Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36213580 <comment><USER2> Given his history as a prolific liar, I find his post to be utter bullshit. Note how he's still lying about things he was caught at: "When the rumours began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false". NO - it was _established_ (with confirmation from the schools in question) that he lied about having a PhD from Charles Stuart U. and he definitely does not possess 8 masters degrees. Not to mention other lies about having super computers and partnership with SGI to build more with fake reference letter (all clarified by company as false), etc.

Now, because he knows he can't successfully claim Satoshi's identity and in light of possible charges based on ongoing police investigation (fraudulent use of tax credits), he wants to dramatically disappear. I hope the authorities have his passport(s). His thirst for fame is _unreal_.

<comment><USER3> First search for narcissist checklist got me

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-legacy-distorted- lo...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-legacy-distorted- love/201412/is-your-partner-narcissist-here-are-50-ways-tell)

If you toss out the ones about romantic relationships, Craig hits on most of them.

<comment><USER4> I'm in the Wright is a liar/con-artist camp but the items on that list apply to most "normal" people (including myself).

<comment><USER5> Any psychologist will tell you that most people can't objectively evaluate such criteria for themselves. This is something that is best left to professionals who have experience with people that DEFINITELY have such disorders.

I'm also in the non-believer camp, nor can I fathom why "Satoshi" would initially choose to remain anonymous but then decide to come out. What purpose does that serve?

Whatever the case, all of this drama is really, really bad news for bitcoin as a currency in the future.

<comment><USER6> Why bad news? Is basically irrelevant, now that he has turned out to not be Satoshi. The only way it would be relevant is if one of those early coins does indeed move, because that would drastically affect the number of coins on the market.

<comment><USER7> While some will disagree, appearances _are_ important. Wright was [probably] trying to claim to be Satoshi to use Satoshi's bitcoins as collateral for something else.

Bitcoin already has a reputation for being used in scams and illegal dealings. This con man being able to convince some major news organizations and bitcoin celebrities doesn't help improve that image.

<comment><USER8> That demonstrates a flaw of non-technological news organisations, not Bitcoin. The two Bitcoin celebrities had been widely discredited from Bitcoin ages ago. Gavin has not committed in a year, started his own fork of Bitcoin with 3% adoption. Jon has disappeared after starting a bankrupt for-profit "foundation".

<comment><USER9> I haven't been following the parade of Bitcoin celebrities very closely, but what ever happened with the Digital Entertainment Network Executive VP [1] guy, Brock Pierce?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Okay seriously, is anyone contacting the authorities to see if this man is still alive? I do not know who to contact or what his location is. His "blog" post sounds like a suicide note - I've had the misfortune of reading others, and there are telltale signs - and it doesn't appear that anyone is taking steps to see if he's okay.

Maybe he is a liar, maybe he's Satoshi, who gives a shit at this point when the jaded comments make it sound like we've been invaded by 4chan.

<comment><USER11> I understand this, but there's also the dimension where his actions, whether true or not, are also damaging other people (Gavin's reputation is on the line).

We'd all be more worried for him if he wasn't so blatantly causing harm to other people's reputation.

Obviously he could suffer from severe mental illness, which combines elements of harming others and self harm, but as a society I think we should worry more about the person being harmed (ex. Gavin).

<comment><USER11> @bwilliams, yep, and that's why I said "I understand this". We should help him. But we should also help, if not more, Gavin and the others who's reputation is on the line without much fault of their own.

<comment><USER12> Why not handle the the thing that seems to be pretty pressing right now instead? Reputation can wait until someone can confirm one thing or another. It's just kind of calloused otherwise and I'm sure someone whose reputation on the line would agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot."

This guys is so full of crap its amusing

<comment><USER14> Lol, he doesn't have the courage to do the one thing that will remove any doubt about him, but has enough courage to announce to the public that he's a coward and a broken man and likely a fraud on a planetary scale...

At this point his mental health is clearly not good. If he really believes what he writes, he has delusions on a clinical scale which should be addressed before he does something he might regret. If he doesn't believe it, he is a consummate fraudster, a danger to the community, and should probably go to jail.

<comment><USER15> He doesn't have the courage to make use of basic bitcoin functionality... oh the humanity!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My (non-provable) theory is that Satoshi is not a person but a team, now defunct, that was tasked with developing a crypto-currency. They are probably more scientists/mathematicians/economists than they are software developers, which would explain the very sound but not exactly elegant initial code.

It would also explain the silence - the project is over, the team is probably bound to secrecy because this stuff is classified.

The only time Satoshi spoke out (edit: and we don't even know that it was authentic, see discussion below) was to help the poor bloke who was mistaken to be Satoshi and his life was being ruined, and that was probably a collective decision by the former team members, it was the right thing to do.

This is a different case - Satoshi speaking out wouldn't help in this case, Craig sounds like someone in need of help from a professional psychiatrist or psychologist, [http://www.drcraigwright.net/](http://www.drcraigwright.net/) almost sounds like a suicide note. I feel sorry and worried for the bloke.

<comment><USER17> > The only time Satoshi spoke out was to help the poor bloke who was mistaken > to be Satoshi

no, the forum account was hacked to make that claim. It wasn't by Satoshi.

<comment><USER16> > no, the forum account was hacked to make that claim. It wasn't by Satoshi.

Are you sure, I wasn't aware of that?

Edit: the "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" was on March 7 2014, the account hack on Sept 8 of same year. It doesn't prove it conclusively. In fact the hack may well have been done deliberately, for a (kind of) plausible deniability (i.e. now you can't tell whether it was the real "Satoshi" and thus there was no provable breach of secrecy).

<comment><USER18> And the forum account hadn't posted for five years before that. There's certainly no conclusive evidence that it _wasn 't_ Satoshi, but there's also no conclusive evidence that it _was_ , and strong reason to believe the account could have gotten hacked because it did indeed get hacked a few months later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Dude's a liar. After everything else he has done this is the simplest step which requires no extra burden on him. He has already claimed to be SN, the only reason not to follow through is because he cannot and could never have. Therefore he is just another pretender to the throne.

<comment><USER20> And let us not forget that the doctorate degree that he's bragging about so much that he put it in his domain is completely made up, as discovered by Forbes when they asked the college about it.

(Warning: Adblock dection) [http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/12/11/bitcoi...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/12/11/bitcoin- creator-satoshi-craig-wright-lies-hoax/#7cd66c053903)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why is there even an argument? It is not rocket science to produce a signed message with a key, the reference software can do this trivially. Until that is provided I don't see why anyone should entertain the possibility. Anything else is just theatrics.

</comment><comment><USER22> Can we just stop giving this con man more attention?

<comment><USER23> I know right. It was obvious from the start that he's full of shit, how are people still arguing about this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> To those of you who have never known a conman or someone with borderline personality disorder, this behavior might seem odd. To me, it's like looking at a picture of a dog and going "oh that's a dog!"

<comment><USER3> The best indicator for me was, instead of providing something right away, saying you will provide it "soon," and then waiting for the inevitable excuse when it doesn't happen.

<comment><USER24> Not just the excuse, but making themselves into a martyr SPECIFICALLY as the excuse. This type of person can never simply say they can't do something, they have to be larger than life even when failing to do something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's hard for me to believe that he's backing out of his promise to provide stronger evidence because the pressure is too much, because the pressure of being known as a fraud is a lot worse than being known as an inventor.

</comment><comment><USER26> Source: [http://www.drcraigwright.net/](http://www.drcraigwright.net/)

Asides the conversation, the whole source code of this website is: <img src="homepage.jpg">

This man is really not caring.

EDIT: site is updated now, with proper html+css coding.

<comment><USER27> Some of the website is still in archive.org, but will probably disappear soon. Any snapshots before May have already disappeared. Might help for folks to download the old posts before they disappear from the web entirely.

Frustratingly, it appears the main screenshots from the Sartre post (showing his original 'proof') have already been removed from archive.org.

<comment><USER28> I entertained the possibility that he would not be able to weather what would come next from his claim, so I managed to save the 7 screenshots for the _Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance_ blog post.

You can fetch them from here: [http://imgur.com/a/ppGI9](http://imgur.com/a/ppGI9)

<comment><USER27> Brilliant, thanks for this!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I hope the actual Satoshi is alive somewhere, and just for fun moves a different original coin, as if to say "I am alive, and Wright is not me".

<comment><USER30> Even better if the coin is moved to a burn address that looks something like 1IWouldAnnounceMyselfThisWayJaNVN2.

Or just use the privkey from the genesis block to sign a message "In the very unlikely event that I ever decide to reveal myself, it will be through a message similar to this one" \-- and then post it anonymously somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The only blamable thing in this story is that the so called mainstream media are not technically knowledgeable enough to "scientifically" check their news sources. Good thing, all the nerds around have exposed the scheme in such a short time, I like this era !!

<comment><USER32> And the New York Times story about this _still_ insists that his initial "proof" was genuine!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The Nick Szabo hypothesis is plausible, see:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Nick_Szabo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Nick_Szabo)

> _In December 2013, a blogger named Skye Grey linked Nick Szabo to the > bitcoin 's whitepaper using a stylometric analysis._

All that, and the NS/NS: Nakamoto Satoshi / Nick Szabo. :)

I assign a low probability to the proposition that Nakamoto is other than Szabo.

Suppose Nakamoto isn't Szabo. Why the various similarities? They could be deliberate: Nakamoto isn't Szabo but another researcher who not only runs with the same ideas, but mimics the elements of writing, duplicates the timezone of activity and so on. Even chooses the letters N and S for his pseudonym to tantalize people with the hypothesis that he is Szabo. The problem under this hypothesized scenario is that Szabo would almost certainly have cried foul: "Hey, world, this Bitcoin Nakamoto dude is ripping off my research without crediting me at all!" Secondly, why would someone who wants to create a digital currency system based on Szabo's ideas go to the trouble of creating all these irrelevant similarities.

On the other hand, there is the why: why wouldn't someone who obviously knows a lot about security an privacy issues not put more effort into building plausible deniability? Maybe Szabo simply doesn't care about having anything near air-tight claim that he isn't Nakamoto, and so just let himself be sloppy. Perhaps he actually wants there to be all that circumstantial evidence, and is biding his time until the right moment to admit that he is Nakamoto, at which time with just some small piece of proof, it will be iron- clad to everyone.

</comment><comment><USER34> It is interesting to note that the only Satoshi-existence scenario whose probability improves with each passing day, is the scenario in which Satoshi / the "Satoshis" is/are dead (unless you think Bitcoin was the first great invention of hyper-advanced AI, of course).

Figuring out whether anyone actually knows who Satoshi is/was becomes more interesting than waiting for the person(s) to show up, because it will never happen in a death scenario. One thing we have gained from this bizarre circus is a sign that neither Gavin nor Jon know who Satoshi might be; who's left? Who might know?

<comment><USER35> If Satoshi is dead or not an individual person, then who owns his bitcoin? If Satoshi is dead, then his property would be subject to the probate laws of his home country. Can the bitcoin of a dead person be recovered if they don't make arrangements for it in their will? Or will blocks of bitcoin become inactive over time as their owners die?

<comment><USER36> Bitcoins can only be distributed if you have the private key for it. If satoshi dies and leaves the keys for his heirs, then its just a normal asset. If the keys are gone, then that money is unrecoverable, just like burning cash.

<comment><USER35> So Bitcoin could conceivably be 'burned' faster than new bitcoin can be made. That might be great for a collector's market, but sounds like a bad plan for a useful currency.

<comment><USER37> Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, if a bitcoin is lost forever the remaining bitcoin just increase in value.

<comment><USER38> It is? I thought there was a minimum usable denomination, called a "satoshi", that was something like 0.0000001 BTC (I don't know the actual value). Or is this really just a convention enforced by the current clients that can be easily changed in the future?

<comment><USER30> It would require a hard fork to increase the data storage for the number field from an int64 to an int128, but doing so would be uncontroversial (way more so than the current debate over the block size). It could be programmed to take effect at a certain block # from several years out, by which point almost everyone would be using a version of the software that would support it.

We're not anywhere close to it mattering yet, though; it's several decades out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This whole "controversy" is incredibly boring. The real Satoshi would be able to prove it easily. Prove it, or STFU and we can move on from the who is Satoshi mystery?

<comment><USER6> It's not that boring at all. How did he smoke and mirror two of the best Bitcoin devs on the planet?

At worst, it's an interesting discussion of a con man running into a technical wall.

<comment><USER40> Matonis is not a Bitcoin developer or a person of much technical merit, if that was one of the two you referred to. Good question about Gavin, though.

<comment><USER6> Ah - you're correct, he seems to be an economist. I incorrectly assumed someone so intimately involved w/ Bitcoin for so long must be a cryptographer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> He played the media like a fiddle. They should follow up with some investigative reporting on him.

<comment><USER42> If "playing the media like a fiddle" means "walking away with your tail between your legs, a sad, broken man..." then sure.

<comment><USER43> You don't know if he is a sad, broken man.

There is no evidence to believe the post reflects upon his real emotions, and since the man is untrustworthy[0], the post cannot be taken as evidence about his emotional state.

[0]:Whether he is willfully or maliciously deceptive is irrelevant. Even if he has the best of intentions, his behavior is still untrustworthy.

<comment><USER42> I don't know, but based on the last line I err on the side of caution. People don't react well to world-wide humiliation. I agree that he is completely untrustworthy and can't be relied upon to give an accurate representation of his own mental well-being.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The note is terribly sad. I hope he has people around him to support him.

<comment><USER45> It's weird that he's afraid of proving it but not of being labeled as a con artist. It makes no sense.

<comment><USER46> He's clearly used to being labeled a con-artist for many years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Thought experiment: Suppose Satoshi, whoever it is, is still alive somewhere in the wild. But he doesn't have his original keys (hard-drive failure with no backup, apartment fire with no offsite backup, etc etc).

How would Satoshi prove himself then?

<comment><USER48> He could still have access to his PGP private key, which would be a strong data point. It could be possible that someone stole this key though, so this alone wouldn't completely prove his identity.

If he had the foresight to know he might want to prove his identity at some point in the future, he could have embedded the hash of a message into an early block (using the public keys of coinbase transactions). The message could say something like "Satoshi Nakamoto is <real name>. <salt>". In order to prove his identity, he'd just have to reveal the contents of the message (he'd have the make the salt something he could memorize so that it wouldn't be at risk of being destroyed by a fire). Ideally he'd encode this message hash in multiple early blocks (using a different salt in each message, so that the hash is different each time).

I think anything like the "knowledge of the content of private emails" is flawed. Satoshi's email account was hacked, so most of his "private" emails are no longer private (supposedly he didn't use PGP for most of his private correspondence).

<comment><USER30> A Bitcoin private key is only 51 characters when expressed in the Base58 format that Bitcoin uses. Here is an example private key expressed in such a format: 5Kb8kLf9zgWQnogidDA76MzPL6TsZZY36hWXMssSzNydYXYB9KF

If I were Satoshi I totally would've committed it to memory. I have more random characters than that memorized for passwords to various accounts.

Or, even easier, have a smaller simple password, and then be able to reconstruct them using an algorithm that your remember, e.g. SHA256(SHA256(SHA256("correct") + "horse battery") + "staple").

<comment><USER41> That is genius.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> His note doesn't make any sense to me.

If I were to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is Satoshi, this note still doesn't make any sense. Removing all doubt that he at least controls the keys is almost trivial.

</comment><comment><USER50> It's very interesting that he asked the media to send coins to one of Satoshi's Bitcoin addresses, and that he would return them. All of Satoshi's original coins are Pay-to-Public-Key, whereas the BBC's money was sent Pay-to- Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH). This means that Craig would have to present a signature along with a public key that just has the same hash as the Satoshi public key, not a signature for Satoshi's public key itself. I think he is banking on finding another key with the same hash, as a final desperate attempt to forge his identity.

<comment> m-i-l If Craig Wright did indeed purchase the supercomputer which was placed at number 17 on the list of the world's fastest supercomputers in November 2015, perhaps its sole purpose was to do a collision attack. Although as with other claims, it is uncertain whether he did buy this computer (SGI deny it was bought from them but concede that it could have been bought on the grey market[0]).

[0] [http://www.zdnet.com/article/sgi-denies-links-with- alleged-b...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/sgi-denies-links-with-alleged- bitcoin-founder-craig-wright/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> For those of you who haven't had firsthand experience with truly weird habitual liars, this is exactly what it's like... not saying Wright is a liar but he hasn't differentiated himself from it.

</comment><comment><USER52> Is the website image steganographic?

<comment><USER53> I thought the same. The image has been taken down, is there anyone who saved it?

<comment><USER54> [https://web.archive.org/web/20160505121147/http://www.drcrai...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160505121147/http://www.drcraigwright.net/homepage.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> What is the best theory of how Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis were deceived?

</comment><comment><USER56> I think it follows the typical modus operandi of large part of the Bitcoin community:

1 - Propose flawed argument.

2 - Insert pink unicorns.

3 - When asked for proof, don't give it and instead claim this is exactly what's best for the world but that we are too short minded to understand it.

<comment><USER57> What you're trying to do here is to project your hatred for Bitcoin using fraud as somehow representative of the ideas embedded into Bitcoin, which have nothing to do with that fraud.

<comment><USER56> I'm sorry, but only the people that feel the need to follow something as some kind of religion or philosophy really need to attribute the adjectives _" hatred"_ or _" love"_ to some kind of technology.

The rest of the world at large (EDIT: that knows about bitcoin as sub intended by the rest of the sentence) that is not part of the bitcoin cult, looks at the thing for its technological prowess - or lack of it - and mostly sees it as a cryptographic experiment gone right and a financial experiment gone very wrong.

<comment><USER57> Don't speak for most people. Most people know nothing about Bitcoin just yet. Can you be more specific about where the financial experiment of Bitcoin has gone wrong and why?

<comment><USER56> It's quite telling that you don't want me to speak for other people but just in your answer before projected your irrational feelings about bitcoin on me and on what I feel or don't feel for bitcoin (so that we get straight, I don't _" feel"_ anything for a technology, that doesn't make sense).

When I referred the world at large, I referred the world at large that already knows bitcoin, not the world population. And from those, most of them obviously didn't get in bitcoin (in fact the ones that did get in bitcoin are pulling out as can be clearly seen in the volume of bitcoin transactions since 2014).

And it is a clearly failed financial experiment because:

1 - It concentrated all the wealth in the hands and very few people in only a couple of years ([http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/top100](http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/top100))

2 - The majority of bitcoin transactions are used for ilegal purposes ([http://www.coindesk.com/dark-web-markets-processed-more- bitc...](http://www.coindesk.com/dark-web-markets-processed-more-bitcoin-than- bitpay-in-2014/))

3 - It's more inconvenient than existing payment systems to use so people don't use it ([http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-is-dead-says- prominent...](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-is-dead-says-prominent- fintech-executive-taavet-hinrikus-transferwise-bitcoin-experiment- failed-191800988.html))

4 - People are so uninterested and suspicious of bitcoin that you actually _loose_ money if you present bitcoin as a payment/donation method ([http://bitcoinist.net/mozilla-study-shows-bitcoin- negative-i...](http://bitcoinist.net/mozilla-study-shows-bitcoin-negative- impact-donations/))

5 - Complete unregulation keeps meaning high scale theft and complete unreliability of bitcoin markets (MtGox and many others)

All in all, the world at large - in this case not only the ones that know bitcoin - clearly understands that the financial system needs _more regulation_ not less, and yet, you put bitcoin in the table with is utter lack of regulation and try to claim its a great thing that will solve the world's financial problems but you don't give absolutely no sane argument or metrics about how it is doing that. And that was exactly my original point.

<comment><USER58> The most damning: Seven transaction a second.

You cannot have a functioning financial system that is constrained to seven transactions per second.

<comment><USER59> So when you say that for a "fact" the system is constrained to 7TPS, you are intentionally ignoring most bitcoin transactions, which are off-chain transactions at exchanges. That's not just oversight that's deceit.

<comment><USER60> Ah, the "off-chain" transaction, AKA "using a traditional centralized database because the blockchain is too slow and expensive".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Odd note - his page just turned from a jpeg to use actual text. So, uh. yay, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER61> Link to archived version of full May 3rd post [https://web.archive.org/web/20160504045648/http://www.drcrai...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160504045648/http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary- claims-require-extraordinary-proof/)

</comment><comment><USER62> Can someone please explain how Gavin can still think he is Satoshi? I am very confused.

<comment><USER63> People who get conned will generally refuse to believe they've been scammed, even when presented with evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> The words "absolute moron" come to mind.

</comment><comment><USER65> The entire "who is Satoshi" thing is basically the tech equivalent of gossip rags.

</comment><comment><USER66> The guy sounds like a pathological liar and narcissist. Amazing so many were sucked in to his bullshit. The journalists involved should be embarrassed as they look like utter fools.

</comment><comment><USER67> Tin-foil, but if I were Satoshi and wanted to remain anonymous, and some journalists started snooping around, one way to shut them down would be to publicly post a "proof" that seems technical enough to get the reporters to run out screaming "we got him!" but falls apart once more technical people start investigating...

<comment><USER68> If you treat the "proof" falling apart under scrutiny as evidence that he _is_ Satoshi, then to remain consistent you must treat a strong proof which holds up under scrutiny as evidence _against_ him being Satoshi.

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence](http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence)

<comment><USER67> To be clear, I don't believe my tin-foil conspiracy is true, and honestly it doesn't matter one bit to me if Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin.

That said, I never said that his "absence of evidence that he is Satoshi" is actually "evidence that he is Satoshi". In fact, no one has provided any real evidence either that he is or is not Satoshi.

Again, assuming that the real Satoshi wishes to remain anonymous, but is on the verge of discovery anyway, he may have a difficult time "proving" that he isn't Satoshi, so his next best bet might be to sidestep proof entirely and instead play a kind of mind game to throw off the investigation. So conservation of expected evidence doesn't factor in, because he hasn't "proven" anything one way or the other, he's basically gambled that internet ridicule will achieve a desired goal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I suggested this from the start. A simple transaction from Satoshi's account to an agreed upon 3rd party is all that would have been needed to prove his claims. Claiming to not have the "courage" to perform this simple verification is just ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER70> I really wish Satoshi comes out from hiding before he (or the group) is dead (assuming he is not already); otherwise it will forever take #1 position on those listicles sites ("The top 10 mysteries of all time; You really want to know #1")

</comment><comment><USER71> Nobody here should be surprised; we knew Wright has been engaging in pathological behaviors for years now. The question is how Gavin will handle the damage to his reputation. I feel bad for him.

</comment><comment><USER72> It's a suicide note.

<comment><USER73> As cringey as this whole episode has been, I genuinely hope this guy is alright and doesn't do something dumb.

<comment><USER74> The subsequent modifications to the website lead me to believe that the chances of this being a suicide note are really low. But everything leading up to this leaves me confident that he will continue to "do something dumb", just not suicide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Unsurprising. Being vague and mysterious is the hallmark of bullshit.

The fact that some people believe it is more a testament to their naivete than anything else. I pity them... :(

</comment><comment><USER76> "There are very credible people besides Gavin and Jon who still think he is Satoshi - people who are privy to other information and whose judgement I respect."

Oh? Pray tell.

</comment><comment><USER77> In the video he claims that he is the one known by the "monkier" [sic] Satoshi Nakamoto. A very appropriate misspeak of the word "moniker".

</comment><comment><USER78> Perhaps he was simply clued to some seriously bad consequence of proving his ownership of the Satoshi hoard.

</comment><comment><USER79> Wow, I'm psychic! Turns out all the guy really had was a rubber suit in a freezer. It wasn't a bigfoot after all!!

Shocking.

</comment><comment><USER80> Haha can't handle the limelight, this fella reminds me of the Flappy Bird creator.

I think he's BSing as well.

</comment><comment><USER81> that's the kind of apology I would expect from the zodiac killer..

</comment><comment><USER82> I'd be willing to bet that the coins will move soon.

<comment><USER83> I will take your bet, what would you like to wager?

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> What an ass

</comment><comment><USER85> Humans are not monkies and never were. It is believed that the two species shared a common ancestor at some point.

Edit: If someone has evidence otherwise, please post.

<comment><USER86> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11636167](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11636167) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER85> Why?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> This guy is not the creator. No body is. Evolution!!

</comment><comment><USER88> Bitcoin needs a "For Entertainment Purposes Only" disclaimer on it.

</comment><comment><USER89> We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of 'Satoshi Nakamoto' for the week. But all the decision of that Satoshi have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.

</comment><comment><USER90> these stories about bitcoin are like those long drama's/soap operas/ Tween Peaks, I dont know anything about because I didnt have time to put up with it. Only women..

<comment><USER87> True that

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> One thing that gives me a little pause and makes me think maybe he is telling the truth (even though all other evidence and logic says he's a fraud) is that the real Satoshi has not put out a statement calling this guy out as a fraud.

When the Dorian Nakamoto stuff happened the real Satoshi put out a statement saying he's not Dorian. That wasn't that long ago.

If he did that you'd think he'd step up and say he's not Craig Wright either. But maybe he did the previous one because he felt Dorian was being victimized whereas Craig Wright has made a mess of his own design.

It's hard to say for sure.

<comment><USER92> > When the Dorian Nakamoto stuff happened the real Satoshi put out a statement > saying he's not Dorian. That wasn't that long ago.

My read on that is that Satoshi felt sorry for the hapless Japanese-American guy with tech media showing up at his house.

In contrast, Craig Wright asked for this.

<comment><USER19> Also the old guy was going to have to prove a negative. Can't be done.

<comment><USER93> Let's see some proof that it can't be done.</comment></comment></comment></comment>