[eric_arrr]

What's puzzling here is that Wright proceeds with his charades as though he somehow knows the real Satoshi will not emerge to call him out on it. (There is some precedent for this: a long-dormant account controlled by the real Satoshi stirred to disclaim the identity of Dorian Nakamoto in 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-c...)

If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today?

I do not believe, for an instant, that Wright is Satoshi. But given the history, it seems plausible that Wright might have once been in the know as to Satoshi's true identity. Should he know the real Satoshi(s) to now be absent, it would likely embolden him to undertake this scam...

[jere]

>If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today?

One reason he might disclaim Dorian is that he simply wanted the poor man left alone. The claim that Dorian was the creator of Bitcoin was not only completely ridiculous on its face, but also a huge intrusion in the life of a clueless old man.

Wright has brought a bunch of ridicule upon himself, but it's his own fault.

[mod]

Maybe it's just because nobody believes Wright. Not much to discredit.

[jere]

Yea, I agree with that.

[x3sphere]

It probably wasn't the real Satoshi that posted the comment on that site.

His @gmx.com email account had been compromised so it's very possible the poster gained access just by issuing a password reset. Some old CMS systems also issue generated passwords sent to your email upon registration, so the password could have been obtained that way as well.

Further reading: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0

[nullc]

The GMX account password could be reset by knowing the accounts date of birth. The p2p foundation site leaked the date of birth used by the account there.

(the date used was the day of the year that eo6102 made private gold ownership unlawful, and 1975-- when it became lawful again)

[dasil003]

Given that he has the balls to attempt to pull off this kind of con which is transparent to anyone with half a clue, I doubt that the knowledge the real Satoshi could discredit him would weigh that heavily.

[kbart]

"If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today?"

If I were Satoshi, I really wouldn't like to make a precedence to come forward whenever some clown claims he's Satoshi. As jere mentioned, the first time (Dorian case) Satoshi probably felt pity for an old man.

[astronautjones]

> (There is some precedent for this: a long-dormant account controlled by the real Satoshi stirred to disclaim the identity of Dorian Nakamoto in 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-c...)

This was easily spoofed via SMTP, and has been discussed as such

[koolba]

> If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today?

What if he knows the real Satoshi and that the real Satoshi wouldn't out him? For example he knows that the real Satoshi is deceased and/or won't come forward.