[153791098c]

He probably wasn't fooled, or actually, he got screwed by both sides. He knew CSW wasn't satoshi, also he knew adam back was satoshi but couldn't tell anyone because of the NDA he signed (adam had long been compromised at that point). I think he felt the only way to save the project was to point to someone else being satoshi that did believe in the original bitcoin = p2p cash narrative, but that obviously backfired. Craig also did a complete 180 on his 'beliefs' and made everything he touched proprietary, patented and anti-freedom and privacy. Hard to believe that happened without any external influences as well.

The history of bitcoin is a very interesting one. The video series of unmasking satoshi nakamoto from barely sociable is a great first step into the rabbit hole. But i'm warning you, the deeper you go the weirder it becomes.

[gruez]

>also he knew adam back was satoshi but couldn't tell anyone because of the NDA he signed (adam had long been compromised at that point).

uhh what?

[153791098c]

After you watch the socialy bareable video it would probably make more sense. Makes it pretty clear that adam is satoshi (i would say with a 99% certainty). Adam says completely different things about bitcoin today than satoshi did all those years ago. It's not definite that he was compromised but him taking back control over the project with blockstream and the direction he steered it in makes it pretty clear to me.

On Gavin, that's also explained pretty well in the video, also this reddit quote from gavin says more than enough for me (this was under a post named "How Craig Wright probably tricked Gavin Andresen"): "I won't violate people's privacy or repeat things told to me under non-disclosure agreements, so I'm stuck-- I'm not going to say anything more, except I suspect someday the full story will come out (and it'll be made into a movie).

Of course, everything I was told could be a lie, and even professional magicians can be fooled sometimes (ever seen Penn & Teller's Fool Us show ?)."

[__blockcipher__]

And yet you can explain Adam Back/Bitcoin Core/Blockstream's actions much more simply as them being insidious actors that wanted to take over the Bitcoin project in order to promulgate propaganda supporting ridiculously high transaction fees so that they could establish a for-profit company to extract the delta between how high the fees are and how low they need to be for bitcoin to actually be usable.

Sending a message from Satoshi's e-mail is very obviously not proof of identity. Satoshi needs to move coins or sign a message. That's the only acceptable proof.

You claim Adam Back is compromised because the things he writes and does are so contrary to Satoshi and what he believed in that it's the only explanation that would make a universe where Back is Satoshi make sense. I much prefer to believe (with better evidence, btw) that Back is just not Satoshi. Boom, no logical contradictions to resolve.

[153791098c]

The connection with the very niche bmoney, the conspicuous absence of adam the years before and after bitcoin's release, his move to a tax haven, his creation of hashcash which is very similar to bitcoin, his deep knowledge of bitcoin's source code without having ever contributed to it with his bitcointalk posts, his writing style, and not many other people that would be able to pull it off...

Also even if he didn't create it, why did he never contribute to or interacted with the project? Why did he create a company that would make something he always wanted to create unusable? He even put this on his wikipedia page in 2007: "He has an interest in privacy technology, electronic cash (of the payer and payee anonymous type)..." and yet he is completely absent from bitcoin from 2009-2013 and sets up a company the completely defies everything that he wanted to create for years? It's completely illogical.

I know most of these arguments are from the video but come on. He is the perfect candidate. And i think you will not get much better evidence when someone doesn't want to be publicly known to be satoshi. But sure there is no 100% conclusive proof so believe whatever you want.

[lawn]

Adam Back? The guy who said we should use "tabs" instead of Bitcoin while we waited for Lightning Network to be finished?

I'm not kidding, here's the talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHc81OL_hk4&feature=youtu.be...

[Melting_Harps]

> Adam Back? The guy who said we should use "tabs" instead of Bitcoin while we waited for Lightning Network to be finished?

While I don't claim to know that Back was involved in the creation of Bitcoin, it's also really hard for me to understand why many people think Satoshi was just one person after all this time.

If anything Hal makes more sense and has way more circumstantial evidence if it was just a single person, but even then I don't think it matters much who was/were the thing we refer to as Satoshi Nakamoto and is actually a cool part of the mythology we've created over the years.

It's like something you'd expect from a Neal Stephenson or Daniel Suarez Book.

Because in the end, they don't matter anymore; it's gone so far from the original codebase that its entirely academic and quite honestly incredibly uninteresting in comparison to everything else that has been accomplished in this community. Though I argue much more could dhave been done if we didn't have to be derailed by this kind FakeToshi BS drama we so all too often in Bitcoin.

[zadler]

What are some good subsequent steps after the barely sociable vid?

[153791098c]

The e-mails between Peter Todd John Dillon and the connection with Greg Maxwell and the FBI. There is a pastebin out there from 2013 which is mind blowing. (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=335658.0)

But looking into what happened in 2015 with the introduction of blockstream, the core devs and the small block campaign. The massive censorship on all major bitcoin discussion platforms. introduction of RBF. the rise of Bitcoin XT and later classic and unlimited. The major signalling for Bitcoin Unlimited by businesses and miners and its subsequent DDOS attack. The segwit proposal with the subsequent Segwit2X proposal. The NY and Hongkong agreements. The BCH fork (and subsequent SV fork if you're interested in that side). The activation of Segwit and the UASF and anti S2X campaign. The complete narrative change shifting to digital gold, SoV and scrubbing anything related to the title of the whitepaper (p2p electronic cash). and so much more interesting stuff, much of the info can be found on reddit's /r/btc that has been scrubbed from other parts of the internet. warning: many info you will find on the subject will be biased one way or another so try to get info on these topics from different sources and make up your own mind.