The Satoshi Affair(lrb.co.uk)
lrb.co.uk
The Satoshi Affair
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair
115 comments
On the contrary, you'll get a lot more out of reading the article without preconceptions. I don't think it's really worth reading someones comments about an article made before they had even finished reading it.
Sure, you should absolutely read the article first! But I found that even after reading the article it was very valuable to read a journalistic perspective on the reportage.
It's also really interesting to contrast this story with the recent piece in The Atlantic about the provenance of a papyrus that mentions Jesus had a wife:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbe...
The reporter does outside research, solicits opposing points of view, and generally is very diligent about trying not to be snowed. And, tellingly, he doesn't use unfamiliarity with the field as an excuse not to investigate Compare with this article: "From time to time during those months, I wondered what if, in some brutally postmodern way, the true identity of Satoshi could never be fully ascertained? What if Wright had every single element necessary to prove himself, but somehow couldn’t? Anonymity – or at least pseudonymity – is an essential part of the cryptographic world."
It's also really interesting to contrast this story with the recent piece in The Atlantic about the provenance of a papyrus that mentions Jesus had a wife:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbe...
The reporter does outside research, solicits opposing points of view, and generally is very diligent about trying not to be snowed. And, tellingly, he doesn't use unfamiliarity with the field as an excuse not to investigate Compare with this article: "From time to time during those months, I wondered what if, in some brutally postmodern way, the true identity of Satoshi could never be fully ascertained? What if Wright had every single element necessary to prove himself, but somehow couldn’t? Anonymity – or at least pseudonymity – is an essential part of the cryptographic world."
[deleted]
> "the palm trees were throwing summer shade onto the concrete walkways – ‘Tailor Made Office Solutions’, it said on a nearby billboard – and people were drinking coffee in Deli 32 on the ground floor. Wright’s office on level five was painted red, and looked down on the Macquarie Park Cemetery, known as a place of calm for the living as much as the dead."
Ugh, it's like wading through a New Yorker article. Less paying by the word please.
Ugh, it's like wading through a New Yorker article. Less paying by the word please.
There have been plenty of terse short form blog entries about the saga, if you don't like the style of this piece you're free to close it and walk away without shitting on it.
I spent the afternoon reading this piece and thoroughly enjoyed the writing, including the flavor and detail you call out.
I spent the afternoon reading this piece and thoroughly enjoyed the writing, including the flavor and detail you call out.
I enjoyed it a lot as well. This piece is a story about Wright, not cold, raw news about whethers he's Satoshi or not. Quite fitting, given that the Satoshi persona is fictive by construction...
For those who don't know, this long article was announced by LRB exactly at the time Wright successfully fooled BBC (1) (2) O'Hagan had actually spent a lot of time with Wright, believing he'll be able to report about historically important moment and person. I'm glad O'Hagan kept the courage to finish it and publish it for it surely gives some insight on how the scam developed, even if he doesn't understand the details of it, he can report on the human side. May 2016 it was:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/05/02/josh-stupple/satoshi-ba...
"Andrew O’Hagan has had exclusive access to Craig Wright for the last six months. His forthcoming piece in the LRB will look at the myth of Satoshi and the journey of the man who claims to be him."
1) How Wright never proved anything: https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-pro...
2) In detail: https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nak...
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/05/02/josh-stupple/satoshi-ba...
"Andrew O’Hagan has had exclusive access to Craig Wright for the last six months. His forthcoming piece in the LRB will look at the myth of Satoshi and the journey of the man who claims to be him."
1) How Wright never proved anything: https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-pro...
2) In detail: https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nak...
Here is the most plausible explanation of who Satoshi is IMO: a team of people tasked by (most likely) a government agency with developing a crypto-currency as an experiment.
The project is over, the people involved in it are probably bound to secrecy because the work was classified. They cannot spend a satoshi of the original bitcoin because that would be theft, probably a felony, possibly treason, who knows - either way that bitcoin and all the keys belong to their employer, not them, so you will never see anything signed by "Satoshi" to prove who "he" is.
The project is over, the people involved in it are probably bound to secrecy because the work was classified. They cannot spend a satoshi of the original bitcoin because that would be theft, probably a felony, possibly treason, who knows - either way that bitcoin and all the keys belong to their employer, not them, so you will never see anything signed by "Satoshi" to prove who "he" is.
Here is the most plausible explanation of who Satoshi is IMO: a team of people tasked by (most likely) a government agency with developing a crypto-currency as an experiment.
I don't know why the hell the government would spend money and time on a project like this.
What in it for them?
I don't know why the hell the government would spend money and time on a project like this.
What in it for them?
Pseudonymity for transactions, intelligence gathering, influencing... it's 'money' and 'network analysis' and both of those have a lot of uses.
Bitcoin is very well designed, so it's not unreasonable to think that a brilliant mind or a team is behind it. Governments employ lots of mathematicians, computer scientists, and cryptography experts who would possess the the skills and man-hours necessary to devote to such an endeavor; whereas a lone hobbyist would have had to get the design right the first time the scheme became public.
It's not even that much money to spend, relatively speaking. A state-level agency from any of the highest military spending countries [1] possesses well in excess of the computational power required to mine coins. In this case, they released it into to the community and now it's a fixture most use but never seriously question.
The UK's GCHQ invented RSA 4 years earlier than Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman [2], but this fact was classified for 24 years. I think this is a very plausible theory that explains why Satoshi has stayed silent, and why Bitcoin was invented in the first place: not for personal gain or pride, but national interests by a well-equipped state.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Cocks
Bitcoin is very well designed, so it's not unreasonable to think that a brilliant mind or a team is behind it. Governments employ lots of mathematicians, computer scientists, and cryptography experts who would possess the the skills and man-hours necessary to devote to such an endeavor; whereas a lone hobbyist would have had to get the design right the first time the scheme became public.
It's not even that much money to spend, relatively speaking. A state-level agency from any of the highest military spending countries [1] possesses well in excess of the computational power required to mine coins. In this case, they released it into to the community and now it's a fixture most use but never seriously question.
The UK's GCHQ invented RSA 4 years earlier than Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman [2], but this fact was classified for 24 years. I think this is a very plausible theory that explains why Satoshi has stayed silent, and why Bitcoin was invented in the first place: not for personal gain or pride, but national interests by a well-equipped state.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Cocks
The CIA spent money giving LSD to elephants. Governments do all sorts of weird things.
>What in it for them?
To add to the list -- another user already mentioned funding foreign clandestine organizations. The modern day equivalents of Iran-Contra -- another theory is a government or organization that wants to undermine central banking, or global reserve currencies.
To add to the list -- another user already mentioned funding foreign clandestine organizations. The modern day equivalents of Iran-Contra -- another theory is a government or organization that wants to undermine central banking, or global reserve currencies.
Governments used numbers stations over shortwave for years for remote communication. It's not too far-fetched to see the utility of Bitcoin for a government entity. The only problem is that you still need BTC->local currency exchange to fund clandestine field work, and I'd bet there are several currencies you can't get via BTC.
> What in it for them?
A nice way to transfer money to clandestine operations world-wide, risk-free, for example.
For example, to fund a spy in China, you'd need to pay him in Yuan but the Yuan is a highly controlled currency... and guess what e-currency is highly popular in China? Bitcoin.
Just transfer your spy a couple of btc and have him trade the btc for local currency, in an eyeblink. Prior to btc, e.g. the CIA and other spy agencies had to fly in (and hand over!) literal bags of cash.
Guess this is why the Chinese government tried to crack down on BTC so hard, aside from the fact that BTC allows bypassing their currency controls and an outflow of money.
A nice way to transfer money to clandestine operations world-wide, risk-free, for example.
For example, to fund a spy in China, you'd need to pay him in Yuan but the Yuan is a highly controlled currency... and guess what e-currency is highly popular in China? Bitcoin.
Just transfer your spy a couple of btc and have him trade the btc for local currency, in an eyeblink. Prior to btc, e.g. the CIA and other spy agencies had to fly in (and hand over!) literal bags of cash.
Guess this is why the Chinese government tried to crack down on BTC so hard, aside from the fact that BTC allows bypassing their currency controls and an outflow of money.
Is there any evidence the CIA and other spy agencies don't still use bags of cash? There are some arbitrary things that spy agencies are pretty low-tech about.
Bitcoin is much easier to smuggle than cash.
> For example, to fund a spy in China, you'd need to pay him in Yuan but the Yuan is a highly controlled currency... and guess what e-currency is highly popular in China?
AliPay. Can any "e-currency" actually be described as "highly popular"? Sure Bitcoin is the most popular, but that doesn't mean that it's popular. Let's put it this way. My parents know what ApplePay is. They've never even heard of Bitcoin.
AliPay. Can any "e-currency" actually be described as "highly popular"? Sure Bitcoin is the most popular, but that doesn't mean that it's popular. Let's put it this way. My parents know what ApplePay is. They've never even heard of Bitcoin.
But are your parents spies? And if they are, how do you know they're telling the truth when you ask them about Bitcoin?
If the work was classified and the people behind it were bound to secrecy, I would expect disclosure to be a one-shot affair: a big dump of documentation and code on WikiLeaks, say. That's not what happened. There was a paper, there was open source code, and Satoshi hanged around for years before disappearing. That would have been an insane level of exposure for somebody risking severe repercussions if caught leaking state secrets.
Nobody wants to believe they were conned.
Check this out: the link in which Wright uses to say he can't prove he's Satoshi or risk going to jail, appears to be completely fraudulent: http://bitcoinist.net/uk-law-enforcement-sources-hint-at-imp...
"Editor’s Note (5-6-2-16, 2:43 AM EST): The SiliconAngle piece cited in this article was produced by an impostor site posing as the real SiliconAngle. This source article does not appear on the real SiliconAngle website, and was not written by SiliconAngle reporter Collen Kriel. Bitcoinist would like to apologize to SiliconAngle and our readers for any confusion. To ensure that you are reading articles produced by the real SiliconAngle, make sure you are using the correct URL: www.siliconangle.com."
Check this out: the link in which Wright uses to say he can't prove he's Satoshi or risk going to jail, appears to be completely fraudulent: http://bitcoinist.net/uk-law-enforcement-sources-hint-at-imp...
"Editor’s Note (5-6-2-16, 2:43 AM EST): The SiliconAngle piece cited in this article was produced by an impostor site posing as the real SiliconAngle. This source article does not appear on the real SiliconAngle website, and was not written by SiliconAngle reporter Collen Kriel. Bitcoinist would like to apologize to SiliconAngle and our readers for any confusion. To ensure that you are reading articles produced by the real SiliconAngle, make sure you are using the correct URL: www.siliconangle.com."
I stopped reading in the 4th line... "They were looking for a man named Craig Steven Wright". I'm not going to spend more minutes of my life reading about an scam artist... Enough is enough.
The various layers of scamming are exactly what makes this article worth reading. I couldn't care less about Satoshi or Bitcoin. However, so many people and institutions suspending their own disbelief and putting their time, money and reputations on the line, only to watch it end how it did... That's a much more interesting story to me. Greed and desperation are like diesel fuel and fertilizer.
You might want to skip straight to the coda, which presents the author's final thoughts on the whole thing. Pretty fascinating, whatever you think about CSW.
I still don't understand why people so desperately want to find out who or what is behind Satoshi. It could be a person, it could be multiple persons, but what's to gain by identifying someone who gave the world something that's generally found useful, and all they asked for was privacy? Either you trust it or you don't. If you do not, what secret entity could be useful to be discovered behind the Satoshi identifier for you to trust it more or less?
I mean, for instance, I'm unaware of people trying to identify all members of the PaX team.
EDIT: For a community that asks for privacy in many instances, it's interesting we support the search to uncover what's behind the Satoshi identifier.
I mean, for instance, I'm unaware of people trying to identify all members of the PaX team.
EDIT: For a community that asks for privacy in many instances, it's interesting we support the search to uncover what's behind the Satoshi identifier.
What makes Satoshi unique is that he/she/them sits on premined Bitcoins worth hundreds of millions of dollars, that while 100% transparent, hasn't moved or been cashed in. That alone is a peculiarity and makes for an interesting person.
Add to that the fact that once those coins start to move, it has the potential to affect the wealth of those who hold Bitcoin, for better or worse.
Future changes to Bitcoin are hotly contested, and often Satoshi's intent is thrown in to the discussion, and these changes will likely affect many. Were a verified Satoshi to weigh in, it would carry significant impact.
Add to that the fact that once those coins start to move, it has the potential to affect the wealth of those who hold Bitcoin, for better or worse.
Future changes to Bitcoin are hotly contested, and often Satoshi's intent is thrown in to the discussion, and these changes will likely affect many. Were a verified Satoshi to weigh in, it would carry significant impact.
I'm sure Satoshi has coins that others don't know about, the early blocks were all Satoshi but later blocks were mined by dozens of enthusiasts. Satoshi could have easily made an anonymous fortune in the early days.
I imagine Satoshi is out there keeping a close eye on the cryptocurrency scene. Maybe one day if action is needed (funding infrastructure, adoption of a bitcoin successor, destroying bitcoin??) he will put the early blocks into motion.
I imagine Satoshi is out there keeping a close eye on the cryptocurrency scene. Maybe one day if action is needed (funding infrastructure, adoption of a bitcoin successor, destroying bitcoin??) he will put the early blocks into motion.
Or he lost the password. Or the coins were in cold storage on a disk that crashed. Or maybe he simply deleted the first few because in the early days they were worthless.
Those are just some scenarios that strike me as a hell of a lot more plausible than someone sitting on a fortune for the hell of it. Why? Because we've all experienced those things.
Those are just some scenarios that strike me as a hell of a lot more plausible than someone sitting on a fortune for the hell of it. Why? Because we've all experienced those things.
Maybe they just left the field entirely? Burned out? They could even be dead for all we know.
If I was them, I really don't know if I'd keep a close eye on the "scene". I'm sure some people know that feeling of just stopping to care for something. But on the other hand, they must have been really passionnate. But that could fuel an even stronger "no longer caring" feeling.
Rambling out loud.
If I was them, I really don't know if I'd keep a close eye on the "scene". I'm sure some people know that feeling of just stopping to care for something. But on the other hand, they must have been really passionnate. But that could fuel an even stronger "no longer caring" feeling.
Rambling out loud.
I think Satoshi disappeared b/c he was concerned about his privacy after wikileaks blowup. This is his 3rd to last post ever, it was concerning an article in PC World about bitcoin.
>"It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us."
>"It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us."
As far as I can tell, it's been five years since anyone heard from a person provably Satoshi. It's entirely possible he got hit by a bus and his heirs, not knowing what they were, discarded his keys.
Interesting entity, sure, but how do you expect them to cash the coins, if they have people trying to uncover the identity? Also, are those coins not theirs to do with whatever they want to? I fail to see the point but admittedly I'm not intimately familiar with the Bitcoin communities.
I also don't see how Satoshi's opinion can change anything with regards to the dilemma of the technical limitations people have been debating about. Unless Satoshi would come up with a solution nobody thought of yet. Why should their opinion weigh more than others' and it's unlikely to prevent a split.
I also don't see how Satoshi's opinion can change anything with regards to the dilemma of the technical limitations people have been debating about. Unless Satoshi would come up with a solution nobody thought of yet. Why should their opinion weigh more than others' and it's unlikely to prevent a split.
I'm not challenging Satoshi's rights. Only stating that with so much riding on those early coins, its natural that stakeholders would prefer a bit less mystery.
All things equal, Satoshi's input isn't more or less valuable in the technology debates, but the community has given Satoshi messiah-like status.
All things equal, Satoshi's input isn't more or less valuable in the technology debates, but the community has given Satoshi messiah-like status.
"PaX Team" is one guy. His name may be undisclosed or uncommonly known, but the fact that it's one person is not secret. He's explained how "PaX Team" came to be and why it's one person.
Because in the end we're still just apes, not content to go through life without an alpha-ape on whom to focus all our adoration or aggression.
Sign with the genesis block key or fuck off - seriously the articles and claims aren't novel anymore. The breadth of delusion and nonsense is staggering - it's impossible to imagine that anyone of significant name in the field (e.g. Diffie, Hellman, Chaum, Shamir, Rivest, Adelman, Zimmerman etc.) would propose any other kind of proof.
There are so many believable candidates for Satoshi, it's hard to know which one to pick. For another just as credible example: http://hackaday.com/2006/06/08/i-just-invented-bitcoin/
Another favorite proof of mine is screenshots! :)
http://i.imgur.com/uoRncry.png
http://i.imgur.com/uoRncry.png
Towards the end of the 1st section we find an interesting strategy for getting through airport security - have an accomplice just behind you who causes a fuss at just the right moment.
A similar device was employed in the Mel Brooks movie - High Anxiety.
I think what people need to understand is that he can both be satoshi and fail to provide proof, its not a binary. Factors affecting the outcome could be sociopathology, mental illness, ulterior motives and others.
Yes, exactly. People are yelling fraud. I'm also very skeptical, but the following is not a correct deduction: "he didn't move any original Bitcoin" -> "he's a scam artist".
I remember a TV reality-type show in which people took their heirlooms to be assessed for auction. One woman had what she thought was a priceless Stradivarius violin. The appraiser took one look at it and immediately said it was a fraud. The violin was stamped "Made in China" somewhere inside. The guy says to her, "Strads are not made in China -- you've been scammed."
A funny thought occurred to me at that moment. Suppose that for some unfathomable reason, you stamped your Strad with the words "Made in China". Now, everyone calls you a fraud without a second look. Why would you do something so dumb? Maybe you were trying to make your treasured violin less tempting for thieves, maybe you were trying to hide its value from the tax authorities, maybe you forget to take your meds and were acting irrationally that day.
I remember a TV reality-type show in which people took their heirlooms to be assessed for auction. One woman had what she thought was a priceless Stradivarius violin. The appraiser took one look at it and immediately said it was a fraud. The violin was stamped "Made in China" somewhere inside. The guy says to her, "Strads are not made in China -- you've been scammed."
A funny thought occurred to me at that moment. Suppose that for some unfathomable reason, you stamped your Strad with the words "Made in China". Now, everyone calls you a fraud without a second look. Why would you do something so dumb? Maybe you were trying to make your treasured violin less tempting for thieves, maybe you were trying to hide its value from the tax authorities, maybe you forget to take your meds and were acting irrationally that day.
Interesting - this story came up last time I read a thread about Satoshi on HN. Here's my reply to it:
The appraiser did not do his work properly - after all, anyone can place a sticker on a Strad, but that doesn't make it any less of a Strad. It's also a poor analogy to use in the current situation. Multiple people did appraisals of Wright's claims and his show with Gavin Anderson, and found it lacking. They also noted the "Made in China" stamps - all the gotchas along the way - but they were only part of the analysis.
The appraiser did not do his work properly - after all, anyone can place a sticker on a Strad, but that doesn't make it any less of a Strad. It's also a poor analogy to use in the current situation. Multiple people did appraisals of Wright's claims and his show with Gavin Anderson, and found it lacking. They also noted the "Made in China" stamps - all the gotchas along the way - but they were only part of the analysis.
that's how I read it, maybe he is or isn't Satoshi, but he just wanted to be left alone. It was fun being Satoshi for a while, but then the whole circus became overwhelming so he stepped out of it. An extreme introvert maybe, or he really believed it was better that the mystery of Satoshi remained. Maybe we'll never know.
Strangely opinionated intersection in an otherwise pretty entertaining article:
"""(Like the governments they despise, bitcoiners deal – when it comes to ideas – in ‘white papers’, as if they were issuing laws.)"""
Not sure if the author read it but the original paper is structured more like a regular journal paper than a traditional white paper.
"""(Like the governments they despise, bitcoiners deal – when it comes to ideas – in ‘white papers’, as if they were issuing laws.)"""
Not sure if the author read it but the original paper is structured more like a regular journal paper than a traditional white paper.
[deleted]
Is Craig Satoshi? Maybe. To say that he definitely is is to be an idiot. But to say that he certainly isn't is equally dumb. If it's a con, it's a pretty good con. If it's not, than this story is accurate. But the people who are saying a complicated a complicated situation is as black and white as "sign the block or fuck off, you're not Satoshi" isn't thinking. In a world of lifeless robots, it would be that simple. But it's not, and we don't. A man who has the identity may not want to prove it. But a con artist would do the same.
No, it really is that simple. He showed an interest in saying he is Satoshi, but didn't prove it. He's not "trying to hide his identity", he's trying to hide that he isn't Satoshi.
He showed an interest in not proving he is Satoshi as well, and didn't prove it. This isn't a negative you can prove (certainly not in the way you're saying.)
> To say that he definitely is is to be an idiot. But to say that he certainly isn't is equally dumb.
This is a false equivalency. Just because there are two options (ignoring "I don't know/I don't care/Satoshi who?") doesn't mean they are equally valid. The only way your statement makes sense to me given what has transpired is if you are saying that at a philosophical level nothing can be known with certainty and therefore to be certain of anything is to be wrong. That's a good way to get excused from a jury but not a great way of making sense of the world.
This is a false equivalency. Just because there are two options (ignoring "I don't know/I don't care/Satoshi who?") doesn't mean they are equally valid. The only way your statement makes sense to me given what has transpired is if you are saying that at a philosophical level nothing can be known with certainty and therefore to be certain of anything is to be wrong. That's a good way to get excused from a jury but not a great way of making sense of the world.
Given people appear unable to let go of the desire to find Satoshi, maybe it's for the best that the media believes they've found Satoshi.
Satoshi needs to launch bitcoin 2.0 with appropriate changes. That would kickstart a whole new era and with his cred it would carry massive adoption.
This might be part of the reason he still wants people to believe he invented all of this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-wright-patents-idU...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-wright-patents-idU...
[deleted]
Satoshi whoever you are and wherever you are..please never ever be found..your gift to the world does not need for your life to be under the spot light..the gift speaks for itself, quite well.
George Orwell said there are some people you can fool all the time. What he didn't mention: those people are all LRB readers.
In what way do you think LRB readers are being fooled here? What false claims does the article make? If you just pattern-matched it as a 'Craig Wright = Satoshi' piece, you're mistaken -- it is really a (somewhat) behind-the-scenes story of how the whole affair played out. Although he doesn't come to any definite conclusions, the author is nowhere near as credulous as some commentors seem to have assumed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It seems like Wright is attracting more and more (overly credulous) journalists to perform fawning bio pieces on him in lieu of the only evidence that will ever actually conclusively convince anyone. This evidence, unlike the several hundred thousand extraneous words here, also happens to be something that is extraordinarily simple to provide: cryptographically sign a message that we can all verify. He has not provided this single, legitimate proof to the public and worse yet he has provided fake proof that shows a deliberate willingness to deceive. Moreover, he seems to have demonstrated a willingness to exploit journalists' and the general public's lack of understanding about cryptography. This seems diametrically opposed to the spirit of the technology he allegedly gifted to the world - Bitcoin.
This reads like a comment from someone who didn't read the article. To call this piece fawning? And the author provides plenty of reasons for why Wright might not want to sign a message even if he could, and they're interesting and layered reasons that require going into detail into the warped psychology of a man who appears just crazy enough to be Satoshi and refuse to prove it, and just crazy enough to be willing to pull off an incredible elaborate hoax even knowing that he won't get away with it in the end.
Granted, it's a LOT of reading - over 35,000 words. But why is the top comment on HN (at time of this comment) on an article of this length and breadth one that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article's actual specific content?
The point of the piece isn't that herein lies the truth -- this is simply the author's experiences (months of them!) laid bare. You could sum it up in this quote from the piece: "The reason poets dislike each other's books is because they seem wrong, false – a kind of lie. 'If you were telling the truth you would be writing the same poems as me.'"
Granted, it's a LOT of reading - over 35,000 words. But why is the top comment on HN (at time of this comment) on an article of this length and breadth one that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article's actual specific content?
The point of the piece isn't that herein lies the truth -- this is simply the author's experiences (months of them!) laid bare. You could sum it up in this quote from the piece: "The reason poets dislike each other's books is because they seem wrong, false – a kind of lie. 'If you were telling the truth you would be writing the same poems as me.'"
[deleted]
[deleted]
Fair enough - I guess I was tired of being taken for a ride like every other time I've read an article about this obvious con artist. In this case, it still felt like I was being taken for a ride several thousand words into this absurdly long article, so I quit reading. It still seems to me that unless an article about a Satoshi candidate starts with a valid cryptographic signature from one of Satoshi's original keys, it very simply isn't worth reading.
>the author provides plenty of reasons for why Wright might not want to sign a message even if he could, and they're interesting and layered reasons that require going into detail into the warped psychology of a man who appears just crazy enough to be Satoshi and refuse to prove it
The author provides no believable reason why the scammer won't prove it. They're not interesting/layered reasons. He simply regurgitates the delusions of the scammer.
The author provides no believable reason why the scammer won't prove it. They're not interesting/layered reasons. He simply regurgitates the delusions of the scammer.
I read the article.
The author is credulous, and clearly had a wordcount to fill.
The author is credulous, and clearly had a wordcount to fill.
I'm so saddened by this. The proof would be so simple. They are so clearly being conned. The LRB? Really? I cannot even.
Bitcoin is a technical marvel in a swamp of human fallibility.
Bitcoin is a technical marvel in a swamp of human fallibility.
I am waiting for my copy to land in the mail before reading this.
You are correct, LRB is generally not easily fooled into writing puff pieces; O'Hagen is a very sharp writer (check out his masterly analysis of Assange who is much more capable of blowing smoke than Wright).
My prediction is that this will be looked upon more as a an essay about digital con men, and this is why M-K Willmers allowed it to be published.
FWIW, I say Neal Stephenson is Satoshi :)
You are correct, LRB is generally not easily fooled into writing puff pieces; O'Hagen is a very sharp writer (check out his masterly analysis of Assange who is much more capable of blowing smoke than Wright).
My prediction is that this will be looked upon more as a an essay about digital con men, and this is why M-K Willmers allowed it to be published.
FWIW, I say Neal Stephenson is Satoshi :)
Seymour Hersh has been doing a pretty good snow job on them lately on the Bin Laden thing, (Syria was a little more credible)
Hey, it appears you're shadowbanned. I vouched for this comment because I don't see how it violates any rules, and it seems on-topic and useful. I checked your history and every comment you've made over the last several months (at least) is marked dead, which means only people who've enabled the "showdead" option in their profile can read them. It's a shame as most of the ones I saw look fine.
This is not a fawning bio piece. If it's too long (it IS very long), skip to Coda, and start reading at "Do you want to know what I think?".
BTW, the author's hypothesis is not half bad. In order to behave the way he did, Wright must have been sure the real Satoshis would not show up and ruin the show. How could he be so sure? Knowing that they are dead would be a pretty good way.
BTW, the author's hypothesis is not half bad. In order to behave the way he did, Wright must have been sure the real Satoshis would not show up and ruin the show. How could he be so sure? Knowing that they are dead would be a pretty good way.
But there would be no need for Satoshi to turn up. Since Wright isn't Satoshi, then Satoshi knows that Wright can't provide cryptographic proof. Since Satoshi likes his anonymity he can safely sit and let Wright claim to be Satoshi with no downside.
That's what Satoshi might have been thinking, if he were alive. I am pointing to what Wright must have been thinking.
What if he's been hired to act out this part in order to draw out the real Satoshi?
Out of ignorance, I struggle to see all of the reasoning for such extreme desire of anonymity that the real Satoshi possesses?
That would depend entirely on who or what "Satoshi" actually is. If it's an altruistic individual, there are many possible reasons. If it's a group or organization, there are many others.
And whoever or whatever "Satoshi" is, there are a variety of reasons that a variety of people and organizations would like to know his identity. There may also be a variety of reasons that other, non-Satoshi entities would like it to remain a secret, depending on what the real story is. I guess most of us will never know.
And whoever or whatever "Satoshi" is, there are a variety of reasons that a variety of people and organizations would like to know his identity. There may also be a variety of reasons that other, non-Satoshi entities would like it to remain a secret, depending on what the real story is. I guess most of us will never know.
Thanks, but I badly worded my question. What I mean is, I realize there's speculation, but I don't know enough about Satoshi and bitcoin to know if there's been any indication/information any which way of what the possible reasoning is for such extreme desire of anonymity because the story seems so incomplete to me. From your response it looks like it is still anyone's guess at this point though.
> From your response it looks like it is still anyone's guess at this point though.
You might be right, but you shouldn't judge from my response, because I know very little about Bitcoin and don't typically follow news about it. I would guess that someone out there would have a better idea... :)
You might be right, but you shouldn't judge from my response, because I know very little about Bitcoin and don't typically follow news about it. I would guess that someone out there would have a better idea... :)
He's a con man... we just don't know who he's trying to con. From a confidence game perspective impersonating a recluse like Satoshi is a great choice, in fact a classic choice. Especially after that other fellow was incorrectly identified as Satoshi by national media and Satoshi didn't do anything to correct those claims.
You mean Dorian? Satoshi did correct it. That's how anyone knows he's still alive.
Satoshi did NOT correct it. His P2P foundation account was hacked, just like his gmx email.
His P2P Foundation was hacked afterwards and then locked for good; but P2P Foundation confirmed at the time that as far as they could tell, it was Satoshi.
[deleted]
As others have said, it's a con. I have a theory that when Satoshi gave up working on bitcoin he discarded his keys out of principle. That way there would be no way for anyone to get access to those first mined coins. It is the only fair approach.
I can't be the only person who has surmised this. So if you are a con man and you also have this idea, what you start doing is pushing the boundaries a bit and testing to see if you get any push back. If not, push farther. You won't get ridiculous press until you publicly say "I am Satoshi" and until that point, you can always back away and say, "Oh it's all just a bad joke. Sorry!"
As soon as you say "I am Satoshi and I have access to these BTC. Lend me money." and you get no argument, you know you are golden. The keys are gone. It's a risk, but a slight one if he had been pushing here and there to try and provoke a response.
The one issue I'm interested in is the PGP signed email stating that the other Satoshi (Dorian) is not the Bitcoin Satoshi. I'd really like to understand what key was used for that. Imagine if that message were actually a fake... it would have made a great test to see if the real Satoshi would respond.
I can't be the only person who has surmised this. So if you are a con man and you also have this idea, what you start doing is pushing the boundaries a bit and testing to see if you get any push back. If not, push farther. You won't get ridiculous press until you publicly say "I am Satoshi" and until that point, you can always back away and say, "Oh it's all just a bad joke. Sorry!"
As soon as you say "I am Satoshi and I have access to these BTC. Lend me money." and you get no argument, you know you are golden. The keys are gone. It's a risk, but a slight one if he had been pushing here and there to try and provoke a response.
The one issue I'm interested in is the PGP signed email stating that the other Satoshi (Dorian) is not the Bitcoin Satoshi. I'd really like to understand what key was used for that. Imagine if that message were actually a fake... it would have made a great test to see if the real Satoshi would respond.
If CSW had no ability to sign real messages then he simply would have left his proof at duping individuals and having them vouch for him. It would have certainly worked well enough to drum up some investors and run off with their money.
So if he had some access to the keys does that make him Satoshi or part of a Satoshi team? Personally I think the real Satoshi was happy to use him and sign some messages for him but baulked at signing public proof. It's pretty similar in outcome to having a trust that cooperated with him and then didn't but much simpler.
So if he had some access to the keys does that make him Satoshi or part of a Satoshi team? Personally I think the real Satoshi was happy to use him and sign some messages for him but baulked at signing public proof. It's pretty similar in outcome to having a trust that cooperated with him and then didn't but much simpler.
The BBC dictated a message to him though, which he signed live (adding his own commentary) so I don't think that theory holds up.
He'd have to have a live link to satoshi is all. I don't buy that he had the actual key and then either forgot or refused to use it for the sake of the 'trust'
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Wright must have been sure the real Satoshis would not show up and ruin the show
The sense I get of Wright, and other fraudsters, is that they gamble on outcomes. If the lie works out, they proceed to the next step. If it fails a truth test he falls back on one of:
1. The person with this information is deceased
2. The information sits with an opaque trust that I can't tell you about
3. I am eccentric and can't deal with this
4. I'll distract you by talking endlessly about something i'm more comfortable with
A further technique is that Wright never tells the complete story, he doesn't fill in the gaps - but rather he sets up the outline and then allows those around him to fill in the pieces.
Re: the specific case of how Wright would deal with the real Satoshi coming out, I think he intentionally built up the story piece by piece so that he could counter this possibility at any time.
We know that Wright began suggesting he was involved in the creation of Bitcoin very early on. He never said he did it alone, and he never told the full story from the outset but rather built it up piecemeal over time and tested the limits of how far he could go.
He would have noticed that the real Satoshi has never conclusively debunked previous Satoshi suspects. Every one of them could be dismissed as (ironically) not being cryptographically strong proof of the real Satoshi.
So if real Satoshi comes out with a comment similar to what happen when Dorian Nakamoto was profiled in Newsweek, Craig could say it's an imposter. Even in the worst case scenario - the real Satoshi comes out, he signs a message that says "Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto" and it is verified Wright still has options of where to go (as he has done)
He can say technically it's correct, that Nakamoto was a team. He can say that his keys were stolen. He can say that someone must have found Kleiman's disk drive.
Or he can do what has been common in this case: nothing, and allow others to make arguments for him based on hints he drops. For example advocates on his behalf could argue that he intentionally sabotaged himself in order to protect himself from legal liability, or because he wants to remove himself from the spotlight, or because he isn't comfortable with taking credit, or for some other reason (this scenario isn't absurd, it has happen with Wright)
Fraudsters always find a way, and more often than not it is other people doing the arguing for them and trying to fit it around the narrative where the assumption is provided by him.
A lot of it works because of confirmation bias, and you end up in a frustrating situation where nothing can be proven or disproven beyond doubt because the story can be molded to suit what is known and unknown.
The Craig Wright myth consumes the gaps in what we know and do not know about the real Satoshi. The myth is built up by people biased to believe it using small pieces of information provided by Wright.
The author does this in the article - he starts off with:
> "he appeared, from the initial evidence, to have a better claim to being Satoshi Nakamoto than anyone else"
and from there it's just a long loop of Wright dropping hints and the author struggling to piece it all together into that narrative
The sense I get of Wright, and other fraudsters, is that they gamble on outcomes. If the lie works out, they proceed to the next step. If it fails a truth test he falls back on one of:
1. The person with this information is deceased
2. The information sits with an opaque trust that I can't tell you about
3. I am eccentric and can't deal with this
4. I'll distract you by talking endlessly about something i'm more comfortable with
A further technique is that Wright never tells the complete story, he doesn't fill in the gaps - but rather he sets up the outline and then allows those around him to fill in the pieces.
Re: the specific case of how Wright would deal with the real Satoshi coming out, I think he intentionally built up the story piece by piece so that he could counter this possibility at any time.
We know that Wright began suggesting he was involved in the creation of Bitcoin very early on. He never said he did it alone, and he never told the full story from the outset but rather built it up piecemeal over time and tested the limits of how far he could go.
He would have noticed that the real Satoshi has never conclusively debunked previous Satoshi suspects. Every one of them could be dismissed as (ironically) not being cryptographically strong proof of the real Satoshi.
So if real Satoshi comes out with a comment similar to what happen when Dorian Nakamoto was profiled in Newsweek, Craig could say it's an imposter. Even in the worst case scenario - the real Satoshi comes out, he signs a message that says "Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto" and it is verified Wright still has options of where to go (as he has done)
He can say technically it's correct, that Nakamoto was a team. He can say that his keys were stolen. He can say that someone must have found Kleiman's disk drive.
Or he can do what has been common in this case: nothing, and allow others to make arguments for him based on hints he drops. For example advocates on his behalf could argue that he intentionally sabotaged himself in order to protect himself from legal liability, or because he wants to remove himself from the spotlight, or because he isn't comfortable with taking credit, or for some other reason (this scenario isn't absurd, it has happen with Wright)
Fraudsters always find a way, and more often than not it is other people doing the arguing for them and trying to fit it around the narrative where the assumption is provided by him.
A lot of it works because of confirmation bias, and you end up in a frustrating situation where nothing can be proven or disproven beyond doubt because the story can be molded to suit what is known and unknown.
The Craig Wright myth consumes the gaps in what we know and do not know about the real Satoshi. The myth is built up by people biased to believe it using small pieces of information provided by Wright.
The author does this in the article - he starts off with:
> "he appeared, from the initial evidence, to have a better claim to being Satoshi Nakamoto than anyone else"
and from there it's just a long loop of Wright dropping hints and the author struggling to piece it all together into that narrative
The total disregard that journalists have shown for facts in this saga should be a red flag that they're equally full of it when it comes to reporting on things that we aren't so knowledgeable about.
"They literally know nothing"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/...
And for anybody having doubts about Wright:
https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-pro...
https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nak...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/...
And for anybody having doubts about Wright:
https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-pro...
https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nak...
I lost all faith in the media a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
I remember watching this happen as a teenager via two sources of information: BBSes and the early Internet, and the mainstream media.
The mainstream media told me Weaver was a child abusing neo-Nazi cult leader who was stockpiling weapons to conduct terrorist attacks or overthrow the government or something.
The non-mainstream media told me he was a reclusive survivalist eccentric that may or may not have harbored some white supremacist beliefs (goofy or offensive beliefs are not a crime) who was being taken down dramatically in a frantic attempt by said government officials to cover their rear ends for a botched entrapment attempt.
History proved the former to be all lies and the latter to be largely the truth.
I never really trusted the news again. Stuff like this just proves my teenaged loss of faith was right. Newspapers and TV media are just "some guy's blog."
That is not to say I trust the "alt" media either. It's media too and over time I've seen it become more and more full of crap as money has come into the equation. Now it seems like mostly a sales channel for dodgy "natural" pharmaceuticals and populist political propaganda.
As Mulder would say: "trust no one." :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
I remember watching this happen as a teenager via two sources of information: BBSes and the early Internet, and the mainstream media.
The mainstream media told me Weaver was a child abusing neo-Nazi cult leader who was stockpiling weapons to conduct terrorist attacks or overthrow the government or something.
The non-mainstream media told me he was a reclusive survivalist eccentric that may or may not have harbored some white supremacist beliefs (goofy or offensive beliefs are not a crime) who was being taken down dramatically in a frantic attempt by said government officials to cover their rear ends for a botched entrapment attempt.
History proved the former to be all lies and the latter to be largely the truth.
I never really trusted the news again. Stuff like this just proves my teenaged loss of faith was right. Newspapers and TV media are just "some guy's blog."
That is not to say I trust the "alt" media either. It's media too and over time I've seen it become more and more full of crap as money has come into the equation. Now it seems like mostly a sales channel for dodgy "natural" pharmaceuticals and populist political propaganda.
As Mulder would say: "trust no one." :)
The only way to deal with this is to find multiple sources with competing agendas, see how each of them report and frame the news, and read responses to each by their opponents. Frankly, it's exhausting and a huge reason my news consumption has wildly decreased.
I've toyed around with this idea but ultimately it feels like trying to sober up by drinking a wider variety of booze. You're assuming that someone is even trying.
In the end it's just made me an equal opportunity skeptic.
In the end it's just made me an equal opportunity skeptic.
Yea, that's pretty much where I've ended up
It may be a good time to revisit Kurosawa's Rashomon again. YMMV but it might explain a lot of contradictions we feel about how agenda drives the narrative.
I say this every time I read an article approaching my areas of domain knowledge. (And yet I keep reading the articles.) Thankfully we have forums such as this one where more context and clarification and correction can come out.
Can anyone rebuff the argument in the article that if he did do the single legitimate proof, hackers could steal his bitcoins?
Also no word given that if he did prove himself what legal ramifications that opens himself up to with various governments
Also no word given that if he did prove himself what legal ramifications that opens himself up to with various governments
I think it's referring to the fact that you pay to a hash of a public key, but once you do a singe transaction, the public key becomes known.
I'm not sure how that's a vulnerability, since the leftover balance is paid to a new address, and I was under the impression that early bicoins were paid to public address, and pay-to-hash-of-public-address was added later.
I'd love for someone to enlighten this. (I got out of bitcoin when TradeHill was still running).
I'm not sure how that's a vulnerability, since the leftover balance is paid to a new address, and I was under the impression that early bicoins were paid to public address, and pay-to-hash-of-public-address was added later.
I'd love for someone to enlighten this. (I got out of bitcoin when TradeHill was still running).
tr1ck5t3r(1)
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/744950977090838528