craig is protecting his family and friends… so he claims… he seems to have an answer for everything, which is why i’m inclined to believe him. But the guy also seems to have bigger issues on his hands than proving he’s satoshi. The tax investigation is happening now. If he’s lying about his computer then he has stole a lot of money from the government. Which is a lot more serious than lying about being satoshi. I can see why he wouldn’t want to show off his bitcoin wealth to the public when all this is going on. Also if he is a con artist then surely someone who knows him would have sold a story on him by now. The fact everyone he’s knows have been loyal to him says a lot about him really.
What? Who stole money? That’s crazy, I never heard anything about a Theft.
Did I miss something here??
According to public documents, another of Wright’s companies, Hotwire, is headed into receivership; it was purportedly funded solely with about twenty-two million dollars’ worth of bitcoin, and was also, evidently, taking advantage of an Australian tax-rebate program entitling it to cash rebates of forty-five cents on the dollar for sums spent by the company on research and development. Receivership documents explaining Hotwire’s apparent insolvency indicate that Wright was claiming losses “due to the collapse of Mount Gox.” This reference, to the 2014 crash of the Mt. Gox Bitcoin exchange, shows that Wright has been trying to explain his bitcoin losses to the authorities for some time. DeMorgan was also apparently cashing in on the same rebate scheme, to the tune of fifty-four million Australian dollars.
Likely in connection with these developments, Australian police raided Wright’s house in Sydney this week, saying in a statement that the raid was related to tax matters. These potential legal troubles, combined with the possibility that the transcript Wired and Gizmodo had singled out, in which Wright purported to be “running bitcoin,” seemed to confirm the possibility that someone had falsified documents in order to suggest that Wright was Nakamoto. Australian officials have yet to release more details of their investigation, but it’s possible, for example, that the bitcoin against which these real Australian tax dollars were being refunded simply never existed, or that Wright’s companies had been funded by investors who were quietly told that they were doing business with the true inventor of bitcoin.
If Wright isn’t Nakamoto, it follows that he would have preferred for such a deception to remain uninvestigated, in which case whoever provided the fabricated documents to Wired, Gizmodo, and others had motives of his own. The informer might have been an extortionist, as the cryptocurrency expert Ian Grigg has claimed. Or the leaker himself may have been cheated, and was “doxxing” Wright to get revenge on him. (A vulgar but pithy explanation of this latter possibility, upon which I cannot seem to improve, was posted on Wednesday morning by a Bitcoin Forum member known as Quantus.)
Any of these possibilities would explain the only direct response anyone seems to have been able to get from Wright. In the original Gizmodo article, Biddle confronted Wright by phone, reading to him from the leaked e-mails. “An audibly unsettled Wright asked ‘how did you get that?’ “ the article says. This, combined with Wright’s legal troubles, also suggests why so much of Wright’s digital footprint disappeared so suddenly. In any case, it won’t be long before the real bitcoin experts, to say nothing of the Australian Tax Office, arrive at some answers to these questions.
Here’s a story from August 6, 2013 (link). It’s about Joseph Vaughn Perling, He’s a cryptographer since 1980s. Look at what he said some years ago:
Because of Vaughn Perling’s Silver/Bitcoin awareness and “a promise he made to Satoshi Nakamoto eight years ago,” live BTC conversion rates are one of many currency options linked to the QR code.
So, a few years ago he claimed he had met Satoshi Nakamoto on a hackers meeting in the Netherlands in 2005. He was asked about it today, and this is what he said:
https://twitter.com/haq4good/status/727846103522017280
Boy ohw boy… a well respecter cryptographer claimed in 2013 that he met Satoshi in the Netherlands in 2005 and now says it was indeed Craig Wright… 
2 Likes
i don’t think he stole anything, just pointing out if it turns out hes not satoshi then he probably did.
i found this twitter account last night
https://twitter.com/Dr_Craig_Wright
apparently maintained by haq4good.
1 Like
If satoshi is in the uk, he would not be using an uk ip address…
It doesn´t matter. I don´t see how a tweet of anybody would prove anything. So…
it doesn’t prove anything, just make craig more credible than how he is being perceived by the bitcoin community.
I have read several of your comments and I think you are somewhat confusing how an irrelevant or false claim that CW is not Satoshi would prove that he is. It doesn´t. It is also - as has been said by many people - absolutely irrelevant.
The search for Satoshi is something that should be left to historians, who are eager to tell an interesting or accurate story. The reason why the persona is heavily debated in the Bitcoin- and cryptocommunities (even though most people agree that it is irrelevant) is because most people fear or expect the rise of an appeal to authority in an ecosystem that is supposed not to be centralized.
1 Like
i had never said i proved anything, i said many times nobody has and concrete proof weather he is or isn’t. im simply making statements to why i believe him. what did i say exactly that was irrelevent? Just because he hasn’t proved hes satoshi to the public, doesn’t mean he has to, i believe he will in good time but he has more important issues to clear up. His companies are under a tax fraud audit, he could be locked up if he loses his legal battle, thats more serious for him right now than proof that he is in no way obligated to provide. Would you show off about your bitcoin stash to the public? with or without the fraud investigation… If anyone is to tell the story of bitcoin, then who better than satoshi himself
I referred to setences like this one
and I repeat: the fact that someone makes a false point against CW doesn´t make him more credible. It doesn´t make him less credible either. It is plainly irrelevant.
1 Like
i disagree, the facts are he has prominent figures in the bitcoin community that have his back. In my eyes that makes him more credible.
Sorry, I need to leave this discussion, we are running circles here. Please read the thread:
- @anon40790172 referred to a tweet that said there was no Electrum download from the UK
- You said that if Satoshi was in the UK he would not use an UK IP
- I said that it wouldn´t matter anyway
- You answered it wouldn´t prove anything but make CW more credible
- I said that this wasn´t the case
- You said that CW was more credible because he is backed by credible(?) people which doesn´t have to do anything with my point…
So I guess this discussion could go on and on and on and maybe you want to have a discussion, but I am not interested. I just wanted to point out what from my perspective was a false conclusion.
1 Like
im not try to argue or convince you of anything. It seems my opinion of this is very different to yours. I think the problem here was that i didn’t understand what point you are trying to make? i feel credibility is in the eye of the beholder. haq4good has been on the crypto seen since before i was born. He’s a credible guy from what i can see. If he then claims craig white is satoshi… then i cannot understand your point on why this doesn’t make him credible in my eyes?
The whole point is that this wasn´t my point. Please read my post above. I guess we are talking past each others here…
im lost. im not even sure what the topic of this conversation is about anymore.
ok apologies my mistake. i thought you were refering to haq4goods tweet as being irrelevant. 
One big issue that troubles me over Craig Wright’s claim is
He needs money for his super computer project and wishes investment. Yet if he is SN, he has around 400 million USD that he can call on for his work. Such money would greatly enhance his project and speed it up so he can make more money from it. Why has he not used any of it?
Tax? He would just pay the tax. By claiming he is SN, he opens himself up to a capital gains determination by the ATO (which they can do) and be liable for a hefty tax bill.
This whole claim by CW doesn’t make much sense and there is a lot more happening behind the scenes that we are not privy to.
1 Like