Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
Can they just put out the proof already??

Obviously we can't know until seeing the substance, but this guy was the first alleged Satoshi that didn't seem completely absurd to me.


Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
Though not proven publicly yet, I think it's very likely that he is Satoshi. And that it will be proven later. I hope this will convince the miners to scale ASAP.


Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
Frankly at this point I'm a bit irritated that this guy, Satoshi or not, is wasting everybody's time.

Clearly Satoshi understands the importance of a context-specific and time-proven signature, yet Craig refuses to release one?

Although, if he is Satoshi, its possible that he lost the early keys... or is amused by the circus.

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
Whether intentionally or otherwise, this delay between releasing the claim and the evidence has provided people with an opportunity to approach to either the question of validating the claim rationally, or to run around like a headless chicken.

I'm not particularly surprised by the list of people who chose the latter.


Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
If there wasn't the blog post by Gavin I wouldn't bother wasting my time with this story... Exciting times. :D

Maybe the blog post by Craig Wright is some kind of puzzle? Maybe there is already a signed message out there and they decided to have some fun instead of just making it public?
  • Like
Reactions: Norway


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
What makes me wonder is his "If I recall correctly".

If I want to let CSW prove that he's SN, I think I exactly remember the message that he signed.


Active Member
Aug 28, 2015

don't know what to think about all this mess, really.

I cant' made up my mind around it.

On one hand there's a blog post (Wright's) full of spelling errors both on text and in the provided scripts, on the other Gavin confirmed the authenticity of is last blog post on his ninja domain.

Still something is telling me there's something "wrong" going on here...

I hope someone could shed a light on the issue, removing every ambiguity that it's possible to remove.

That said even if it turns out that Wright is Satoshi with a confidence level of 99.999%, I think that Peter Todd & Co. won't acknowledge it in any case.

edit: fwiw reddit is not responding (503 errors)
  • Like
Reactions: Lee Adams


Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
@Justus Ranvier Thanks for clearing that up. Looking closer at those transactions that should have been obvious to me. I am amazed watching this circus unfold. I am not sure what to think, though if Craig Wright is Satoshi and he is able to proof it. I would consider that to be very bullish for Bitcoin, considering that he is an even greater big blockists compared to most of us.
Last edited:

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
if Craig Wright is Satoshi and he is able to proof it
Regardless of whether or not he really is Satoshi, he's made a significant accusation against Adam Back.

This claim can be investigated completely independently of the identity of Satoshi:

The hashing algorithm used in bitcoin.
There is a common, but false, belief that Adam Back is the original source of the hash puzzle used in bitcoin. This belief derives from the paper’s references to ‘Hashcash’ [2]. Instead, we find the base algorithm defined on page 4 of ‘DOS-resistant authentication with client puzzles’ [12]. The authors did not release code, and a modified protocol and code were used in the bitcoin core release of 2009.

The original implementation of Hashcash is available via the Internet Archive project here and the original code here. The false belief that Hashcash was ‘used as the mining function in bitcoin’ can be quickly dispelled by comparing the codes used in each.

This exercise will demonstrate that the variables and functions written for bitcoin, such as nTotalLower and nTargetValue, differ radically from the functions used in Hashcash.

It was implemented simply in bitcoin, where comparisons, such as the following, were used instead of schemes that are more difficult to implement:

if(hash <= hashTarget)

{pblock->nNonce = tmp.block.nNonce;

assert(hash == pblock->GetHash());


// Check proof of work matches claimed amount

if(CBigNum().SetCompact(nBits) > bnProofOfWorkLimit)

return error(“CheckBlock() : nBits below minimum work”);

if(GetHash() > CBigNum().SetCompact(nBits).getuint256())

return error(“CheckBlock() : hash doesn’t match nBits”);

Other methods, including seeking matched hash collisions, such as are found in Hashcash, could have been incorporated; but this would have involved additional changes that would have made the initial implementation of bitcoin more difficult. The originally incorporated code derives from implementations developed by Wei Dai and Steve Reid.