Why I think dr Craig S. Wright may not be Satoshi and why I think he probably is.

Reading through all the depositions and courtdocuments I am now returning to my original research from 2019 to see if I can create an unbiased picture, with the intend to inform folks to the best of my knowledge about what we know thusfar from the available data.

I spend hours talking to the opposite side (anti Craig/BSV figures), a mention to Arthur von Pelt,who has done some signifcant research here, around Craig’s courtcase (he has a very biased approach may I add) but useful to use as a chronological detailed source of events from someone who(m) is convinced Craig is a fraud.

I feel the need to also add that Arthur and many others have spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to discredit Craig and in his extensive work it is fair to say, that not a single positive word will ever be found in Arthur’s pieces about Craig. I leave you to decide how fair that is.

After all we have to take all sides of a story into account, gathering all available data. In aviation GRADE is used a lot for decision making.

G — Gather all information through the means you have, ask questions, take notes, what information is available to you, can you get more.
R — Review the information you have gathered. Discard what is irrelevant, organize the information into groups and prioritize the information.
A — Analyze the information. Compare, contrast, what is the significance of the information, so what test. Come up with courses action. Mitigate any risk.
D — Decide on a course of action.
E — Evaluate the course of action. Is it working, do you need to come up with another course of action.

And this loops back… into another GRADE.

In a somewhat chronological order taking into a count both sides of the argument, I concluded the following:

THE BEGINNINGS

posted sunday 11 nov 2007

An old blog post from dr. Craig S. Wright before 2008, there is another old one where Craig states I want a world without fraud.

In several old blogposts from 2007/2008 and posts from 2010 see for instance the SMS Banking thread below. Craig is clearly very interested in economic security and stopping fraud, ie looking at the economic factors involved when it comes down to securing businesses against attackers. Not seeking 100% solutions, but good enough solutions.

For instance below is one of several blog posts where Craig keeps on hammering about Risk and Economics being important factors in security, stating he will be modeling it despite people stating this can’t be done.

BOASTING

Craig is quite a character and doesn’t shy away from taking on challenges or making boastful statements that not always turn out to be correct. In 2010 he starts a challenge around a SMS banking subject see here

Interesting to note is that Craig states he will calculate the risk using probablistic methods. The challenge was about 100k$ I believe where Craig even went as far as using a lawyer to setup the deal in escrow, but then the below reply happened. The challenge is off, since they figured out that Craig lost a courtcase in 2004 and was in contempt of court of breaching a contract.

from the Bitcoin whitepaper section 11:

The probability of an attacker catching up from a given deficit is analogous to a Gambler’s Ruin problem. Suppose a gambler with unlimited credit starts at a deficit and plays potentially an infinite number of trials to try to reach breakeven. We can calculate the probability he ever reaches breakeven, or that an attacker ever catches up with the honest chain, as follows [8]: p = probability an honest node finds the next block q = probability the attacker finds the next block qz = probability the attacker will ever catch up from z blocks behind

Notice how the writer explicitly also makes a fool out of Craig for making such a silly mistake with emails, whilst having a master in cybersecurity, something that in the Kleiman case also seems to potentially apply either intentionally or not. Full thread on the SMS Banking challenge here

Also notice how he refers to Tim May in the blog post, which I will get back to later on.

Full post and access to SMS Banking thread here

In this thread it also becomes clear Craig doesn’t always get the best out of people, they think Craig is boasting too much about his many degrees and his self proclaimed status of being the only guy around who finished all the Sans courses.

From: Craig S. Wright” <craig.wright () Information-Defense com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:45:15 +1100

The simple answer to these posts is that I am passionate about this topic.
This has allowed me to be drawn into a flame war with Tim, something he is far better at.

Risk and economics matter to security. Like it or not, money is a limited
resource and spending it on the most effective measures that return more
effective results means something. Going to management with another request
for more money means taking funds from some other place where it may be
better utilised.

“Everybody knows that you can’t model risk”.
Once, everybody know that the earth was the centre of the universe. That the
stars are just holes in the carpet of the sky. Rhetoric has no scientific
value. Some people, such as Tim may use this in a demagogical manner to
cover the facts. This is a common political attack. The issue is that it has
no alignment to truth. Truth is based on fact. The scientific method is a
valid measure and little else is.

So, slur me, attack my character, and do whatever else seems fit. The end
result is that I shall publish later this year. These will be in peer
reviewed journals and conferences.

and from a later post:

Like it or not, security is an economic function, pure and simple. There is
a cost for all actions and at the end of the day, somebody has to pay.
Perfect security is not a goal, optimal security is. They are not the same
thing and the later requires better modelling.

Welcome to the future, there will be math.

Blog on modeling risk from dr Craig S. Wright to be read here.

To me it shows Craig clearly has a deep understanding of modeling risk and it is clearly an obsession for him.

Bitcoin solved the double spending problem using economic security, not by seeking 100% security solutions but good enough, economically optimal solutions.

From the Bitcoin whitepaper section 6 incentive:

If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

Additionally in the snackmachine thread where Satoshi replies to someone that suggests that his snackmachine can still be attacked under certain circumstances, in a matter very Craig Wright like.

llama:”This is a good start, but still not impermeable.”

Satoshi:”I didn’t say impermeable, I said good-enough. The loss in practice would be far lower than with credit cards.”

We have two pieces of evidence here that Satoshi thought of security solutions taking into account the economics of it. I personally think this is a rather large breadcrumb.

To me this is a rather large breadcrumb, because Satoshi thought very much in terms of GOOD ENOUGH solutions, as he used those words in the snackmachine thread.

Craig filed a tax return form in 2009 where he advised that research and development (r&d) was conducted from 1999, as part of his university studies, and no patents were lodged. Valuing this at around 2.2 million dollars and he sold this intellectual property to his companies, such that he could offset personal expenses against it.

So what was Craig researching all these years? It’s another breadcrumb, or coincidence that Craig did indeed spend work on a large project since 1999 but it could have been something security related, we don’t know, it could also be Bitcoin.

This tax return form subsequently led to a dispute between Craig and the ATO which took until 2012, where Craig finally won the case. According to Craig the issue was that the ATO saw Bitcoin as a hobby and therefor he couldn’t claim anything against it. Besides that during these years the ATO didn’t have any rulings on how to handle Bitcoin, if I remember correctly the ATO wanted to fully tax any Bitcoin movements. Interestingly enough this ruling did happen, the ATO did make a ruling on Bitcoin around 2013–2014 it is mentioned in one of the tax documents. The actual ruling is not available yet, but I believe new tax docs are on the way as part of the trial coming up.

Knowing this, it becomes more logical that Craig if he had those Bitcoin moved them overseas and never actually touched them apart from a transaction that according to his lawyer Andrew Sommers was used to show that Craig does have those Bitcoins, this was mentioned during an ATO interview in 2014. Whether this actually happened, I have not been able to verify. I am digressing too much.

Craig tweeted as mentioned before that he filed a Blacknet report with the ATO around 2001 or before, inspired by Tim May.

You may remember that name from Craig’s earlier blog post, where he refers to him in 2010. Perhaps a coincidence but it is clear Craig knew what Tim May was upto in 2010, which indicates he likely has known about Black Net in 2010 already, blacknet speaks off Crypto Credits.

Sofar people have tried in vain to verify the fact that such a report was indeed filed with the ATO by Craig, as the ATO mentioned that no such document with that name was ever filed during these periods. Could potentially also be because the requested dates were wrong as Craig may have filed them earlier than 2001, but that obviously is just an excuse and we simply don’t know.

Despite not having seen any evidence of the ATO that he filed BLACKNET it is no unreasonable to expect Craig likely knew about blacknet already in 2010 since he refers to Tim May there…. imo another breadcrumb.

If he did file such a paper early on it could be another hint of him indeed starting a project related to cryptocredits which is talked about in the BLACKNET which according to Craig was the start of the creation of Bitcoin. document see here.

The above data was spread by Craig Wright when he still had access to his twitter account, one thing is clear, most of what Craig showed on twitter in terms of it being evidence of him being Satoshi, credit card statements of Bitcoin.org for instance, were all shown to be either fakes or halftruths.

For instance on this paper it shows Lynn Wright as someone who prepared the doc, but Lynn in a deposition stated to have never heard of project Blacknet and this was done under oath.

Craig did show another page hinting at blacknet existing which look genuine see also the link on the bottom side of the page pointing to ausindustry.go.au

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Obviously anyone having made their mind up would conclude that Craig is simply a liar and moves the goalpost further, anyone who believes fully that Craig is the creator will conclude that Craig is simply taking the piss and intentionally isn’t showing the full truth on twitter as he wants to prove in court that he is Satoshi.

Either way one party will be right, one will be wrong. In two days the courtcase will start and I for one am looking fwd to more material filling in the gaps of the courtcase, because no matter what people state or conclude, we simply don’t have the full story yet, but we can collect and connect some breadcrumbs and perhaps make a toastie out of it.

THE FIRST POTENTIAL SIGHTING OF SATOSHI

In 2005 Craig is potentially spotted at a Hacker Convention in the Netherlands: what the hack 2005, where Joseph Vaughn Perling (the managing director of the liberty dollar) supposedly saw Craig wearing a name badge with the moniker Satoshi Nakamoto.

Joseph wrote this article 4th april 2016 confirming the above story about meeting Satoshi, additionally this evidence from 2014 suggests that Joseph spoke to Bernard von Nothaus before this interview dated 02/01/2014[if not backdated] but put on youtube on 13/06/2014.

He told Bernard that he had met Satoshi in 2005, saying that Satoshi was inspired by Bernard to create Bitcoin. In the interview Bernard doesn’t give away the name of Craig, but states that until today he remains anonymous. Noteworthy here is that on 11/02/2014 Craig Wright contacts the Kleiman family stating Dave was a key figure behind Bitcoin.

So Bernard and Joseph may have known that Craig was Satoshi before the Kleiman family did. Obviously Joseph and Bernard could have made this story up anywhere before the 13th of June 2014 if the video is backdated, perhaps Craig paid them to do so.

I would call this a breadcrumb, but we do have a picture of Craig which was pulled by filtering pictures from the WTH 2005 convention, indicating Craig was most likely there.

The Liberty dollar seized to circulate in March 2012 and was the 2nd most popular currency in the USA which increased in value during it’s short lifespan.

Picture from What The Hack 2005

Bernard mentioned in the interview, that normally at hacker conventions people don’t usually wear their own names, on their badges.

Joseph Vaughn Perling

Bernard von Nothaus

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE

Before the Bitcoin whitepaper was released, Craig Wright was a cybersecurity expert, an auditor, a student(with an extraordinary amount of degrees), a university lecturer (Computing and Math). Craig worked at BDO and this is where he got to know Stefan Matthews who is one of the witnesses as I will explain later, who later landed Craig a job at centrebet.

I think most people agree even the opposition that Craig is a highly intelligent guy, but at the same time as with the earlier blogs, Craig is being accused rather often of bamboozling, using technobabbel to confuse people, quite often Craig also leaves context out, which may be due to him suffering from Asperger, combined with him promoting the Socrates method of studying. Ie. he encourages people to think for themselves.

Stefan Matthews

Craig also worked at the Australian stock exchange and at Lasseter casino. It is unclear to me whether he was an architect or simply delivered some monitoring work for them, for instance some of their businesses as Lynn Wright (his ex wife) explained did 24/7 security monitoring for the Australian Stock Exchange.

His paper that earned him an LLM focussed on the liability of intermediaries, clearly indicate he was studying Bitcoin related material (ofcourse this could be a coincidence) there is a proposal paper that very much indicates that pieces of the whitepaper can be found in that proposal paper, Craig stated that this proposal paper should be available still at the university.

Nosy as I am, I sent them an email requesting the information and I was told that they don’t keep data that long. Craig however states they still have a copy.

As you can see another dead end, and this pretty much goes for anything Craig puts out as potential evidence, it can’t be verified to be true, also suggesting that he is doing this intentionally for whatever reason to either keep people guessing or to mislead people in what some call the Fraud of the century.

Craig without doubt is someone who loves to study and learned cryptography from his grandfather as well as how to code C, (from a blogpost on the day that Craig’ grandfather died)and C++ according to his own blog post in 2010. Unfortunately due to many things being backdated by Craig including adding text to blog posts, it is difficult to put any value at all to these posts as they may have been altered after the fact. So if I conclude anything it is purely based on a believe that these older posts have not been tempered with (I didn’t check that)

From the deposition of Craig’s uncle it is clear that Craig had close ties with his grandfather and I am assuming this to be correct as well as the fact that his grandfather was also very much like Craig, very intelligent, involved with cryptography and was a former intelligence agent. an interesting figure who Craig loved to spend time with.

I haven’t found any evidence of Craig having studied computer science in terms of certificates, he is definitely a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) which may have a double major in Computer Science and Economics.

Having said that from his papers and some of the work I have seen, including some of the patents there is no doubt Craig has indepth knowledge on computer science.

I can only find that he has a PHD degree in Philosophy, which he got from (thesis title: The Quantification of Information Systems Risk)

He also supposedly has a PHD in theology, there is a thesis that indicates he is, but no actual certificate.

Craig also did Mathmatics, and a large variety of other degrees that in my opinion tie in with the background we expected Satoshi to have. He is a rather unique individual in that respect. Clearly a driven person, someone who lives and breaths to study.

Looking at the wide variety of knowledge Craig has a high level of grasp on, with many witness reports stating Craig knows a lot about everything, it signals Craig is likely a polymath. Very intelligent guy, very driven, and passionate about bringing Bitcoin to billions of people. One has to only check some of Craig’s one of his many discussions on Economics to realize that Craig knows what he is talking about.

Watch this conference in Arnhem, where Craig explains the importance of Bitcoin scaling, remember how he tried to stop Segwit and educate miners on Bitcoin?

But it must also be mentioned to stay unbiased that the Uni Craig studies at, is a low rated university and Craig has the habbit of reusing a lot of text (opposition claims he used a lot of plagiarism to land his phd) without mentioning the author.

He also failed a few subjects, but then he did multiple degrees in a year.

I can’t however disagree with the opposition to the fact that a lot 1of text from his papers, does seem to be copied over and adapted here and there. Much of it is math though, but not always.

Kind of awkward as well for a uni to not pick up on it, but maybe back then they didn’t do thorough checks and the uni is again not that highly regarded.

In a way though, it speaks for Craig being Satoshi as Bitcoin mostly consists of already existing solutions, except for the fact that he figured out how to stop double spending using economic security.

One thing is sure Satoshi must have been a polymath or a group as Bitcoin brings together many fields (security/economics/math/cryptography… etc)

Another potential breadcrumb is that Craig was an auditor and the public ledger clearly can be used as an accounting/attestation tool functioning as a universal source of truth, indeed stopping fraud in accounting and money.

Counterargument against this is Satoshi wanting a public ledger is that in one post Satoshi replies that if ZKsnarks can be worked out a much better version of Bitcoin might be possible, potentially suggesting he wasn’t all that keen on a public ledger. Which if that post is true, it speaks against Craig being Satoshi. But then it may have been Dave answering that or someone else, and some posts may have been altered. We don’t know!

And let me add to that, Satoshi stated that from the release of v0.1 the core design of Bitcoin is set in stone for it’s LIFETIME. A very important piece of the puzzle imo, since whatever we call Bitcoin now, is changing through community consensus lead by developers suggesting the protocol needs changes. Which I will get back to later on identifying the core differences between BTC the current Bitcoin and the version Craig supports BSV. (Satoshi vision)

If we take what Satoshi said for face value, it would be the opposite of what Craig is stating that Bitcoin was designed to stop fraud, and then ofcourse you start wondering well maybe Craig just happens to have the right background but simply isn’t Satoshi or perhaps he changed his mind.

Other than that there are other people who also had similar backgrounds to Craig who could be Satoshi, my counterargument here would be that I haven’t found anyone that fits the bill that was obsessed with economic security.

It’s impossible to be 100% here and similarly the economic security Craig was kind of obessed with, could just be a coincidence as well as his LLM subject having overlap with Bitcoin. After all you could argue that if someone was to fake being Satoshi and may think he can get away with it, it would be because he mostly fits the bill.

THE WAYBACK MACHINE

The wayback machine only has copies from 2011 onwards, on this blog post it can be found that Craig added and removed sentences from 2008 blog posts indicating that he was involved with Bitcoin early on. What most people don’t realize that these posts could well be true, since we don’t know what the original posts were before 2011 (they were deleted), some call this fraud, but the reality is: we don’t know who changed it and what the original stated.

Adding to that, Craig is a cybersecurity specialist I personally find it hard to believe Craig doesn’t know how the wayback machine works, allowing people to figure out he has tempered with them. On the other hand we don’t know that, maybe he really screwed it up trying to wipe out and alter his past. We don’t know!

It is clear no matter how you look at it that someone has been muddying the waters, it could even be someone who has had access/hacked his blog post, which I find a little hard to believe as Craig does use that excuse a little too often…. and due to the 2004 courtcase he was involved in, Craig doesn’t get the benefit of doubt anymore from me and the opposition in that respect.

2008 Dec: Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright finish a paper together on a project regarding wiping of harddrives, the whitepaper used has a similar kind of format to the Bitcoin whitepaper, having said that the format was used quite often in research.

Still I would call this a potential breadcrumb. (A tiny one)

I am skipping through 2011 quickly, W&K a business run by Kleiman and Lynn Wright, Craig mentions on a forum Bitcoin for the first time and writes it in an odd manner: BitCoin, the only time Satoshi wrote it that way was when he released the alpha version, according to some this was a typo since Satoshi never used that in his blog posts. BitCoin was however commonly used in 2009–2010 less so in 2011. Take that as you see fit.

In 2012 Craig who worked with Jamie Wilson on software called cryptoloc, asked Jamie to become a CEO of several of his companies including Coin-Exch. Interesting to note is that Craig in 2012 was also a co-chair of a international non profit cyberspace organization called csscs.org which later became cssis.org. So he clearly was well sought after. Besides that, it can’t be ignored that Craig is the only guy in the world who was building a Bitcoin Bank in 2012/2013 whilst having several other related Bitcoin businesses, sure, this could all have been empty companies with plagiarized content, but that doesn’t explain how Nchain saw value in hundreds of patents as well a petabytes of data. Either Craig did nothing and plagiarized stuff making it look good or he simply did do research and worked his butt off, looking at Craig’s history and the research he clearly did with Dave Kleiman as we know they created a whitepaper in 2008 regarding harddrives, research and development was clearly Craig’s modus of operandi, it interested him.

He was also a director at https://gicsr.org see waybackmachine which is interesting to note, because in the deposition Deborah Kobza
Chairman of GICSR Executive Director / CEO, she states Craig was never acknowledged as a board member, which is odd because in 2011 we see a news report on their website whereby one of the other directors worked as a chairman of csscs.org welcomes Craig onboard at GICSR as a board of director CHECK THIS

This becomes important in that they want to use the above to sell the idea that Craig has falsely acted upon gicsr as a director as well as using GICSR to open a trust, which Deborah knew nothing off. In 2014 Craig also went to a conference acting as a board member of the GICSR.

But then again if Deborah wasn’t even aware he was on the board, he probably was never taken off it either ………

Also of note is that Craig registered Coin-EXCH a week before Dave’s death, this could potentially be backdated, but I did find a source that registrations can’t be backdated. Adding to that Jamie Wilson stated that he started to work with Craig around 2011 end of 2012. Suggesting there were already plans to create Bitcoin related businesses before Dave died.

This is important since the opposition wants to suggest that Craig used Dave’s death as a trigger to start cozplaying Satoshi whilst generating tax rebates from intellectual property he moved after Dave’s death from W&K into Coin-Exch which was valued at around 58 million dollars. But Coin-Exch may well have been something that was planned before Dave died as the registration suggests and the hiring of Jamie Wilson at the end of 2012.

The question is what was the Intellectual Property, who valued it, there is a report from the ATO that suggests that the value was overinflated.

Dave and Craig did apply for projects with the DHS but their proposals were rejected.

From the deposition of Jamie Wilson, Jamie suggests that after Dave died (he didn’t know Dave, but heard it from Craig that his best friend dies) Craig suddenly stopped wearing hoodies and over the next months changed his appearance and behaviour. All of a sudden spending a lot of money on parties and buying a bigger car, arriving in expensive suits, this behavriour according to Jamie as well as the fact that didn’t fully understand and trust how Craig dealt with his taxes and rebates, he thought it could be fraudulent.

One thing to note is that Jamie Wilson showed an official paper as an exhibit, that he resigned from the companies after only having worked a few months with Craig, and Craig states that he fired Jamie and that Jamie is a liar trying to steal from him. Jamie did also mention that there was obviously a lot of Bitcoin and that Craig was involved early on with Bitcoin which is why he never really questioned anything during the months he saw Craig’s behaviour change, he also had personal reasons to resign.

Feb 2013 Craig finally sorts his tax issues from 2009 and paid off 450K$ from the earlier 2003/2004 courtcase he lost. This is another interesting thing to note, because Craig stated that due to that 2003/2004 case they were looking to bankrupt Craig, which would have meant Bitcoin would become property of the state.

Following that, Craig clearly seems to have access to a lot of money then and sets up several businesses. Coin-Exch was supposed to be a Bitcoin banking system, and supposedly Craig met a guy called Mark Ferrier who(m) he purchased licensed Siemens software from, so he said. Mark Ferrier denies ever having met Craig. Craig used skype to come to an agreement with Mark such that he would deliver bankingsoftware and gold. He got the bankingsoftware but didn’t get the gold, which then led Craig to pull Mark into a courtcase over the Gold which he eventually stopped pursuing.

This is the courtcase number: nsd2577/2013 for those interested to take a look, if you get access to the docs, please let me know.

During a later ATO visit Craig could show he had login details to the software, he was only interested in the source code, but the ATO verified that no licensed software was ever sold from Siemens to Craig. And if I remember correctly Craig also made a creditcard statement to a company that really highlighted Craig was trying to make it look like as if he had dealings with a company, but the ATO found out that company was a fake, and that it was odd Craig made any creditcard payments to it.

Craig was quick to respond, asking which creditcard it was so that he would block it or that he had lost it. Again seems a little to convenient.

Similarly the ATO found that Craig who stated that he had a supercomputer which he used for modelling purposes, that whatever Craig showed when the ATO visited Craig, wasn’t the supercomputer they were expecting to see. According to the ATO their conclusion was Craig was trying to mislead the ATO and what they were shown wasn’t the top500 supercomputer Craig said he purchased.

And this is really where Craig is having a lot of trouble with the ATO, so much so that if you read all the documents, it just doesn’t look pretty. It looks like someone is just trying to get tax rebates without the willingness to show what the rebates are used for, worse the ATO when visiting Craig’s home seemed to conclude he was lying / not transparent.

It is now Feb 2014 Craig wrote an email to the father of Ira stating his son Dave Kleiman and two others were the three key figures behind Bitcoin and that Dave may hold significant amount of Bitcoin on his hardware wallet ten months after Dave died. He told the father of Dave to look for the wallet.dat file.

BTC was worth 13$ in dec 2012 and 266$ in April 2013, so with 300K BTC Dave would have had: 79.8 million $ worth of BTC.

From the depositions however it is clear Dave couldn’t even pay his rent and phone bills, it is also odd to me that Dave never mentioned anything to people he was close to about the fortune of Bitcoin he was sitting on.

This to me is actually a very large breadcrumb against Dave having had any Bitcoin at all, unless ofcourse they locked it all up in a trust, as Craig mentioned he told Dave to have patience and wait until I believe oct 2014, where they would spend a little money on themselves.

One of the questions here is as well, did Craig contact the Kleimans because he wanted to let them know about the wallet.dat that Dave Kleiman may have held with 300K Bitcoins or was he aware that the Kleimans would be involved with the ATO audit that was being done and did he have no choice but to inform the Kleimans on Coin-Exch. If Craig wanted to steal things from Dave, why did he even bother to go to the Australian court to move his IP?

Ira Kleiman the brother of Dave after being told by Craig that he is entitled to a share in the Coin-Exch business Craig and Dave were setting up, realized that Craig moved IP over from W&K to Coin-exch right after Dave died.

Ira figured that the paperwork didn’t seem to quite add up and he got a phone call from the ATO that made him doubt as to whether Craig had been entirely honest, this was around february 2014

Also he reckons the signature that was used to transfer the IP wasn’t Dave’s signature.

Craig apparently did send a letter to an address of Dave advising that he would move IP over, obviously he didn’t contact the family directly here, so seems not unlikely to think Craig wanted this to be over and done with without consulting the Kleiman’s first.

Couple of interesting points, Ira after been offered shares worth potentially millions into Coin-Exch, wrote an email saying he remembered that Dave actually told him he was working with a foreigner creating digital money.

In Ira Kleiman’s deposition it became obvious that this was also the last time he met Dave Kleiman. So maybe that happened, maybe it didn’t be aware that at this stage there was no courtcase and Ira must have felt like sitting in a warm bath, being in a position where he is offered many millions.

Ira also knew that Dave potentially was in the possession of 300K Bitcoins worth 131 million dollars at the time he wrote the email to Craig saying that Dave gave the impression that he partnered up with this business man.

An odd thing in these emails is that Ira stated Dave wrote a Bitcoin logo on the back of a business card, which was a B with one line through it, and Craig shows him a B with two line stating this to be the earliest version.

But according to some the B with the two lines through it was a design made by someone else, not Satoshi and the earliest version had BC in it.

Craig stated:”We did partner…..” And this is one of the reasons why 4 years later Ira started a courtcase, also because coin-exch ended up being wrapped up without any profits.

on 10/07/2014 he also did this docuseries, where he almost seems to giveaway he knows more about Bitcoin he also states I was in Bitcoin before there was a price. This video to me bearing in mind this is one of the first vids out, is a big bread crumb for Craig being Satoshi, I urge you to watch the 3 part series.

He clearly has indepth knowledge about Bitcoin and has a strong vision for Bitcoin, Jamie Wilson also stated in his deposition that Craig is a great futurist and very intelligent,despite him having resigned and been made out a liar by Craig.

Eventually Craig’s businesses ran into bankruptcy, as the ATO kept breathing down Craig’s neck which is somewhat unsurpisingly after Craig lied and misled the ATO on the details he showed of the supercomputer he supposedly had as well as the Bankingsoftware which at over 50 million$ supposedly was paid for using a paper Bitcoin wallet.

Nchain then bought up all the IP Craig created at a discount in his previous companies and in the court documents there is a 137 paged IP DEED that to me indicates Craig did a lot of work regarding Bitcoin ip, including banking/ gaming/ hierarchichal key and many other solutions and Bitcoin related idea in a wide variety of areas. And as we all know Craig then was doxxed or as some state, doxxed himself, which eventually lead into Craig doing private signatures with several people one of which most notably is Gavin Andresen, who is his latest deposition a year ago stated he thinks it is likely Craig signed the early keys.

Having said that he also agrees that Craig could have bamboozled him and that makes the private signing difficult to use as evidence. Gavin also stated he did email with Craig before he met him to make sure and verify that Craig had answers to questions only Satoshi knew, and he answered them, before the signing I believe he also spoke to Craig for several hours and was convinced Craig was Satoshi Nakamoto.

During the signing session Craig looks nervous, out of his comfort zone, his wife also stating that Rob put them in a difficult situation. Following that Craig bailed out, confused everyone and did not publicly sign despite him saying he would. In a blog post titled Jean Paul Satre which was and is often used to show Craig was a fraud and tried to mislead people by offering a false signing, Craig actually never states that the article serves as a proof.

In fact once you google who Jean Paul Satre is, it becomes clear that Craig is basically saying, he is not ready for the nobel price and declines it.

So either Craig couldn’t sign and decided to bail out, or he could sign and decided to bail out. In the O’Hagan interview, where Craig had O’Hagan over for months as part of creating a story around him, it is clear Craig never wanted to sign publicly, but was pushed into it.

Rob dissapeared after this disastrous turnout. I believe Craig did mention to Gavin he was going to show more proof stating that the wrong blog was posted, but that evidence was never given and on that same day a story explains that Craig may have hurt himself.

All stories have two sides and Craig explains his side in the above article, if you want to understand his side read the full article

And here we have SGI Greg McKeon denying this ever happened, and that no record exists of Craig purchasing the C01N supercomputer

One of the interesting things Craig mentions is that the Supercomputer was involved with gambling and gaming which according Craig was the reason SGI pulled their hands off of it. For instance in this article it seems to suggest the tulip trust SGI supercomputer did exist, and there is this link: https://www.top500.org/system/178468/ but maybe that was all just added or somehow Craig hacked that system or fooled it. Who knows.

One thing to note is that NChain mentioned that 30 petabyte of data was acquired from Craig, and one must question what kind of data this was. Craig definitely seems to know a lot about how the propagation of the network works, let me put it this way, I would not be surprised if Craig did model Bitcoin. Having said that, here is a damning report from the ATO on the subject of supercomputers.

In Nov 2015 on a Bitcoin Panel with Joseph Vaughn Perling, Bitcoin Belle , Nick Szabo, Craig Wright appears and explains to Nick Szabo that Bitcoin is turing complete, not in script, but a system as a whole.

Nick Szabo who some people believe is Satoshi, shrugs his shoulders and states Craig should write a paper on it, which Craig did and PHD in Automata theory Clemens Lay years later after reading Craig’s work made this video Bitcoin is a powerful computing system that is capable of parallel transaction processing.

Will come back to that later.

Bitcoin Belle and Joseph were on stage that day when Craig appeared and some interesting comments were made here….

There is a lot more data, but I think this pretty much wraps up Craig’s story until Nchain took over, with some gaps missing, but summarizing the above,

my conclusion sofar is, that there are many breadcrumbs leading to Craig, his background, his obsession with economic security, his tax return form that indicated he worked on a large project since 1999, Craig setting up C01n Exchange in 2012 before Dave died, indicating he was involved with Bitcoin very early on and had a lot of knowledge already back then with many Bitcoin related ideas.

The ATO audit that was done from 2009until 2013 may also be a hint since clearly that eventually led to a tax ruling on Bitcoin, so it’s not unlikely the ATO was aware of Craig’s early connections to Bitcoin. But there is no evidence of that other than Craig saying so in the ATO tax interviews.

Dave Kleiman is actually almost an invisible man in all this, he only seems to have said something to Ira and it isn’t entirely unlikely that Ira made the claim up about Dave stating that he worked on digital currency. Purely for the fact that he never saw Dave again, never asked him about, and Dave never said anything about it to people that were closer to him than Ira.

So there is no way to actually conclude whether Dave was involved with Bitcoin and if he had any Bitcoins at all.

With regards to Craig and his ATO dealings after 2013, it comes down to whether Craig was simply going for the rebates, misleading the ATO on his holdings and lying about the work he was doing to justify the rebates.

This is very hard to answer, other than that Craig clearly has done a lot of work during that period and did have hundreds of patents and tons of Bitcoin related material/ inventions that Nchain thought was worth buying for millions!

Having said that in 2018 the ATO was still investigating Craig and even in a recent deposition I believe there might still be a criminal lnvestigation ongoing.

After Craig was saved by Nchain, they continued creating a massive patent portfolio. In 2017 Bitcoin BTC split off and Craig can be seen trying to stop the split by explaining the miners that once they accept Segwit they would lose control over Bitcoin

So take from that what you want, Craig clearly doesn’t like SEGWIT, or pretends to not like SEGWIT.

Either way, the rest is history. We now have three different versions, and people have different interpretations of what Bitcoin is supposed to be.

I will highlight shortly why I am supportive of BSV despite the fact that Craig may not be Satoshi. I do however believe he is Satoshi, but that’s just my interpretation of the available data above, and as mentioned before others interpret this data differently.

The core differences between BTC and BSV are that BTC believes fully that Bitcoin was designed as a community coin.

One of the major breadcrumbs indicating Craig Wright is Satoshi is the fact that he is the only Satoshi around that returned the original version, the version that Satoshi said would be set in stone from the release of the first version 0.1 and that also accepts the fact that users do not run nodes, and miners only are nodes. It does not have community consensus, the rules are locked in as Satoshi stated, notice for instance that the 21 million was a rule that he locked-in and we would be stuck with it once the blockchain ran.

Notice also what Craig states to Ira in 2014

As someone who wants to live in a world without fraud this seems quite consistent, but then ofcourse we know Craig isn’t always entirely honest with the ATO or a judge. So much so that some of the judges didn’t find his statements believable about the Trust and this may also come back again in the courtcase as they will undoubtedly try and pin Craig down as a fraud.

BTC proponents that believe in community consensus suggest that this number can change as long as everyone, the miners, the developers, the users are onboard.

This contradicts the whitepaper which concludes that nodes enforce any needed rules. Ie only nodes get to the decide which rules are enforced.

But notice that it doesn’t say CREATE, it says ENFORCE and this is something Craig keeps hammering on, that words have meaning. If the police enforce rules, they don’ t create the rules, in a different post to Mike Hearn Satoshi states due to the nature of the locked-in rules, I needed to ensure any demanding usecase could be done beforehand.
In other words the rules of the game that is Bitcoin were locked-in. BTC devs will argue that Satoshi did add some scripting codes in later.

So it comes down that argument as to whether Bitcoin should remain Bitcoin with fixed rules and unbounded scale or whether it should be controlled by technocrats with a community that coerce miners to accept the changes Developers want.

The latter makes no sense to me, instead of politicians we now have developers trying to sell us things. I prefer a version where the rules are locked in and nobody get’s a say.

If you want to fork Bitcoin you create something else that is not Bitcoin, if you alter the rules, you create a new game…. it’s that easy.

Other than that compete and innovate!

And that is why even despite Craig having lied here and there probably because he had no access to his Bitcoin and needed the tax rebates, I believe that Craig is extremely likely to be Satoshi

I will finish up with naming Stefan Matthews again who states he saw the whitepaper back in 2008, there is another person who is on Ira’s side who states he had discussions with Dave Kleiman and Craig about the blockchain technology at some stage, but that may have been just building tech on top of Bitcoin (a small breadcrumb), Iain Grigg a famous cryptographer who indicates he met another Satoshi and through digging deep, and talking to Craig he was 100% sure Craig is Satoshi, the statements of Joseph Vaughn Perling and Bernard von Nothaus, the statement of Jamie Wilson saying he had a lot of Bitcoin and was involved early. Gavin Andresen’s social check using email and talking to him directly.

Jameson Lopp wrote an article called: How many wrongs make a Wright

Some points that are being addresses in this article to show Craig is likely not Satohsi:

• He has a documented history of questionable statements and activities.
• He has a history of appearing to exaggerate his academic credentials.
• He has made a multitude of technical errors in his writings that call his understanding of Bitcoin and internet technology into question.
• His writing style (according to text analysis) and demeanor do not appear to be the same as those of the Satoshi whose writings are archived here.
• Wright once said: “I am a lawyer and this [financial law] is my area of speciality,” whereas the real Satoshi, when asked about how a financial law applied to Bitcoin, said, “I am not a lawyer and I can’t possibly answer that.”
• Wright once said: “At no point have I said that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency,” and yet Satoshi called Bitcoin a cryptocurrency on several occasions.
• Wright once said that he is an “academic coder” who has no idea about “real world coding” but Satoshi has said, “I’m better with code than with words though.”
• In 2008, just six months before the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto appeared, Wright made a public post stating, “Anonymity 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.”
• In February 2011, he seemed unaware of Bitcoin at all, as he was thinking about starting a gold-backed payment system.
• In August 2011, he began to mention Bitcoin in his writings, but he called it “Bit Coin, whereas Satoshi didn’t use a space or capital C in emails or forum posts. There was one instance of “BitCoin” in the early codebase, but Satoshi himself later corrected the capitalization.
• He actively bought and traded coins on Mt. Gox in 2013 and 2014.
• He once asked why you would use Xs rather than zeros in a burn address. Satoshi Nakamoto invented the Base58 encoding scheme used for these addresses, which intentionally excludes numbers and letters that look similar, such as zero and the letter O.
• He once claimed that Bitcoin’s block size was set in the block header (it’s not).
• He once claimed that Satoshi chose the secp256k1 curve due to bi-linear pairing properties but Satoshi once said that “I didn’t find anything to recommend a curve type so I just … picked one.”
• In an interview with GQ, Wright claimed, “I haven’t moved [any bitcoins]. I have sent them to Hal Finney and Zooko and that was it. Full stop.” But in 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto sent 82.51 BTC to developer Mike Hearn.
• He has thus far failed to provide simple cryptographic proof that he controls keys belonging to Satoshi after promising to do so.
• The cryptographic “proof” he did provide has been widely debunked by numerous experts including Patrick McKenzie, Dan Kaminsky and Robert Graham.

Just to give you an unbiased view, Many of the above points I can probably put down as halftruths or plain wrong, feel free to ask questions, if I have more time I might address some of the above.