{"id":20240,"date":"2019-04-19T00:07:40","date_gmt":"2019-04-19T00:07:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ci027cfe66900126c3"},"modified":"2019-04-19T00:07:40","modified_gmt":"2019-04-19T00:07:40","slug":"op-ed-how-many-wrongs-make-wright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/business\/op-ed-how-many-wrongs-make-wright","title":{"rendered":"Op Ed: How Many Wrongs Make a Wright?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"bsf_rt_marker\"><\/div><figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/is-craig-wright-satoshi.jpg\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>In other articles and on social media, some people have called into question Craig Wright&#8217;s character on a personal level and tried to establish patterns of fraudulent business practices not specifically related to the matter at hand. While my research led me to examine these allegations, I decided to narrow the focus of this particular article on evidence solely as it relates to Wright&#8217;s claims that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Craig S. Wright burst upon the Bitcoin scene in 2015 as a mysterious and controversial figure who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin.<\/p>\n<p>I actually crossed paths with him on Twitter several times in 2014 (when he used the now-deleted handle @dr_craig_wright), but I found most of his tweets difficult to follow and I generally dismissed him.<\/p>\n<p>But not everyone did.<\/p>\n<div class=\"youtube-embed\" data-video_id=\"W1f5Ms5heMM\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Gavin Andresen Thinks Craig Wright Is Satoshi\" width=\"696\" height=\"392\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/W1f5Ms5heMM?feature=oembed&#038;enablejsapi=1\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p><em>Gavin Andresen after announcing that he was convinced that Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In 2017, I met Craig Wright <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/lopp\/status\/883331069617078272\/photo\/1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">in person<\/a> at the Future of Bitcoin conference in Arnhem, Netherlands. He was much more personable when not standing on a stage with cameras pointed at him, though he still seemed pretty stubborn and tended to speak in ways that I found more confusing than enlightening.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/screen_shot_2019-05-09_at_124556_pmoriginal.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p>Over the years, I had assumed that Wright would discredit himself to the point that we no longer had to hear about him, but he has persisted. Most recently he has taken to <a href=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/articles\/craig-wright-threatens-libel-suit-letter-bitcoiner-demands-apology\">legally threatening people<\/a> who publicly proclaim that Wright is not Satoshi. But I posit that Satoshi Nakamoto no longer has any power over Bitcoin \u2014 the question of Satoshi\u2019s true identity is but an irrelevant curiosity.<\/p>\n<p>I believe the relevant question is <strong>whether or not Wright is credible:<\/strong> After considering the evidence presented in this post, you can make a better-informed decision.<\/p>\n<p>The following represents much of the relevant information about Wright&#8217;s history with Bitcoin and its community that I could find, compiled into a format that will hopefully make for an easy reference.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Satoshi Evidence and Lack Thereof<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Is it possible that Wright is somehow connected to Satoshi and the creation of Bitcoin? Well, it\u2019s not a connection that\u2019s (as yet) possible to <em>disprove \u2014<\/em> and Wright appears to be counting on that.<\/p>\n<p>His latest response to questions about a lack of evidence for this connection is that he won\u2019t bend to pressure to \u201cdisclose his financial records\u201d and that <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/Bv23t\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">key ownership does not prove<\/a> anything. Supposedly his work should be sufficient proof.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/btc\/comments\/b318ih\/in_honor_of_craig_wrights_ragequit_from_twitter_i\/eiwho2w\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">What we know and can prove<\/a> is that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>He has a documented history of questionable statements and activities.<\/li>\n<li>He has a history of appearing to exaggerate his academic credentials.<\/li>\n<li>He has made a multitude of technical errors in his writings that call his understanding of Bitcoin and internet technology into question.<\/li>\n<li>His <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ibtimes.com\/craig-wright-not-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-according-new-text-analysis-2276141\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">writing style<\/a> (according to text analysis) and demeanor do not appear to be the same as those of the Satoshi whose writings are <a href=\"https:\/\/satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">archived here<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190307144326\/https:\/twitter.com\/ProfFaustus\/status\/1102886416206520322\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Wright once said<\/a>: \u201cI am a lawyer and this [financial law] is my area of speciality,\u201d whereas the <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190319211741\/https:\/\/plan99.net\/~mike\/satoshi-emails\/thread2.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">real Satoshi<\/a>, when asked about how a financial law applied to Bitcoin, said, \u201cI am not a lawyer and I can\u2019t possibly answer that.\u201d<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/qljA9#selection-349.52-349.108\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Wright once said<\/a>: \u201cAt no point have I said that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency,\u201d and yet <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/btc\/comments\/b479rk\/please_excuse_the_craig_wright_spam_but_this_is\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Satoshi called Bitcoin a cryptocurrency<\/a> on several occasions.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ccn.com\/craig-wright-rants-about-why-satoshi-fcking-abandoned-bitcoin\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Wright once said<\/a> that he is an \u201cacademic coder\u201d who has no idea about \u201creal world coding\u201d but <a href=\"https:\/\/satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org\/emails\/cryptography\/12\/#selection-89.82-89.126\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Satoshi has said<\/a>, \u201cI\u2019m better with code than with words though.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>In 2008, just six months before the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto appeared, Wright <a href=\"https:\/\/seclists.org\/basics\/2008\/Mar\/42\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">made a public post<\/a> stating, \u201cAnonymity is the shield of cowards, it is the cover used to defend their lies. My life is open and I have little care for my privacy.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>In February 2011, he seemed unaware of Bitcoin at all, as he was thinking about <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.is\/3UwA7\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">starting a gold-backed payment system<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li>In August 2011, he began to mention Bitcoin in his writings, but he <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/lulzsec-anonymous-freedom-fighters-or-the-new-face-of-evil-2605#comment_6162\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">called it \u201cBit Coin<\/a>, whereas Satoshi <a href=\"https:\/\/satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">didn\u2019t use a space or capital <em>C<\/em><\/a> in emails or forum posts. There was <a href=\"https:\/\/github.com\/bitcoin\/bitcoin\/blob\/e071a3f6c06f41068ad17134189a4ac3073ef76b\/readme.txt#L1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">one instance of \u201cBitCoin\u201d<\/a> in the early codebase, but Satoshi himself <a href=\"https:\/\/sourceforge.net\/p\/bitcoin\/code\/28\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">later corrected the capitalization<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li>He <a href=\"https:\/\/np.reddit.com\/r\/Bitcoin\/comments\/4hx3q9\/according_to_the_mtgox_leaks_from_early_2014_our\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">actively bought and traded coins<\/a> on Mt. Gox <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Bitcoin\/comments\/4hqbux\/fun_fact_craig_wright_lost_14_in_mtgox\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">in 2013 and 2014<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li>He <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/TEykO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">once asked<\/a> why you would use <em>X<\/em>s rather than zeros in a burn address. Satoshi Nakamoto invented the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Base58\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Base58 encoding scheme<\/a> used for these addresses, which intentionally excludes numbers and letters that look similar, such as zero and the letter <em>O<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>He <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/FYsWT\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">once claimed<\/a> that Bitcoin\u2019s block size was set in the block header (it\u2019s not).<\/li>\n<li>He <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20171029130922\/https:\/twitter.com\/proffaustus\/status\/924242722810195968\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">once claimed<\/a> that Satoshi chose the secp256k1 curve due to bi-linear pairing properties but <a href=\"https:\/\/plan99.net\/~mike\/satoshi-emails\/thread3.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Satoshi once said<\/a> that \u201cI didn&#8217;t find anything to recommend a curve type so I just &#8230; picked one.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=7YUTq7_vO3A&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=304\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">an interview with GQ<\/a>, Wright claimed, &#8220;I haven\u2019t moved [any bitcoins]. I have sent them to Hal Finney and Zooko and that was it. Full stop.&#8221; But in 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto <a href=\"https:\/\/plan99.net\/~mike\/satoshi-emails\/thread1.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">sent 82.51 BTC to developer Mike Hearn<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li>He has thus far failed to provide simple cryptographic proof that he controls keys belonging to Satoshi <a href=\"https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/craig-wright-claims-he-will-move-satoshi-nakamotos-bitc-1774443766\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>after promising to do so<\/strong>.<\/a><\/li>\n<li>The cryptographic \u201cproof\u201d he did provide has been widely debunked by numerous experts including <a href=\"https:\/\/github.com\/patio11\/wrightverification\/blob\/master\/README.md\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Patrick McKenzie<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/dankaminsky.com\/2016\/05\/02\/validating-satoshi-or-not\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Dan Kaminsky<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.erratasec.com\/2016\/05\/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-deception.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Robert Graham<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Some of Wright\u2019s supporters have claimed that all of the above are part of an elaborate ruse to throw us off the trail and that he was coerced into announcing his identity as Satoshi.<\/p>\n<p>What we <em>can<\/em> see from historical mailing list posts is that Wright was involved in the cypherpunk and infosec communities. As such, Wright is better positioned than most people to pose as a Satoshi candidate. But even as a member of these communities, he did not gain much of a positive reputation.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_54original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<h3><strong>\u201cI Am Satoshi\u201d: Failed Claims<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Near the end of his \u201ccoming out\u201d as Satoshi, Wright told BBC News that \u201cI will come on camera once and I will never ever be on camera again, on any TV station or any media. Ever.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"youtube-embed\" data-video_id=\"5DCAC1j2HTY\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Mr Bitcoin: &quot;I don&#039;t want money, I don&#039;t want fame!&quot; BBC News\" width=\"696\" height=\"392\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/5DCAC1j2HTY?feature=oembed&#038;enablejsapi=1\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p> As you will see from the following documented evidence, Wright did not uphold this promise. Rather, he has remained in the spotlight, often insinuating that he created Bitcoin while avoiding (or failing) to actually prove it.<\/p>\n<h3>Failure to Establish Key Ownership<\/h3>\n<p>On May 3, 2016, Wright <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/kjuLi#selection-2443.0-2443.972\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">promised to spend<\/a> some of Satoshi\u2019s coins. He also published <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20160503160003\/http:\/\/www.drcraigwright.net\/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">this (now-deleted) post<\/a> on his blog, where he promised to show extraordinary proof that he was Satoshi.<\/p>\n<p>In \u201cThe Satoshi Affair\u201d (<a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/kjuLi#selection-721.84-721.212\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">featured here in the <em>London Review of Books<\/em><\/a>), writer Andrew O\u2019Hagan describes the following events of May 4, 2016: A \u201cnew (and final) proof session was intended to blow away the doubts,\u201d when Wright was supposed to send a Bitcoin transaction to Andresen and a BBC journalist:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cWright was worried about a security flaw in the early blockchain that would make it risky for him to move Bitcoin, exposing him to exploitation or theft. My sources later said Andresen understood the problem and confirmed it had been fixed. But Wright continued to worry and showed great reluctance about offering the final proof. Then he left the room abruptly and didn\u2019t come back.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>After this first failed attempt at cryptographically proving he had Satoshi\u2019s keys, he apologized and made it seem as if he was finished.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_3original.jpg\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/OxGhp\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>http:\/\/archive.is\/OxGhp<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Unconvincing Cryptographic Signatures<\/h3>\n<p>In 2016, Wright wrote a <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/sV9vv\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">lengthy blog post<\/a> about how to verify cryptographic signatures, in which he pasted a signature without specifying the message that it verified. It didn\u2019t take long before experts determined that the signature in question was one from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.smartbit.com.au\/tx\/12b5633bad1f9c167d523ad1aa1947b2732a865bf5414eab2f9e5ae5d5c191ba\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">this Bitcoin transaction<\/a> rather than from one that signed some text of Jean-Paul Sartre.<\/p>\n<p>GitHub contributor Patrick McKenzie <a href=\"https:\/\/github.com\/patio11\/wrightverification\/blob\/master\/README.md\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">summarized the post well<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cWright\u2019s post is flimflam and hokum which stands up to a few minutes of cursory scrutiny, and demonstrates a competent sysadmin\u2019s level of familiarity with cryptographic tools, but ultimately demonstrates no non-public information about Satoshi.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Security researcher and blogger Dan Kaminsky <a href=\"https:\/\/dankaminsky.com\/2016\/05\/02\/validating-satoshi-or-not\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">explained<\/a> why he believes the signature provided by Wright may be fraudulent:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<em>Wright is pretending he has Satoshi\u2019s signature on Sartre\u2019s writing. That would mean he has the private key, and is likely to be Satoshi. What he actually has is Satoshi\u2019s signature on parts of the public Blockchain, which of course means he doesn\u2019t need the private key and he doesn\u2019t need to be Satoshi. He just needs to make you think Satoshi signed something else besides the Blockchain \u2014 like Sartre. He doesn\u2019t publish Sartre. He publishes 14of one document. He then shows you a hash that\u2019s supposed to summarize the entire document. This is a lie. It\u2019s a hash extracted from the Blockchain itself.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>In a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en_us\/article\/vv77z9\/craig-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-evidence-signature-is-worthless\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Motherboard<\/em> article<\/a> titled \u201cCraig Wright\u2019s New Evidence That He Is Satoshi Nakamoto Is Useless,\u201d writers Jordan Pearson and Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai agreed, saying that \u201cWright simply reused an old signature from a bitcoin transaction performed in 2009 by Satoshi.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3>Altered Evidence?<\/h3>\n<p>It looks as if sometime between 2014 and 2015 Wright could have gone back and altered an old 2008 blog post to make it appear he had been working on cryptocurrency in 2008.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_9original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140602022658\/http:\/\/gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au\/2008_08_24_archive.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Original (2014 snapshot)<\/em><\/a><em> versus<\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20151003011022\/http:\/\/gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au\/2008_08_24_archive.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>altered (2015 snapshot<\/em><\/a><em>)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>One of the pieces of evidence referenced by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wired.com\/2015\/12\/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Wired<\/em><\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&amp;utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&amp;utm_medium=socialflow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Gizmodo<\/em><\/a> in their \u201couting\u201d of Wright as Satoshi was Satoshi\u2019s PGP key, but that ended up <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en_us\/article\/jpgq3y\/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">being debunked<\/a>, as it was shown that the keys were backdated.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Bitcoin\/comments\/80fzhw\/craig_s_wrights_email_to_dave_kleiman_is_provably\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">sleuth on Reddit claimed<\/a> that according to registration information, a domain shown in one of Wright\u2019s supposed emails to Kleiman \u2014 a key piece of \u201cevidence\u201d that Wright is Satoshi \u2014 was not purchased by Wright until January 23, 2009: 10 months <em>after<\/em> the date on the email.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_10original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p>These emails were sent to <em>Gizmodo<\/em>, <a href=\"https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/the-mystery-of-craig-wright-and-bitcoin-isnt-solved-yet-1747576675\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">which speculated<\/a> that the leaker may very well have been Wright himself.<\/p>\n<h3>More Debunked Cryptographic Signatures<\/h3>\n<p>On November 3, 2018, someone asked a question on <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/e27iK\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">StackExchange<\/a> about calculating the signature for the transaction in which Satoshi sent BTC to Hal Finney in block 170. Less than two weeks later, Bitcoin Cash underwent a contentious fork between the ABC and Satoshi Vision clients, the latter of which was backed by Wright and nChain.<\/p>\n<p>Within 24 hours of the fork, the Twitter <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/satoshi\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">@satoshi<\/a> account, which had been posting Satoshi quotes and white paper excerpts for a number of months, started posting uncharacteristic tweets that <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/RFmbv\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">sounded a lot like they came from Wright<\/a>. <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/Br5Tl\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">One of these tweets<\/a> (later deleted) was the calculation of a signature, but Bitcoin devs quickly <a href=\"https:\/\/bitcoin.stackexchange.com\/questions\/81115\/if-someone-wanted-to-pretend-to-be-satoshi-by-posting-a-fake-signature-to-defrau\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">explained why it was fraudulent<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p>As Bitcoin developer Pieter Wuille <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/pwuille\/status\/1063582706288586752\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">noted<\/a>, \u201cECDSA signatures where the message isn\u2019t a hash and chosen by the \u2018signer\u2019 are insecure.\u201d This time the signer <a href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/Br5Tl\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">just published<\/a> \u201chash,\u201d r, s tuples. The hash part of ECDSA is integral to the algorithm. If the verifier doesn\u2019t run the hash themselves, the security properties don\u2019t hold.<\/p>\n<p>Jimmy Song has written a <a href=\"https:\/\/medium.com\/@jimmysong\/faketoshis-nonsense-signature-8700a44536b5\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">detailed article<\/a> explaining how easy it would have been for anyone, including Wright, to create worthless but believable signatures. In fact, <a href=\"https:\/\/albacore.io\/faketoshi\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a tool has been released<\/a> that makes it easy for anyone to create signatures in exactly this fashion.<\/p>\n<h3>The Altered Blacknet vs. Bitcoin White Papers<\/h3>\n<p>In February 2019, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/UU0PD\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Wright tweeted a claim<\/a> that he had submitted a research paper in 2001 to the Australian government that had the exact same abstract as the Bitcoin white paper. However, there already was a white paper draft that had been disseminated prior to being publicly posted on the cypherpunks mailing list. This presumably backdated white paper looks like the final version rather than the draft, in that it includes all of the contributed corrections that would not have been made until seven years after the BlackNet paper of 2001.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_11_redacted_njrygy6original.jpg\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/btc\/comments\/apc9c1\/craig_wright_caught_lying_again\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/btc\/comments\/apc9c1\/craig_wright_caught_lying_again\/<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>The Case of Kleiman\u2019s Questionable Bitcoins<\/h3>\n<p>Though not directly linked to evidence of Wright\u2019s claims that he is Satoshi, scrutiny of Wright\u2019s interactions with computer forensics expert Dave Kleiman (who has also been rumored to be the real-life programmer behind Satoshi) offers some insight into his overall credibility and relationship with the truth.<\/p>\n<p>In 2018, relatives of Kleiman filed a lawsuit against Wright in U.S. federal court in Miami, represented by a prominent law firm. The lawsuit purports that Wright fraudulently acquired large numbers of bitcoin owned by Kleiman by forging various documents. However, there is evidence that the very existence of those bitcoins is <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.wizsec.jp\/2018\/02\/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">highly questionable.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>In a live WizSec <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.wizsec.jp\/2018\/02\/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">blog post<\/a> dated February 27, 2018, Kim Nilsson demonstrated that many of these addresses can be accounted for and attributed to other people. One such address (16cou7Ht6WjTzuFyDBnht9hmvXytg6XdVT) that the author identified only as a \u201cMtGox user\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Bitcoin\/comments\/60qv4k\/bitcointalk_user_loaded_signs_a_message_from_an\/df95ncm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">likely belongs to Roger Ver<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/F0YYo\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">was used on Roger\u2019s Bitcoinocracy site<\/a> to \u201cvote\u201d in favor of various statements. In fact, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/18EAm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">the original version of the WizSec blog post<\/a> attributed it to Ver before being changed to just say a \u201cMtGox user.\u201d Ver <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/btc\/comments\/bbn703\/calling_on_roger_ver_to_do_his_part_to_expose\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">has been questioned about this address<\/a>, but, as far as I can tell, he has never denied that it belongs to him.<\/p>\n<p><em>Updated: May 21, 2019: On May 4, 2019, the owner of this address<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/memo.cash\/post\/9d41091fd659287c496c239b3b43000f8b7949dc98bcdc54cca5a501a3062dd6\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>published a signed message<\/em><\/a><em> attesting that these bitcoins were owned by neither Satoshi nor Wright.<\/em><\/p>\n<h3>Wright vs Satoshi Sleep\/Activity Schedules<\/h3>\n<p>From examining the public timestamps on <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140602192717\/http:\/\/gse-compliance.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">over 100 blog posts<\/a> by Wright during the 2009 &amp; 2010 time period and comparing them against over 800 public timestamps from <a href=\"https:\/\/satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">emails, forum posts and code commits<\/a> by Satoshi during the same period, we can gain some insight as to the sleep patterns of each. It\u2019s pretty clear that Wright was generally inactive from 13:00 to 18:00 UTC while Satoshi was inactive from 7:00 to 12:00 UTC. As such, Wright appears to maintain a sleep schedule consistent with someone living in the AEST time zone (Australia) while Satoshi maintains a sleep schedule consistent with the EST time zone (North American east coast and part of South American west coast). While it\u2019s possible that Wright was meticulously maintaining two separate schedules for each identity, <a href=\"http:\/\/math.ucr.edu\/home\/baez\/physics\/General\/occam.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Occam\u2019s Razor<\/a> suggests that the reason for the different patterns is probably because they belong to different people.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/craig_wright_public_activity_hour_of_day_2009-2original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/satoshi_public_activity_hour_of_day_2009-2010_1original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p>The raw data and calculations for these charts are available <a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/19hZc0XOdasHshAnNsYLscTVftOfY-_e3VwjGTpmGDM8\/edit?usp=sharing\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Technical Errors and Shortcomings<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Whoever really was acting as Satoshi Nakamoto introduced one of the most elegant projects to date in the internet era. The creation of Bitcoin was well ahead of its time and the real Satoshi had a clear grasp of the technical concepts it introduced, as well as a willingness to admit the gaps in his or her knowledge. By outlining some of the more notable examples where Wright has demonstrated a lack of technical knowledge, a recurring characteristic that the pseudonymous Satoshi did not readily demonstrate becomes apparent.<\/p>\n<p>Wright is the <a href=\"https:\/\/nchain.com\/en\/media\/author\/dr-craig-wright\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u201cchief scientist\u201d at nChain<\/a> and yet he often makes questionable technical claims.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_46original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p>In addition to the tweet above, Wright has claimed that internet bandwidth will exceed local bus speeds, which is impossible given that the data on both ends of an internet connection between two computers are stored on hard drives.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_47original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/SwjEf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/archive.fo\/SwjEf<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>He also once claimed that a user with a 56K modem could download 32 MB in 9.5 minutes. It would actually take 80 minutes, which suggests that Wright made the mistake of confusing bits per second with bytes per second.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_48original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/xvf7l\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/archive.fo\/xvf7l<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>He\u2019s also made a very odd claim regarding DNA:<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_49original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/5it3L\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/archive.fo\/5it3L<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Time for a science and math lesson! A strand of human DNA is comprised of approximately 200 billion atoms. DNA is made of only five elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous. As such, if we could build a quinary storage system, then one DNA strand could store up to 1 trillion bits (~125 GB) of data. Current estimates put the entire internet at 5 to 10 zettabytes, so this claim is off by at least ten orders of magnitude.<\/p>\n<p>Wright also <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=o94cWj8YqYs&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=1405\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">once claimed<\/a> that signed integers are less useful than unsigned integers and that this is why more complex logic can\u2019t happen on Bitcoin. Supposedly, this is because the ability to overflow an unsigned integer \u201cenables mathematical functions.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, most computer scientists will tell you that <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Integer_overflow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">integer overflow<\/a> results in data loss and unintended application behavior \u2014 it should be avoided for the reliability and security of the application.<\/p>\n<p>Wright <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/wYBbM\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">also claimed<\/a> that secp256k1 could be used for bilinear pairing. This claim <a href=\"https:\/\/np.reddit.com\/r\/btc\/comments\/799xlz\/csw_many_wonder_why_secp256k1_was_used_in\/dp0azeb\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">was refuted<\/a> by both Andrew Poelstra (a cryptographer at Blockstream) and Vitalik Buterin (creator of Ethereum).<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_31original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/Kwyfb\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/archive.fo\/Kwyfb<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>He didn\u2019t demonstrate any such thing. Rather, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/5p1fR\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">he claimed that Bitmain might have the private key<\/a> to the burn address. Of course, this is an impossible claim and the math is irrefutable \u2014 it would take <a href=\"https:\/\/medium.com\/@wormholecash\/on-the-burning-address-of-wormhole-protocol-3962ffa8de96\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">on the order of 2\u00b9\u2076\u2070 calculations<\/a> to brute-force the private key, and there isn\u2019t enough computing power in the world to do that in any reasonable time frame.<\/p>\n<p>Many of Wright\u2019s published works have been subjected to harsh scrutiny. <a href=\"https:\/\/medium.com\/@peter_r\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Peter R. Rizun<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/bitco.in\/forum\/threads\/wright-or-wrong-lets-read-craig-wrights-selfish-miner-fallacy-paper-together-and-find-out.2426\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">analyzed<\/a> a paper Wright wrote about selfish mining and determined that it contained plenty of errors and unclear assumptions:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<em>The author tries to explain some very basic aspects of <a href=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/bitcoin-mining\">Bitcoin mining<\/a>, yet fails due to careless notation, multiple errors in his equations, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for Bitcoin mining to be \u2018memoryless.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Similarly, Paul Sztorc reviewed a paper Wright wrote about Segregated Witness functionality titled \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/nchain.com\/app\/uploads\/2017\/07\/SegWit-and-the-illusion-of-scale.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The illusion of scale in segregated witness<\/a>\u201d and found it to be <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/i\/moments\/888788567497035776\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">riddled with mistakes and nonsensical claims<\/a>.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cThe biggest problem is the equation of exchange (PY=MV), which CSW interprets backward. He initially uses \u2018P\u2019 correctly as \u2018price level\u2019 (ie, BTC\/stuff), but then he switches it for \u2018the price of money\u2019 (which would be stuff\/BTC). So \u2026 it\u2019s backwards. In other words, everything about velocity is the opposite of what he says.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h3><strong>The Million-Bitcoin Question: Why Bother?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Nik Cubrilovic posted an explanation that makes sense, given the evidence at hand. His post has been deleted but the archived version can be <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/yMZYO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">viewed here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Prior to his \u201couting\u201d as Satoshi, Cubrilovic says, Wright had been involved in a tax rebate scheme against the Australian government. Wright has operated under a number of different legal entities: Hotwire, DeMorgan, CloudCroft, Panopticrypt, Coin-Ex, Denariuz, Tulip Trading, Craig Wright R&amp;D, Permanent Success Limited, Information Defense, Integyrs, Global Institute for Cybersecurity Research and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/document\/403759392\/Kleiman-Wright-discovery-meeting-transcript\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">dozens of others<\/a> as mentioned on page 53 of <a href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/zOVCE\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">this court transcript<\/a>, an administrators\u2019 report for Hotwire in 2014. This report details three relevant points:<\/p>\n<p>1) How Hotwire operated:<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<em>The Company\u2019s main activity was the acquisition of various e-learning and e-payment software and undertaking research and development work in respect of this software and for software owned by related entities.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>2) How Hotwire was allegedly funded:<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<em>The Directors have advised that $30 million was subscribed to by the shareholders in paid up capital and this was injected via Bitcoins.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>3) How that funding was spent:<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<em>The Company applied its equity as follows:<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u2013 $29 million to acquire software from the Wright Family Trust (\u2018the Trust\u2019); and<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u2013 $1 million to fund day to day trading activities.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>What Wright did was establish a company for the purpose of carrying out research and development on e-learning software it had acquired from Wright\u2019s own trust.<\/p>\n<p>Wright would inject $30 million in bitcoin to fund the company, $29 million of which would be paid to Wright\u2019s trust to acquire the software and $1 million of which would fund operational costs \u2014 including an office in Sydney and 40 employees.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose for the structure becomes clear in the next action the company takes:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<em>Further to incurring a range of expenses, the Company lodged its GST return for the September 2013 quarter, claiming a GST refund of $3.1 million (\u2018the GST refund\u2019). After various discussions and correspondence, the ATO issued a notice to the Company on 20 January 2014 notifying that it intended to withhold the refund pending further verification of transactions and the treatment of Bitcoin.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The sales tax (GST) component of the $29 million invested by Wright into the company was eligible for a refund. Thus, by shuffling around bitcoins between entities you control, it is possible to trigger a sales tax refund (in real cash). However, it\u2019s unclear whether $30 million in bitcoin was ever shuffled around in the first place.<\/p>\n<p>Another Wright entity, DeMorgan, made the largest-ever R&amp;D tax concession claim in Australia \u2014 <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/fLgjj\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">as per its own press release<\/a>. I haven\u2019t been able to find any evidence to support this claim, however.<\/p>\n<p>The R&amp;D tax concession is a program in Australia where companies investing in R&amp;D are eligible for a 45 percent tax refund on each dollar spent. According to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/thomasbrewster\/2015\/12\/11\/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-craig-wright-lies-hoax\/#8d864f767947\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">reporting by <em>Forbes<\/em>,<\/a> the supercomputers that were claimed to be part of this spending didn\u2019t exist, so it is possible that the refund request could be construed as an attempt to make a false claim.<\/p>\n<p>As reported by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/business\/currency\/bizarre-saga-craig-wright-latest-inventor-bitcoin\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>The<\/em><em>New Yorker<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/zOVCE\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Receivership documents<\/em><\/a><em> explaining Hotwire\u2019s apparent insolvency indicate that Wright was claiming losses \u2018due to the collapse of Mount Gox.\u2019 This reference to the 2014 crash of the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange shows that Wright has been trying to explain his bitcoin losses to the authorities for some time.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Why does Wright say he is Satoshi? Cubrilovic theorizes that Wright simply spun a web of lies that was too complex to unwind, so now he has to keep taking it further.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<em>It suited Wright to be Nakamoto when he needed to raise money from investors, or to talk his way out of a problem. Nakamoto, as most know, is sitting on billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>On the other hand, Cubrilovic posits that Wright might not have wanted his alleged identity as Satoshi Nakamoto to become more widely known, lest he eventually \u201cbump into somebody\u201d who might challenge him on the claim and require some form of hard proof.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cIn terms of why the story of Wright being Nakamoto was made public I can offer a few theories. The first is that one too many people found out and one of them, potentially a disgruntled employee or investor, decided to leak [the news] as an act of revenge. The second theory is that Wright, knowing it was over for his companies and that authorities were closing in, concocted the leak himself as the first step towards a new life in London as Satoshi Nakamoto (Wright fled Australia and has not returned).\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/kjuLi#selection-669.0-669.789\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">According to O\u2019Hagan<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<em>A few weeks before the raid on Craig Wright\u2019s house, when his name still hadn\u2019t ever been publicly associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, I got an email from a Los Angeles lawyer called Jimmy Nguyen, from the firm Davis Wright Tremaine (self-described as \u2018a one-stop shop for companies in entertainment, technology, advertising, sports and other industries\u2019). Nguyen told me that they were looking to contract me to write the life of Satoshi Nakamoto. \u2018My client has acquired life story rights \u2026 from the true person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto \u2014 the creator of the bitcoin protocol,\u2019 the lawyer wrote. \u2018The story will be [of] great interest to the public and we expect the book project will generate significant publicity and media coverage once Satoshi\u2019s true identity is revealed.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>I found this snippet to be particularly interesting because Jimmy Nguyen, an attorney who specialized in entertainment and intellectual property, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.prnewswire.com\/news-releases\/nchain-group-appoints-jimmy-nguyen-as-chief-executive-officer-300566907.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">went on to become the CEO of nChain<\/a>, a tech firm, while prior CEO Stefan Matthews became Chairman of the Board. Robert MacGregor, the founder and CEO of Canada-based money-transfer firm nTrust, who met Wright through Matthews, claims that the plan for nChain was not to build technology, but rather to attain a huge exit by selling intellectual property.<\/p>\n<p>Wright was allegedly paid a significant amount of money to \u201ccome out\u201d as Satoshi, according to O\u2019Hagan in \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/kjuLi#selection-729.989-732.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Satoshi Affair<\/a>\u201d:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<em>After initial scepticism, and in spite of a slight aversion to Wright\u2019s manner, MacGregor was persuaded and struck a deal with Wright, signed on 29 June 2015. MacGregor says he felt sure that Wright was bitcoin\u2019s legendary missing father, and he told me it was his idea, later in the drafting of the deal, to insist that Satoshi\u2019s \u2018life rights\u2019 be included as part of the agreement. Wright\u2019s companies were so deeply in debt that the deal appeared to him like a rescue plan, so he agreed to everything, without, it seems, really examining what he would have to do. Within a few months, according to evidence later given to me by Matthews and MacGregor, the deal would cost MacGregor\u2019s company $15 million.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201c\u2018That\u2019s right,\u2019 Matthews said in February this year. \u2018When we signed the deal, $1.5 million was given to Wright\u2019s lawyers. But my main job was to set up an engagement with the new lawyers \u2026 and transfer Wright\u2019s intellectual property to nCrypt\u2019 \u2014 a newly formed subsidiary of nTrust. \u2018The deal had the following components: clear the outstanding debts that were preventing Wright\u2019s business from getting back on its feet, and work with the new lawyers on getting the agreements in place for the transfer of any non-corporate intellectual property, and work with the lawyers to get Craig\u2019s story rights.\u2019 From that point on, the \u2018Satoshi revelation\u2019 would be part of the deal. \u2018It was the cornerstone of the commercialisation plan,\u2019 Matthews said, \u2018with about ten million sunk into the Australian debts and setting up in London.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cThe plan was always clear to the men behind nCrypt. They would bring Wright to London and set up a research and development centre for him, with around thirty staff working under him. They would complete the work on his inventions and patent applications \u2014 he appeared to have hundreds of them \u2014 and the whole lot would be sold as the work of Satoshi Nakamoto, who would be unmasked as part of the project. Once packaged, Matthews and MacGregor planned to sell the intellectual property for upwards of a billion dollars. MacGregor later told me he was speaking to Google and Uber, as well as to a number of Swiss banks. \u2018The plan was to package it all up and sell it,\u2019 Matthews told me. \u2018The plan was never to operate it.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>But who was the mysterious benefactor funding all of this activity? Signs point to a man named <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Calvin_Ayre\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Calvin Ayre<\/a>, a Canadian billionaire best known for founding the online <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gambling\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">gambling<\/a> company Bodog. Once again, according to \u201cThe Satoshi Affair\u201d:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cCalvin Ayre is one of the topics the team routinely went dark on. When I first met Wright, he called him \u2018the man in Antigua\u2019. MacGregor never mentioned him at all during our early meetings. When I later told him that Ramona had mentioned a big man in Antigua, he said he didn\u2019t mind talking about him, but didn\u2019t bring his name up again. When, in February this year, they took Wright to Antigua for a pep talk, I emailed Matthews to ask if I could come too, and he didn\u2019t reply. Wright, in a low moment, later asked me if I\u2019d told MacGregor they were the ones who let the cat out of the bag about Ayre. I said it wasn\u2019t them: Ayre\u2019s name had first been mentioned to me by Matthews. The Antigua meeting was being arranged when I went out for dinner with Matthews, and he referred to Ayre freely without ever asking that it be off the record. MacGregor never went into detail about Ayre\u2019s involvement but both men\u2019s regular visits to Antigua made me wonder about the extent of the connection. Matthews, explicit as usual, always spoke about Ayre as if he was the capo di tutti capi of the entire affair, though I have no other evidence that Ayre was anything but an interested observer. Interestingly, nCrypt\u2019s only shareholder (one share worth one pound) is nCrypt Holdings, registered in Antigua.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>According to this <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-bitcoin-wright-fund-exclusive\/exclusive-company-behind-bitcoin-creator-sold-to-private-investors-idUSKBN17F26V\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2017 Reuters article<\/a>, nChain Holdings was sold to Malta-based High Tech Private Equity Fund SICAV plc. The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pi-hightech-fund.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">website<\/a> listed in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.prnewswire.com\/news-releases\/blockchain-pioneer-nchain-acquired-by-high-tech-private-equity-fund-sicav-plc-300439018.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">this press release<\/a> for said fund, however, no longer exists.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<em>nChain said in an emailed response to questions from Reuters that neither Ayre nor Wright had a stake in it before or after the sale. It said the company previously acquired Wright\u2019s assets and intellectual property, and he now held the post of chief scientist.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>nChain\u2019s statement could mean several things \u2014 perhaps neither man owns a stake directly, but they do <em>indirectly<\/em> through a series of other legal entities. (Check the diagram provided below to get an idea of the bigger picture.)<\/p>\n<p>It could also mean that if Wright had any stake, he has already \u201csold out\u201d and now is just trying to fulfill the master plan to sell intellectual property \u2014 or another theory is that he\u2019s just trying to run out the clock, making it look like he\u2019s trying to do so.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Reuters article, \u201cA person close to the deal said $300 million had been invested in nChain, but it was not clear over what period of time.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>An <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/kjuLi#selection-1609.821-1609.925\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">intriguing quote<\/a> from Matthews regarding the investors:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cThe people that I work with are capable of deciding this was a $30 million bad decision and write it off.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>An <a href=\"https:\/\/splinternews.com\/why-craig-wright-so-desperately-wanted-to-be-bitcoin-cr-1793857666\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">article published by Elmo Keep in <em>Splinter<\/em><\/a> summarized O\u2019Hagan\u2019s \u201cThe Satoshi Affair\u201d:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c<em>Overall, the piece adds credence to the accusation that Wright perpetuated a vast and complex fraud to convince the world that he is Satoshi Nakamoto in order to get out from under millions of dollars worth of debts he had accumulated in Australia with the tax office and other creditors. And if it is a scam, it now appears to have included a large number of co-conspirators and\/or victims, including the media outlets who were used to facilitate Wright\u2019s outing.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The article seems to suggest that Wright may be performing a sophisticated form of <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Advance-fee_scam\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">advance-fee scam<\/a> or affinity scam, whereby he uses his credibility to convince investors to part with their money for the promise of future returns.<\/p>\n<p>An alternative theory is that Stefan Matthews is a linchpin to the arrangement mentioned earlier and that he brought Calvin Ayre into this particular scheme.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/WRApT\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">According to O\u2019Hagan<\/a>, Matthews is an Australian IT expert whom Wright had known for 10 years, since they both worked for the online gambling site Centrebet. Matthews later went to work for Bodog. <a href=\"https:\/\/megaupload.nz\/jfA5d0xbb0\/D14-151123-HOTWPRE02-CIRCULAR-TO-CREDITORS-DRCJ_PDF\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthews was also a director<\/a> for Wright\u2019s company DeMorgan, so they likely remained in close contact. In \u201cThe Satoshi Affair,\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/kjuLi#selection-1557.999-1557.1082\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthews is quoted as saying<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cI get what I get paid by Calvin [Ayre]. Calvin is the only allegiance I have, then and now.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>If you look into Ayre\u2019s background, he has been building an \u201coffshore\u201d gambling empire that takes advantage of jurisdictional arbitrage in order to offer services that, when combined, are arguably illegal in some countries. By spreading around his operations, he has been able to not only maintain them in such an adversarial environment but to grow them into a huge operation. He\u2019s a shrewd businessman who is well versed in exploiting legal loopholes. As Ayre <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/forbes\/2006\/0327\/112.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">once described his operations<\/a> in a <em>Forbes<\/em> interview:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe run a business that can\u2019t actually be described as gambling in each country we operate in. But when you add it all together, it\u2019s Internet gambling.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Court records show that Ayre\u2019s not without his own problems though, as he was a fugitive from the IRS and other U.S. authorities <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/nathanvardi\/2012\/02\/28\/feds-indict-former-online-gambling-billionaire-calvin-ayre\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">due to money laundering charges<\/a> filed in 2012. During the five years he&#8217;d spent on the run, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/storyline\/panama-papers\/party-down-run-fugitive-gambling-czar-calvin-ayre-n570576\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">U.S. authorities seized over $68 million in assets from him<\/a> but eventually <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/nathanvardi\/2017\/07\/14\/former-online-gambling-billionaire-calvin-ayre-pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor-charge\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor charge<\/a> in return for dropping all of the felony charges.<\/p>\n<p>In my opinion, Ayre is in a situation where a censorship-resistant and unseizable cryptocurrency is highly desirable. Even when he first began operating in the 1990s, his gambling site was one of the few that didn\u2019t use third parties like Western Union to transfer money \u2014 it sent checks directly to users. If I was Ayre, I\u2019d want all of my gambling sites to use cryptocurrency and I\u2019d want to store a significant portion of my wealth in cryptocurrency.<\/p>\n<p>Why would Ayre choose to go the Bitcoin Cash (and later Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) route rather than just using the already well-established Bitcoin network? Was he convinced that BSV was better suited for gambling, or that he\u2019d be better positioned to influence BSV\u2019s development? Or was it that Ayre was already incredibly invested in Wright\u2019s success and was ambivalent about the technical details? Or could Ayre\u2019s mining operations simply have been a useful way for him to launder money? Freshly minted coins are pretty much impossible to tie to illegal activity. Electricity goes in and untainted money comes out.<\/p>\n<p>Economically rational SHA256 miners should mine the most profitable network since switching costs are fairly low. We can observe from the charts below that BSV miners appear to not be economically rational &#8211; they are leaving money on the table, so to speak. While BCH miners appear to drop off the BCH network (and probably switch to mining BTC) when it becomes more profitable to do so, BSV miners have been consistently mining at a loss, in comparison to if they were mining BTC instead. This begs the question: Are BSV miners actually irrational or is there another factor at play that makes it rational for them to pass over an opportunity for greater profits? One plausible explanation is that as of April 26 2019, over 80 percent of the BSV hashrate is controlled by 2 pools: CoinGeek (owned by Ayre) and BMG Pool (owned by nChain) and that they are mining suboptimally in order to keep up appearances of strength. This reasoning makes sense given that BSV is built upon an ideology driven by Nakamoto Consensus: \u201cHe who controls the hashrate controls the network.\u201d<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/screenshot_from_2019-04-24_16-22-57original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/screenshot_from_2019-04-24_16-23-03original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p>In the chart below, an internet sleuth on Reddit theorized about a possible web of relationships.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_53original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<h3><strong>Patents<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Wright has been prolific in his efforts to file patents for other blockchain- and computer-science-related work. These patents would be much more interesting to potential investors if filed by the man behind Satoshi, possibly serving as motivation for Wright\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n<p>Wright has been filing patents for a few years under EITC Holdings, nChain Holdings, NCIP Holding and nTrust. Filings of his have been found at the Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom, European Patent Office, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Taiwan Intellectual Property Office. A (now-deleted) site called <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/xDWge\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">bitcoinpatentreport.com<\/a> detailed some of the activity.<\/p>\n<p>At the time of this writing, a total of 264 patents by Wright\u2019s companies have been published by the British patent office, while the European patent office <a href=\"https:\/\/worldwide.espacenet.com\/searchResults?submitted=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;ST=advanced&amp;TI&amp;AB&amp;PN&amp;AP&amp;PR&amp;PD&amp;PA=Nchain&amp;IN&amp;CPC&amp;IC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">shows 167 applications<\/a> for nChain. <a href=\"https:\/\/patentscope.wipo.int\/search\/en\/search.jsf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">PatentScope sees 296 applications<\/a>, while <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.google.com\/?assignee=nChain&amp;oq=assignee:(nChain)&amp;sort=new\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Google Patents shows a total of 363<\/a>.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>EITC Holdings: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ipo.gov.uk\/patent\/p-journal\/p-pj?startYear=2010&amp;startMonth=March&amp;startDay=31st+-+6306&amp;endYear=2018&amp;endMonth=July&amp;endDay=25th+-+6740&amp;filter=eitc&amp;perPage=100&amp;sort=Publication+Date\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">73 filings<\/a><\/li>\n<li>nChain Holdings: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ipo.gov.uk\/p-pj\/p-pj-ukappfiled?startYear=2010&amp;startMonth=March&amp;startDay=31st+-+6306&amp;endYear=2019&amp;endMonth=April&amp;endDay=17th+-+6778&amp;filter=nchain&amp;perPage=100&amp;sort=Publication+Date\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">145 filings<\/a> (Britain), <a href=\"https:\/\/worldwide.espacenet.com\/searchResults?submitted=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;ST=advanced&amp;TI&amp;AB&amp;PN&amp;AP&amp;PR&amp;PD&amp;PA=Nchain&amp;IN&amp;CPC&amp;IC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">174 filings<\/a> (Europe)<\/li>\n<li>NCIP Holdings: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ipo.gov.uk\/patent\/p-journal\/p-pj?startYear=2010&amp;startMonth=March&amp;startDay=31st+-+6306&amp;endYear=2018&amp;endMonth=July&amp;endDay=25th+-+6740&amp;filter=ncip&amp;perPage=100&amp;sort=Publication+Date\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">7 filings<\/a><\/li>\n<li>nTrust: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ipo.gov.uk\/patent\/p-journal\/p-pj?startYear=2010&amp;startMonth=March&amp;startDay=31st+-+6306&amp;endYear=2018&amp;endMonth=July&amp;endDay=25th+-+6740&amp;filter=ntrust&amp;perPage=100&amp;sort=Publication+Date\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">0 filings<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>On March 7, 2019, nChain CEO Jimmy Nguyen wrote that <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/lqbja\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">nChain had filed<\/a> its 666th patent application. Note that filings are generally published with a time lag of up to 18 months, so we\u2019ll have to wait another year to know for sure.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_35original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/vrhBm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/archive.fo\/vrhBm<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_36original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/PPER9\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/archive.fo\/PPER9<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>These tweets with specific claims of patent applications filed are interesting because they conflict <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/lqbja\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">with the number claimed<\/a> by nChain\u2019s CEO in March of 2019. Wright claims 700 patents filed as of June 2018 and 1,000 filed as of December 2018, while Nguyen claims 666 as of March 2019.<\/p>\n<p>While nChain may not be filing as many applications as Wright claims, it certainly is filing a lot. But filing applications is not the same as having patents granted.<\/p>\n<p>From a cursory review of some of the applications, it appears that patent examiners are finding prior art for many of nChain\u2019s claimed novel inventions; you can see some of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/btc\/comments\/9crpxj\/patentability_of_wrights_inventions\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">patent examiner opinions here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Take, for example, Wright\u2019s patent application for a threshold signature scheme. The <a href=\"https:\/\/patentscope.wipo.int\/search\/docs2\/pct\/WO2019034951\/pdf\/QGeoxxK1DY_St0lggfAn5M1dnMfRmhMSrLPU6bNFbVTPNcmAP6eHLDY9GitLwDRyjlCer4eye-OMljhrpi3VQnIz1f0hVcNaVeEJhtHa1KjlKsWTnibOl1hCxroR0cXH?docId=id00000046171407&amp;psAuth=ZPeG_XaHpN8vvdQ7PFfDYrf6QLsabDgJEM3k4B2m9ps\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">patent examiner determined<\/a> that 31 of the 34 claims of novelty were, in fact, not novel. Or this patent application for UTXO time locks, for which <a href=\"https:\/\/patentscope.wipo.int\/search\/docs2\/pct\/WO2019049022\/pdf\/Tx6KAIVh6TYlY1b4yWogUM7K4NYagEU3I0Qj2_PNcZ4gm10e4qg08P_g2bEmmB-gTHOxAUJ23TeBd-8whBB6Rb1xHo11fi6qotiXs_7cMMCoH4M9LzEiEvaQx50AASjH?docId=id00000047208628&amp;psAuth=YEMsUcw_NcRoxR9g5wsmXCDhqvYd4q36r0Yuij34gpY\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">the patent examiner determined<\/a> 14 of the 17 claims were not novel.<\/p>\n<p>In February 2017, Wright submitted a <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.google.com\/patent\/WO2017145006A1\/en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">patent<\/a> titled \u201cAgent-based Turing Complete Transactions integrating feedback within a Blockchain System,\u201d basically trying to patent any computer program that uses a blockchain as its data store. In a <a href=\"https:\/\/medium.com\/@j_73307\/p2pool-as-prior-art-for-nchains-turing-complete-transactions-patent-or-how-to-patent-all-40f3d429eaa4\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Medium post<\/a> dated September 4, 2018, Jonathan Toomim completed an in-depth analysis of Wright\u2019s proposal and demonstrated ways in which P2Pool, Ethereum and Counterparty could be considered <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/learning-events\/materials\/inventors-handbook\/novelty\/prior-art.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">prior art<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Evasion of Criticism<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>On June 30, 2018, Wright blocked me on Twitter and made this post.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_40original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/D4zrc\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/archive.fo\/D4zrc<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>I found this to be a bit odd because I had muted him many months before and stopped interacting with him after I challenged one of his technical claims about the node network graph of Bitcoin Cash. Instead of answering my straightforward question, he countered with a bombardment of questions of his own that did not appear particularly relevant.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_41original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p>In the following weeks and months he continued blocking quite a few people, even those who supported Bitcoin Cash, perhaps in anticipation of nChain planning to push a contentious hard fork for Bitcoin SV.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_42original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_43original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_44original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_45original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<h3><strong>Apparent Misrepresentation of Academic Credentials<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Among Wright\u2019s lengthy list of claimed accomplishments, there are quite a few academic achievements, including PhDs that he has used as the basis for his title of \u201cDr.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In 2017, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=QiK34QicusI\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">he pulled a stunt<\/a> at a Bitcoin Meetup in Zurich, where he brought a \u201cwheelbarrow of degrees\u201d on stage. Photos of these degrees and certificates were <a href=\"https:\/\/megaupload.nz\/ealeJ4S9m1\/Craig-Wright-Academic-Degrees-Certificates_2017_pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">subsequently published on nChain\u2019s website<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>As we can see from this list, Wright\u2019s only PhD appears to have been completed in April 2017 at Charles Sturt University (often <a href=\"https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/education\/best-global-universities\/charles-sturt-university-528979\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ranked<\/a> around number 30 in Australia and number 800 globally), which is where most of his degrees appear to have come from.<\/p>\n<p>Wright\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/XnLQd\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">now-deleted LinkedIn profile<\/a> also claimed a \u201cPhD, Computer Science 2009\u20132012\u201d from Charles Sturt University, but the school put these claims in question with a media release:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">Update: Australian university says Craig Wright did not complete a PhD as claimed. <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/DmqU0sVlwy\">https:\/\/t.co\/DmqU0sVlwy<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/AaubGgYD9U\">pic.twitter.com\/AaubGgYD9U<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&mdash; Mashable (@mashable) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/mashable\/status\/675193059408265216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">December 11, 2015<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p>That PhD in computer science is not listed among his degrees. Nor is the Masters in Systems Development that he has claimed. Neither is listed on CSU\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/alumni.csu.edu.au\/benefits-and-services\/alumni-education-verification\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">alumni education verification site<\/a> either.<\/p>\n<p>That same LinkedIn profile claimed that he\u2019d earned a \u201cDoctor of Theology, Comparitive Religous [sic] and Classical Studies 1998\u20132003\u201d from \u201cGuess\u201d \u2014 he later stated that his theology studies were through SOAS (University of London\u2019s School of Oriental and African Studies).<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/figure_15original.png\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<p><em>Source:<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ProfFaustus\/status\/1083339312219996160\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>https:\/\/twitter.com\/ProfFaustus\/status\/1083339312219996160<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>However, it seems clear from my research that he has never published anything (such as a PhD thesis) through SOAS as <a href=\"https:\/\/eprints.soas.ac.uk\/cgi\/search\/archive\/advanced?screen=Search&amp;dataset=archive&amp;_action_search=Search&amp;documents_merge=ALL&amp;documents&amp;title_merge=ALL&amp;title&amp;person_merge=ALL&amp;person=craig+wright&amp;abstract_merge=ALL&amp;abstract&amp;keywords_merge=ALL&amp;keywords&amp;subjects_merge=ANY&amp;department_merge=ALL&amp;department&amp;supervisors_name_merge=ALL&amp;supervisors_name&amp;refereed=EITHER&amp;publication_merge=ALL&amp;publication&amp;date&amp;embargodate&amp;datestamp&amp;satisfyall=ALL&amp;order=-date\/creators_name\/title\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">its research archives hold nothing with his name on it<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, in 2015, Wright remotely participated in a Bitcoin conference and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=105\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">claimed he had \u201ca couple doctorates.<\/a>\u201d It\u2019s quite clear that Wright had given himself the title of \u201cDr.\u201d and used it for several years before rightfully earning it.<\/p>\n<p>This media statement issued by CSU further clarified that, despite Wright stating he was a lecturer and researcher at the university, \u201c<strong>undefined<\/strong>etween May 2011 and May 2014 Mr. Wright was an adjunct academic at CSU. Adjunct academics undertake unpaid academic work and are not formally employed by the University.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>I have been unable to verify Wright\u2019s LinkedIn claim that he earned a \u201cMaster of Science (MSc), Finance (Quantitative Finance)\u201d in 2015\u20132017 through the University of London (presumably through <a href=\"https:\/\/www.soas.ac.uk\/cefims\/online-programmes\/mscfinanceqf\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">SOAS again<\/a>). A <em>Mashable<\/em> request for academic records appears to have been unfulfilled. I sent my own request and SOAS replied that I needed written consent from the individual in order to have the information released. This seems like a flaw to me; you\u2019d think that academic institutions would want to help students accredit their academic credentials.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Military Service<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Wright has referred to his time in the military on several occasions. I have looked into the record of his service and the tasks he allegedly performed at that time in order to confirm his claims.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest record that I\u2019ve been able to find of Wright referencing his military service in the cypherpunk community dates back to 1996, when Wright added <a href=\"https:\/\/mailing-list-archive.cryptoanarchy.wiki\/archive\/1996\/09\/dfc75b84234ea728c6c34cb022dde758d44d5f9fb266d9a00092f593a9c93c6b\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a post<\/a> to the cypherpunks mailing list:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cThe few months I was unemployed after I left the military because of a confict [sic] of interests I earned money by doing whatever I could get.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>In 2008, Wright <a href=\"https:\/\/seclists.org\/basics\/2008\/Mar\/42\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">made a reference<\/a> to this time in his life on a public mailing list:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cIn 1989 I started a B.Eng\/BSci double degree. I dropped out of the University of Queensland in 1992 (after my 3rd year). I have a reason for this. I had cancer. I though [sic] that it was better to go back to my studies after I knew I would live. Sorry, but we all have priorities.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Years later, according to \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/kjuLi\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Satoshi Affair<\/a>,\u201d Wright said of his time in the military:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201c\u2018They locked me in a bunker \u2026 and I worked on a bombing system. Smart bombs. We needed fast code, and I did that.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>I found Wright\u2019s claims about his military service intriguing, mainly because military service creates a lot of public records. So I strolled on over to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.naa.gov.au\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">National Archives of Australia<\/a> to see what information it would release to me. It took several months of painful bureaucratic back and forth, but I managed to retrieve 82 out of the 177 pages of documents on file for Wright. They are <a href=\"http:\/\/recordsearch.naa.gov.au\/scripts\/AutoSearch.asp?Number=14078466&amp;O=I\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>What do Wright\u2019s public military records show?<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>He was in the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Australian_Air_Force_Cadets\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Australian Air Force Cadets<\/a> at age 15 in 1986.<\/li>\n<li>He applied to the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Australian_Defence_Force_Academy\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Australian Defence Force Academy<\/a> to train as a pilot in 1987 but was rejected. Oddly enough, the psychologist\u2019s report filed with this application is blank. It is possible that the completed one was withheld.<\/li>\n<li>He was a student at the University of Queensland from 1988 to 1989.<\/li>\n<li>He applied to the Royal Australian Air Force in 1989 and was accepted to a nine-year officer program with a sponsorship to the RAAF undergraduate program to study electrical engineering. The sponsorship offer noted that \u201cshould you fail to progress academically for whatever reason \u2026 you may be required to apply to repeat the year at your own expense.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>He started his first semester in 1990 as an Officer Cadet.<\/li>\n<li>He passed one class, \u201cLaw of War,\u201d in the first semester.<\/li>\n<li>Oddly enough, there is no mention of any engineering or math classes, but perhaps these records were withheld.<\/li>\n<li>A (hard to read) handwritten letter released by the archives appears to state that \u201cOfficer Cadets Bone and Wright were asked to show cause why they should be provided with continued RAAF sponsorship as they had failed semester 1\/90.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Wright did send a letter regarding his undergraduate sponsorship standing later that year, but it was withheld by the archives.<\/li>\n<li>He went on SLWOP (special leave without pay) on March 15, 1990.<\/li>\n<li>He was discharged October 19, 1990, for \u201cReason 4.\u201d (I\u2019ve not been able to verify what \u201cReason 4\u201d means.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>It\u2019s interesting, to say the least, that this man who claims to be a lifelong academic with more than a dozen degrees appears to have failed out of his first semester in the RAAF, according to these public records.<\/p>\n<p>Is it likely that he was given the responsibility to write code for bomb guidance systems as a first-semester cadet? Did he leave the military due to a \u201cconflict of interest\u201d?<\/p>\n<h3><strong>What Now?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/articles\/craig-wright-threatens-libel-suit-letter-bitcoiner-demands-apology\">Wright\u2019s threats<\/a> through his London-based lawyer against multiple posters may or may not wind their way through the court process. The lawsuit against Wright in federal court in Miami will continue; in fact, Wright recently was scheduled to sit for testimony in London, so we will be interested in learning more about that.<\/p>\n<p>I, personally, am highly doubtful of many of Wright\u2019s claims. He\u2019s had four years to come forward with proof that he is Satoshi, and I, for one, am not satisfied.<\/p>\n<p>On the bright side, it would appear that Wright has painted himself into a corner. He is now the figurehead of a fork of a fork of Bitcoin, operating in a tiny echo chamber that will be incredibly difficult to grow. In fact, it appears that <a href=\"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/articles\/binance-delists-bitcoin-sv\">there is a growing movement<\/a> among exchanges to delist the BSV asset. It will be interesting to see how Craig &amp; Co. make their exit \u2014 will it be with a bang or a whimper?<\/p>\n<p>Wright thrives on attention, and the unfortunate result of this post is that it is a catch-22 \u2014 it will bring him more attention, at least temporarily. I believe we\u2019ll all be better off if we let this chapter of Bitcoin come to a close.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Additional Sources<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Numerous sources have been reviewed in connection with this op ed, and many are linked throughout. Below are links to further extended posts and compilations.<\/p>\n<p>Andreas Brekken\u2019s \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190212140112\/https:\/\/github.com\/CultOfCraig\/cult-of-craig\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Cult of Craig<\/a>\u201d compilation, now maintained at <a href=\"https:\/\/craigwright.online\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/craigwright.online\/<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/billfodl.com\/pages\/stopcraigwright\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.stopcraigwright.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Bitcoin Wiki\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/en.bitcoin.it\/wiki\/Craig_Wright\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">entry on Craig Wright<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/user\/Contrarian__\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\/u\/Contrarian__<\/a>\u2019s plethora of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/btc\/comments\/b318ih\/in_honor_of_craig_wrights_ragequit_from_twitter_i\/eiwho2w\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Reddit posts<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Jonald Fyookball\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/medium.com\/@jonaldfyookball\/bitcoin-cash-is-finally-free-of-faketoshi-great-days-lie-ahead-bb0c833e4c5d\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">compilation<\/a> of Wright\u2019s history<\/p>\n<p>Nik Cubrilovic\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.fo\/yMZYO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">analysis of Hotwire<\/a><\/p>\n<p><em>This is an op ed by Jameson Lopp. Opinions expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bitcoin Magazine or BTC Inc.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Craig Wright insists that he&#8217;s Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin &#8211; but the evidence doesn&#8217;t seem to line up. Jameson Lopp breaks down the arguments against Wright&#8217;s claim in this feature op ed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2872,"featured_media":20242,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[3299,644,2306,2279,3224],"class_list":{"0":"post-20240","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-bchsv","9":"tag-craig-wright","10":"tag-forks","11":"tag-jameson-lopp","12":"tag-op-ed"},"author_data":{"id":2872,"name":"Jameson Lopp","nicename":"jameson-lopp","avatar_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/jameson-lopp-promo-image-96x96.jpg"},"featured_image_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/is-craig-wright-satoshi.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2872"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20240\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/20242"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}