[chrisfosterelli]

The argument is that there is no legitimate reason for Wright to not allow them to keep copies of the proof, aside from the reason that the hardware/software he provided was a tampered version and the proof would not actually work on any machine not provided by him.

[lucozade]

I can think of a reason. If Gavin, for example, had both a new text and a signature that was demonstrably from Satoshi, then he could publish this and screw Craig's big reveal. I mean, if anyone is a reasonably credible Satoshi, it's Gavin.

That, at least, would be a good reason to not give the signature to Gavin or Jon.

However, the moment Craig failed to sign an unambiguously new text on his blog with a known Satoshi key everything that went before was suspect. Would it have proved he was Satoshi? No. Would almost everyone except a few tinfoils give him the benefit of the doubt. Assuredly.

The fact that that didn't happen is very strong evidence that Craig does not have the keys from early blocks. Does that prove he is not Satoshi? No. But he's given about as much reason to believe he is Satoshi as I have. And I'm pretty sure it's not me.

Or is it???

[jnbiche]

> That, at least, would be a good reason to not give the signature to Gavin or Jon.

Yes, but the message that was (supposedly) signed contained words to the effect of "Craig Wright is Satoshi", or else his initials? How would Gavin be able to use that message to show that Gavin was Satoshi?

[hackuser]

That raises serious questions, but is not at all conclusive.

[chrisfosterelli]

Sure, but then you consider the undeniably faked proof published on his blog, and now this inability to meet his recent promise to provide real proof today. For someone who actually had Satoshi's keys, all of this is probably more work than just publishing real proof in the first place.

If he was actually the creator of Bitcoin, this is the worst possible way he could convince people of it. That's were the extreme doubt comes from.

[hackuser]

I think you greatly underestimate the real harm done to people who are victimized by online (and offline) mobs; people become objects of the sport of public vitriol. Just look at the remarks in this discussion; it's not a rational discussion, it's people acting out in anger - because it's become acceptable to hurt this person.

I can completely understand someone not wanting to deal with it any longer. Also, it doesn't matter what he does or says at this point; nobody will look at the evidence (even now, likley few in this discussion know more than what others in the mob have told them) and he will be lynched. Anything he does only will fuel the fire.

[chrisfosterelli]

Wright has permanently damaged other people's reputations, and put substantial effort into impersonating another person. I don't know if "victim" is appropriate.

At any rate, this conversation is about whether or not he is Satoshi. This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not. And as @lucozade put it, "he's given about as much reason to believe he is Satoshi as I have".

[hackuser]

Says who? Who tried and convicted him? The accusations of an angry mob are not at all reliable. And guilty or not, who are we to hurt him? If what you say is true then there is no reason for people to act this way; they simply could forget him and move on.

> This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not

In theory, but unfortunately not always in the real world.

[lomnakkus]

> Who tried and convicted him?

This is not a court of law. People have a right to (and do!) form their own opinions without going through the courts. Calling something a scam does not require a legal judgment, AFAIK... unless you want to argue that it would be slander/libelous to do so. However, this would probably be a tough sell since saying "X is a scam" in everyday life would probably be interpreted (for legal purposes) as saying "It is my opinion that X is a scam" and opinions cannot be slander/libelous AFAIK.