Possible evidence that Craig isn't Satoshi?

Craig in February 2019 tweeted out a paper of his supposedly called BLACKNET. Apparently, it was supposed to prove that his paper matches the Bitcoin whitepaper.

However, Satoshi released an early draft of the bitcoin whitepaper. Note, however, that his blacknet paper contains all the corrections from the early draft to the final bitcoin whitepaper. Note that there is nothing in the Blacknet paper that matches anything from the original draft, but matches everything from the final paper.

Attached: craig.jpg (3098x1762, 879K)

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
reddit.com/user/Craig_S_Wright/comments/
gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/2008-nakamoto
lesswrong.com/posts/YdfpDyRpNyypivgdu/aalwa-ask-any-lesswronger-anything#kro6CDWaeQojqZnvb
reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/bcfl12/my_letter_of_legal_action_from_craig_faketoshi/ekqclc3/?context=3
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I meant to say that there is nothing in the Blacknet paper that matches words in the old draft but not the final paper.

How long did it take you to figure this one out user?
Take a moment and just google your findings and you'll see several people already found this.
Congrats on being late to the party but that's all your gettin

Craig
Dave
Nick

All three make up Satoshi. Dave died. Nick is staying tf away from all the drama. His proof of keys campaign wasn't just about January 2019 and HitBTC it was a subtle reference to Craig getting the tulip trust keys in 2020. 2020 when the MtGox reparations will be unloaded. 2020 when the reward is halved.

I had a 1:1 safety hedge with BSV to BTC but now it's a 2:1 hedge.

BSV supporter.
I've looked into this and it does seem pretty sketchy. However, I haven't been able to verify the documents.
I have not seen the original email. It seems scrubbed. I have not verified the email's metadata. I have not found a full copy of the attachment of the whitepaper draft, only screenshots.
I have also not seen the original blacknet paper. I have not seen official verification that it was submitted to the Austrailian government.

Given the stakes, the forgery and outright lies have been prevalent on both sides (Maxwell claiming the PGP signature was impossible when it clearly was and CSW admitting to purposfully messing with his own blog posts for convulted 4dchessmanship). This means that I really need to verify the evidence for myself before letting any rumour effect my judgement of the situation and I have not had the opportunity yet. If anyone has copies (with proof of validity) of the evidence in this situation, please post.

One possible explanation I can think of is this:

Craig had previously faked a blog talking about how he's going to release a cryptocurrency paper back in the day and admitted to it himself:reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Perhaps he is trying to throw people off here as well? But wouldn't a person pretending to be Satoshi also just say that? I don't know anymore. I am not going to be a blind follower of anyone and simply follow the evidence. Wherever the evidence points to, I will follow. If that points to Craig being Satoshi, I will believe Craig is Satoshi. If not, then I won't believe it.

Either way, Craig 100% for sure knows whether he is Satoshi or not. And Satoshi, whether he's Craig or not Craig, knows or knew too.

>CSW admitting to purposfully messing with his own blog posts
aka, caught scammer admits scamming. ergo, hes a scammer

wtf why he do this?

UPDATE from OP (me).

I said "Apparently, it was supposed to prove that his paper matches the Bitcoin whitepaper." I used the word apparently since that is what was claimed. I haven't seen his original tweet and I cannot seem to access it since his account is no more.

Here is his reddit account by the way: reddit.com/user/Craig_S_Wright/comments/

In one of his comments he says that his intention is not to prove he is Satoshi but rather for the best ideas and what works the best win. Capitalism in action.

Now I guess it's your call as to whether someone pretending to be Satoshi would say that anyways or someone who actually is Satoshi wants to throw people off thinking for sure it's him.

Attached: satooooshi.png (942x510, 108K)

hal you nigger

" I haven't seen his original tweet and I cannot seem to access it since his account is no more. "

This means I'm not sure whether he was trying to prove it or not. Perhaps he was trying to disprove something. Either way, I don't know.

If this Blacknet-early draft of Bitcoin whitepaper saga is true, then it can possibly be used as suggestive evidence against Craig being satoshi

Well, if this blacknet paper is fake, then this particular paper was probably not submitted to the government.

So, ideally:

a) we need to verify whether or not that exact paper was submitted to the Australian paper. If it was, then this makes Craig Wright Satoshi with 99% certainty.

b) if we cannot access that paper, we need to find the original draft of the bitcoin whitepaper. If it matches the one posted in the picture I posted (came from WikiLeaks twitter account I believe?), then it is suggestive evidence that Craig is not satoshi. It is unlikely that nothing in his supposed Blacknet paper would match phrases only from the final draft but not the original draft, unless there's a situation of Craig trying to throw people off again as he did with the fake blog post or that he made changes to the whitepaper from the blacknet paper, submitted it as a draft, and then reverted back to the previous changes when releasing his final version of the bitcoin whitepaper.

I don't buy it that those forgeries are to "throw people off the trail". Why make people believe you're a fraud and then threaten to sue them for calling you a fraud? I follow the version with the least number of assumptions. Namely, to dupe the Australian tax authorities into believing he's worth more than he really is, which at least makes sense considering the "coming out" coincided with the time when he was having trouble with the taxman.

>being so deep in your own ass that your brains actually turn to shit

so shit sharlock

""Wright’s mother had told me about her son’s long-standing habit of adding bits on to the truth, just to make it bigger. ‘When he was a teenager,’ she said, ‘he went into the back of a car on his bike. It threw him through the window of a parked car. That’s where his scar comes from. His sister accompanied him to the hospital and he’s telling the doctor that he’s had his nose broken twenty or so times, and the doctor is saying “You couldn’t possibly have had it broken.” And Craig says: “I sew myself up when I get injured.”’ What his mother said connected with something I’d noticed. In what he said, he often went further than he needed to; further than he ought to have done. He appeared to start with the truth, and then, slowly, he would inflate his part until the whole story suddenly looked weak."

Have you read through this? It's the earliest account I can find though it doesn't have the raw data to verify and talks about how that original file has been lost... even in 2014

gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/2008-nakamoto

>BLACEDKNET
Yo momma is Satoshi

It seems that those emails were forwarded to "gwern" by Wei Dei himself (if this is indeed Wei Dai).

lesswrong.com/posts/YdfpDyRpNyypivgdu/aalwa-ask-any-lesswronger-anything#kro6CDWaeQojqZnvb

Scroll down to the comments and search for "wei dai". The abstract and title seem to be part of the email? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The article does talk about how the original file is lost. However, the title and abstract seem to be part of Wei Dai's emails? So if that email is correct, then we atleast know that the title and abstract of that draft were real?

I find it interesting that he swapped "broadcasted" with "broadcast". Sounds like an American trying to make his text look British. Never heard "broadcasted" in the UK, sounds awful to me.