This is what the MIT arm of government are attempting to implement…it would seem they have come under scrutiny.
1 Like
Imo most plausible scenario so far.
2 Likes
That, or the two of them together with Craig close collaborator, or possibly doing more of the communication.
One thing we do know, is that Satoshi Nakamoto has tried very hard to maintain his anonymity.
One of the least implausible explanations I can think of is that CW either is SN, or was so close to him that he fears being outed as him.
This would explain CW’s ability to both convince Gavin and two other bitcoin experts he is SN, while his other actions (now and in December) have managed to make that seem totally ridiculous to almost everyone else. This is entirely consistent with:
CW being SN and making it as difficult as possible for anyone to credibly out him as SN.
Who would now believe any journalist, or even his first collaborator Gavin if they say “no, really, it is him”?
It would seem SN had ensured his anonymity remains in tact for the time being especially if he actually is Craig White (or Craig White, and or closely with, David kleiman).
Aside: If so, I think CW would have also demonstrated some of the genius people want to see before believing he is Satoshi! 
2 Likes
So why the elaborate drama. If CW was SN and wanted to remain anonymous then why court the media? He could just stick with his cover story of being a early adopter of bitcoin and is developing his product that uses bitcoin.
CW had the story of his work which was sufficient to satisfy the knowledgeable. But he felt the need to promote his super computer and product he mentioned in December, so courted the media for free publicity and spread the story of him being SN, in his blogs, etc. What better way to sell a bitcoin related product than to put the idea you might be SN into the minds of the people you are marketing to.
1 Like
Or they were just some friends that got the idea quite quickly and did some early mining together. Even while the real Satoshi was someone else 
. This can go on for decades. In the coming weeks we’ll know more. CW said he would move some coins and prove he has the keys. So if he doesn’t in the next 2 weeks or so, we all know he wasn’t involved and doesn’t have the keys. He has quite a history of falsehoods making it look as if he wrote a blogpost at a certain date or something. I think CW is a fake. He might move some early coins but he won’t sign or move any real Satoshi stuff. That’s my guess until proven wrong.
Remember, this is the only things that’s needed:
So do people know the precise coins that SN mined? Or is it more the very first coins must be the ones SN mined, without knowing for sure that another was not mining at the same time???
First transaction was to Hal Finney. So if someone can sign a message with the keys that belong to that first transaction he/she proves without a doubt to own the keys.
2 Likes
So that was SN who sent it to Hal Finney? And I supposed this was documented somewhere?
As some of the earliest bitcoin records from the cypherpunks list of November 2008 show, Finney was the first to enter the conversation in support of Satoshi Nakamoto’s “P2P e-cash” idea after fellow cryptographers expressed their doubts.
Satoshi Nakamoto sent Finney the first-ever bitcoin transaction in January 2009, and Finney continued to assist Nakamoto with the initial bitcoin code as the two interacted on Bitcoin Talk forum.
Finney even showed his email conversations with Satoshi a few years back.
1 Like
I’m a little confused to be honest. SN has posted much more on the bitcointalk forum than I had previously thought; quite extensively, I may say. Certainly enough that it could be used to put together a profile (beyond the “two spaces” thing) and establish a high level of probability for a match / no match comparison with CW’s or anybody else’s previously published stuff.
1 Like
But wasn´t that exactly what Gavin claims CW did?
“He signed, in my presence, using the private key from block one—block number one, the very first mined Bitcoin block, on a computer I’m convinced had not been tampered with, on software that I’m convinced had not been tampered with, a message of my choosing. And so that kind of sealed the deal for me, convincing me that he does have that private key,” Andresen said.
Not saying that makes him Satoshi, just pointing out that he chose more or less the method you suggest. Of course, he could have used the sentence “I CW am the inventor of Bitcoin”, however I think we all agree that Satoshi could as well write “I, Michael Jackson, am the inventor of Bitcoin” - so actually Charlie Lees message has the exact same value. In this case I guess it was the news outlet which wanted him to be present when signing a key. At least that´s what I would ask for if I was a journalist who is going to either run the story of his life or ruin his reputation…
Yes, this is the confusing part. I doubt if he could fool a respected Bitcoin-dev that way, so I’m willing to believe Gavin on his word. On the other hand, he presented a false sign “stolen” from an early transaction and made it look if he signed something new to the public. That’s weird. But… Ian Grigg says CW is Satoshi as well. So it keeps confusing everybody. The only way he can and must proof his claims is by creating a public sign. That shows he at least has access to the first keys in Bitcoin.
@neo I’ve explained why he might have courted the media - chaff - to create widespread disbelief in his or anyone else’s claims that he is Satoshi
@anon40790172 if he fails to move those bitcoins, that is entirely consistent with what I suggest - see my comment to @neo above.
So far I don’t see anything we know with some degree of confidence that doesn’t actually fit what I suggest. For now! I’m not saying it is true, but it is the only explanation I’ve heard that fits what I think we do know about this situation.
It fits with Satoshi being a very clever person and being willing to work very hard to preserve his anonymity. It is also pretty obvious why someone, an academic and businessman, would want that anonymity. How else can you defend yourself and your family and friends from those who would abuse that knowledge.
If I am correct, others can work this out too. I would not be surprised if this all ends badly for Craig White one way or another, whether he is Satoshi or not.
Ironically, if he fails to back his claims up - doesn’t move those coins or sign a public message etc - it makes it all the more likely he is Satoshi. And if he does, that makes it all the more likely too. But, all it would really prove is that he has one of Satoshi’s keys.
I think that despite what most people are saying, it seems pretty compelling at the moment to think he is Satoshi, or worked more closely with him than Gavin, or does at least have one of Satoshi’s keys.
The genius of the man would then be apparent: to be under the spotlight as a strong candidate for being Satoshi Nakamoto (or his close collaborator, if David Kleiman) but convincing almost everyone that he is not.
One thing we know for sure, Satoshi Nakamoto has good reason, and has worked very hard, not to reveal his identity.
1 Like
No, that makes him more likely a faker 
.
3 Likes
Only if you can come up with a more likely explanation of the points that don’t fit with that (Motivation, how he could fool Gavin and two others etc.).
1 Like
That is more like trying to prove a negative. In the absence of positive proof that can be replicated or examined by anyone, I think we have to realise that that there are any number of possible answers to the questions. If we applied the kind of logic that people are relying on for accepting the proof to science and maths then we would still be “believing” something is so rather than being able to show it.
You are creating a false either/or fit to the problem. If you have to guess at the fit then its hardly a proof, just a theory at best. CW’s track record has been one of “proof” followed by the proof of failure.
And the theory that CW engineered this to fail so he can hide his real identity of being SN, does not fit the facts. Put simply there was no need for this drama with the media, he presented himself as SN first off with fake blog entries and courting the media. And he had no need to, because if he was SN he could have just hidden behind what he does as CW and no one could question otherwise.
2 Likes
I don’t know what reason he could have to fool half the world. It happened before, some people are just weird ;-).
It’s also weird that no version of Electrum was downloaded even if Gavin claimed he did:
I said to others yesterday, even if CW is not Satoshi he still is quite brilliant. I absolutely can’t explain the verification part by Gavin Andresen. It sounds almost impossible to fake. But at the same day he did try to fool others on his blog with a stolen sign. And if he really is Satoshi, and don’t like to be on camera, why would he do it ? Just a simple post on his website with proof and the request to leave him alone would be enough.
2 Likes
Correct: a Twitter account claims(!) there was no download 
In the end we end up in a world of belief. Even if someone moved the first Bitcoins and CW says he did it. What would that really prove?
Anyway, looking forward to read how CW intends to prove he is Satoshi.
Btw. if he was Satoshi, I´d say there are clear indicators in the video by the way he talks that Satoshi isn´t one person, but that´s again speculation - like basically everything in this thread.
something weird is going on… is a hostile takeover situation of the most secure blockchain on the planet brewing?..