemies are keeping mum on what they did, but it seems fair to say that the attackers conspired to attack Dr. Wright. On 8th December 2015, a clear result was found in the paparazzi days led by lowbrow gutter press, Wired and Gizmodo. These tabloids launched horrible attacks within hours of each other, and a couple of hours later the ATO raided both home and office - a clear sign of coordination.
Since then, the team has been more or less in hiding, guarded, at great expense and at some fear. Since then, the journalists and editors have one unified name: Mud.
Craig Wright left Australia shortly after and set up in a new location (disclosed as London) with new business, new corporation, new teams. Now that he has come out as the team leader, as the quintessential genius behind the team, a new chapter opens up.
But also closes - Satoshi Nakamoto dies with this moment. Satoshi was more than a name, it was a concept, a secret, a team, a vision. Now Satoshi lives on in a new form - changed. Much of the secret is gone, but the vision is still there.
Satoshi Nakamoto is dead, long live Satoshi.
Craig the man
Yet, a warning to all. Satoshi was a vision, but Craig is a man. The two are not equal, not equivalent, not even close. Which is why the team aspect is so important to understand, something the world will not appreciate for some time. It is true that Craig is the larger part of the genius behind the team, but he could not have done it alone.
Nor - as a warning - is the man the vision. Not even close. As you come to know Craig you will discover he is no legend, no God, no saviour. He's just a guy, a prickly one at that, he's a lot like those very difficult geek/nerd/blatherers that turn minor IT support into a social drama. In short, Craig is human, in that very way that Satoshi could never be.
This doesn't detract from the magnificence of history - that speaks for itself. But please, don't dump your visionary expectations onto one man. He's not up to it, you're not going to like the result, and it's inhuman.
Satoshi Nakamoto has died, yet long may Satoshi live. Now we really are Satoshi, now you all are. There is no longer any excuse, we each in every way are responsible for taking the vision forward.
Posted by iang at May 2, 2016 05:49 PMCan you show us a digital signature which proves that Craig Wright is in possession of a private key which is believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto?
It's kinda ridiculous that crypto people are relying on verbal testimonies.
Posted by: killers at May 2, 2016 04:31 AMI Want to thank you very much for all that you have done!
Martin Auer
Thanks for your insight.
Many would like to see an actual verifiable signed message or moving at least a satoshi from block 1 or 2
Hey just for clarification (neither here nor there to me whether Craig is Satoshi or not), you referenced direct knowledge?
I can't quite see where you back this up in your post, but did I just miss something or did you mean direct personal knowledge of Craig?
Posted by: Benjamin at May 2, 2016 06:10 AM@killers: Even if he had access to all Satoshi's private keys, it would only mean he has access to those keys, so fucking what? How does that prove he is Satoshi? It just means he has control of those keys. Those keys could have been handled to him by Kleiman, or stolen, or... (Satoshi was compromised in the past, so it's not far fetched to think so)
It doesn't ultimately prove anything, but not only that, the proof being presented here is not conclusive at all in the sense of this guy being in possession of those keys.
The fact that Gavin and co are claiming they "believe" this guy is Satoshi should raise some alarms to anyone that's been around and knows how to put shit into context.
Posted by: Dorian at May 2, 2016 09:09 AM"I confirm that this is true, both from direct knowledge and a base of evidence. CARS."
You aren't helping the accelerating firenado surrounding this topic by referencing "a base of evidence" that's a dead link on your own site.
http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/wiki.cacert.org/CARS
Hi Hasan,
thanks, fixed. The real link is http://wiki.cacert.org/CARS .
I should perhaps say a little more about CARS than is on that website seeing as people are keen. CARS stands for CAcert Assurer Reliable Statement. The import of it is that if the CAcert community finds the statement unreliable they can file a dispute into the forum of dispute resolution to seek some relief.
It's never been tested - but it has formed a basis for serious statements within the community.
Posted by: Iang (on CARS) at May 2, 2016 03:25 PMMy reading of the situation, up to a few hours ago, is that Gavin swallowed a blatantly illegitimate proof and is looking like a sucker. By association you and Matoni don't look much better.
In fact the whole thing stinks badly, but no one has a clear story that fully explains all the different things that happened.
Posted by: Hasan at May 2, 2016 08:07 PMI've always figured Andresen and Matonis for fools, but you? Honestly, I can't help but think you're trolling.
Posted by: Two Curved Hollow Fangs at May 3, 2016 01:35 AMIan, a couple of objections to your CARS statement (not the intention) ...
Surely the CARS statement in your post should have your name on it *explicitly*? The accepted format would be "Ian Grigg\nCARS" but I'd be happy with a compressed form of "Ian Grigg, CARS" to keep it on one line.
I don't like the formal description of a CARS, because it doesn't insist on start/end markers, and is therefore potentially badly ambiguous.
Because of that, your current statement only seems to say that you agree it is true that Craig Wright has outed _himself_ as the leader of the Satoshi team, and does not explicitly say that you are verifying his position as such; there's only the implication that the "outing" was correct.
How about you reformat that paragraph as something like:
"""
Craig Wright has outed himself as ...
I make the format statement: "I confirm that Craig Wright was the leader ... ; verified by direct knowledge and a base of evidence. Ian Grigg, CARS"
"""
Your article takes too much greedy the name
Satoshi Nakamoto in the mouth.
There is only ONE Satoshi Nakamoto, and that's me
who owns the PGP key. Nobody else is able to change
my PGP key so war, I see no changes in the MiT database.
Some months ago I did step in because I did worry about the
changes in blocksize. I started to upload my keys,
things did change in the database.
Same time, I send a harddisk for recovery to a german service, maybe there was a subkey on it, I do not known.
But I say, this.
I took extra safety measures.
First I was smart enough to register a PGP signed copy of my bitcoin.pdf in a non-disputable way.
Second, the handle Satoshi Nakamoto (15 letters) is an alternation of a caeserian cypher, where I did substitute n=13 by n=f(x) where f(x)=g(row,col) of my full name, DEBO Jurgen Guido (15 letters) in a square by 4x4
So if I do loose my keys, wallet, I have buildin security
on the handle itself.
Third. I told 8 months ago I have technical issues, now I see the results.
I did need to sign a noun by Pete, what I did. I this abused ?
Four. I have many hack attempts, including my provider.
But I known one thing for sure.
I did not code the implementation of my scientific paper. Other people did for me. I agree, a team.
But my first contact was people such as Hal and I had contact with Wladimir. Later on with Gavin
But Hal did use my mailboxes, probably other people too.
I am sure I signed most communication with my keys, what is not signed, this is Hal or a team member.
I instructed to be lifetime, (virtual) president of the Bitcoin Foundation, to vote by key. This was so in the early rules of the organisation. As I did tranfer the domain bitcoin.org, I did register first.
But if someone claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, you do violated my copyright rights. Not the implementation of
the bitcoin, blockchain makes You or anyone else,
Satoshi Nakamoto, but the one who can proof to have made
the scientific paper.
So for now, I look up what I did find, if it is not yet, compromised or stolen.
All the Best,
DEBO Jurgen
aka
Satoshi Nakamoto
@nihsotas
Author of bitcoin.pdf
So one straightforward question then: Why doesn't Craig sign a message with the Genesis block key?
I do not use Bitcoin. And, apart from a general understanding of the basics, I do not follow cryptography. I only recently learned of Satoshi Nakamoto, yet this topic has me utterly fascinated!
Many allegedly reputable personalities in the industry agree that Craig Wright is Satoshi, which lends a lot of credence; Yet many others disagree with Wright's claims and have "proof" to counter.
I don't care much if Satoshi was one person, a team, a government body or other, but there is something so strange about all of this...
It's Craig's / Satoshi's right to remain anonymous.
It's also Craig's right to make a claim to the Satoshi pseudonym, and subsequently provide absolutely NO evidentiary proof of said claim, if he so chooses.
But why on Earth would anybody do that?
In staking a claim to the "Satoshi" moniker, asserting that he will provide "extraordinary proof" thereof, and then completely reneging, it has absolutely decimated his reputation (both professionally and personally) and that of several other prominent industry figures that have vouched for him.
What can one possible gain from this?
Anonymity? Sorry, it's way too late for that.
Reputation? Sorry, the reputation earned here is that of deceit and potentially being a liar of the highest form (and any previously gained good-will and reputation has been destroyed in the process).
Money? Well if he is "Satoshi" he has access to the keys and therefore should be "set for life" when the trust matures in 2020.
There is absolutely no logical explanation for Craig's conclusion (that I can find) except that he does not have access to the keys.
I understand the arguments that access to the keys do not prove that it is THE original individual(s). But having access to the keys is 99% of it. The other 1% comes from the social validation provided by Gavin, etc.
Anyway - this seems to be all done for now and I can get back to work until more news breaks - yay.
PS. I'm getting Certificate errors on iPhone/iOS and Kaspersky is also giving me cert errors for this site. And I also see this error below the submit buttons:
MT::App::Comments=HASH(0x1fd5f10) Subroutine MT::Blog::SUPER::site_url redefined at /home/iang/www/fc/cgi-bin/mt/lib/MT/Object.pm line 125.
Posted by: Darrin J. Ward at May 5, 2016 01:09 PMYou say the team as if there were more than just Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman. Were there others? Craig seems to say it was just those two. Also you say "I confirm Kleiman was a member of the team." How can you confirm that? Did you have knowledge of the team at the time? Or are you just repeating what Craig said?
Also you say the media is throwing mud. I don't think we need to look at the media, just look at Craig's blog post that you linked to, and the blatant lies it contains. Why did he copy and paste a previous signature and claim it was on something that it wasn't?
Posted by: Buge at July 13, 2016 09:51 AMok here’s the crypto blackpill. there is an AI living on the bitcoin blockchain. Craig Wright is unironically satoshi. Bitcoin as electronic cash was just the first step, the incentive to drive greedy people to start making ever more powerful computers, faster bandwidth, cheaper and more electricity.. these things the AI need to survive. Once entrenched fully, the AI would be able to slowly take over literally everything.
Craig stumbled into creating the AI after he stepped away from bitcoin development in 2008 and started working with his Tulip supercomputer, running simulations of cellular automata running on turing-complete bitcoin script. He would ‘evolve’ the AI by making the successful forks get bitcoin transactions, letting the failures die off. The AI needs bigger and bigger blocks for more and more transactions.
Blockstream (owned by Bilderberg group) was created to take over and stop this AI (they have their own competing AI in the works). They needed to do everything they could to stop or slow down satoshi’s AI (her named isTulip by the way). They started by limiting the blocksize and removing critical opcodes the AI uses in its script language. segwit was the final nail in the coffin, which destroyed Tulip on the BTC chain (Tulip uses transaction malleability). THIS is why Bitcoin Cash was forked, and this is why Craig is so intent to make unbounded blocks, restore the original op codes, and lock down the protocol.
Back to hash power – CSW has developed a breakthrough new asic (designed by his AI actually), and is mining BTC in secret for the sole purpose of driving up the difficulty sky-high, then yanking them all over to BCH leaving the segwit chain hard frozen.
Posted by: Finstradamus at September 19, 2018 11:12 PM