Is Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto?
Time to get to the bottom of it, according to a whole lot of experts on the matter, or simple Concavians and their thoughts…
Craig Wright, you may know him from Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), claims he is the one and only Satoshi Nakamoto…
…but is he really?
Concave decided to do what it does best — ask the community for insight — and this is what we got in return.
Just another rabbit hole that is worth diving into.
Is Craig Wright, Satoshi Nakamoto?
Well, let’s start our dive by reading what CONCAVE MAXI Vabos (∞) thinks of it:
Respectfully, no. He is the biggest larper and capper there is. He has the audacity to claim to be Satoshi when he won’t move Satoshi’s Bitcoin as a form of Proof. It is the easiest and simplest Proof of Work that he can do to prove and establish that he is Satoshi.
CameronD (∞) has a completely different oppinion:
It’s funny how crazy people get about this topic. I think he probably is Satoshi, and I also think he’s an asshole.
BTCers can’t stand the idea that their idol is nothing like they imagined him to be.
I personally don’t really care, and I think that both BSV and BTC will be relegated to the sidelines as blockchain technology evolves and moves past the economic incentive problems inherent in PoW and PoS with projects like SAITO.
So, as you can see, even in our tight-knit community and across our crypto reach, we do have different opinions and people who think he is Satoshi, while others abhor the idea.
Pretty divisive topic, which makes it even more interesting.
bulew (∞) wrote a bit more about it and brought the burden of proof to the mix.
Craig Wright announced, following the investigations conducted by Wired and Gizmodo, to be the identity hiding behind the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto.
However, in front of the request for proof (notably cryptographic) and after the delivery of a forged document, he went back explaining that he did not wish to provide this type of proof.
However, he continues to claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. In addition, a trial is taking place this winter in Florida: the family of a deceased man is suing his former partner to regularize the control of their assets.
The assets? : more than one million bitcoins belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto. The family of the deceased man claims that he and his partner were hiding together behind the name Nakamoto, and that they are therefore entitled to half of this fortune.
But Craig Wright has just obtained from the judges the ownership of these bitcoins… These elements feed the thesis that Satoshi Nakamoto is an alias hiding several people.
Craig Wright, in any case, is quite different from the initial desire of SN to hide his true identity …
Now, when considering BTC and Craig’s BSV, what are the differences?
Well, they are thoroughly documented, but what does the average Bitcoin lover know about it?
We’ve decided, again, to ask the Concave Community.
What is the difference between BTC and BSV?
Well, let’s start by looking at quite a big answer from Dziunek (∞):
Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV differ in important ways in a number of respects, making the two networks incompatible with each other and ultimately contributing to the chain split that occurred on 15 November 2018.
First and foremost, the two projects differ in the maximum capacity of a transaction block -. In the source code of Bitcoin SV, there has been a restoration of four operation codes that were present in bitcoin from the very beginning, but were later removed from it (this is supposed to be one of the elements of compliance with “Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision”).
The restored Script operation codes are OP_MUL (multiple), OP_INVERT (invert), OP_LSHIFT, OP_RSHIFT According to nChain, this is to restore necessary functionality for developers that was removed from the BTC code.
Bitcoin Cash, after the network split, also has a minimum transaction weight limitation of no less than 100 bytes, as a protection against DDoS attacks.
Bitcoin SV has no such lower limit. Bitcoin Cash also has an OP_CHECKDATASIG operation code for acknowledging messages outside the blockchain network, which is ultimately intended to develop functionality related to smart contracts, among other things.
According to nChain, the above operation code is redundant and has not been added to the Bitcoin SV repository.
Let’s take a look at a more superficial answer now to balance them out:
BSV is known as Bitcoin SV, where the “SV” stands for Satoshi Vision. ) originally set out in his Bitcoin white paper.
Unlike other competing BCH implementations that are competing to make unnecessary changes to Bitcoin, Bitcoin SV’s development roadmap is designed to restore Satoshi Nakamoto’s initial protocol, maintain protocol stability, perform massive scaling, and then allow large enterprises to confidently develop and create project activity based on a solid Bitcoin Cash (BCH) foundation
C-Vain (∞) — 究极摸鱼的MOD posted the answer above, but he had some support from some members.
We’re highlighting noeftie’s answer:
I agree with @C-Vain (∞) — 究极摸鱼的MOD. As previously established: BSV is a fork of BTC, hence it is different by design.
Some notable differences are: Name: BTC vs BSV Founded in: 2009 vs 2018 Hashrate: : 93b vs 2b Etc..
However, the biggest difference is the choice of block size. Where BTC opts for smaller blocks, BSV’s block size is in theory unlimited.
What is behind this is a fundamental difference in the economical and philosophical approaches.
Where the former (BTC) prioritizes decentralization, the latter prioritizes utility, as a bigger block size ensures the flexibility to increase the networks’ capacity.
Bigger block sizes require more computing power, increasing the threshold to join the network, and amplifying centralization.
In conclusion, I’d argue that the biggest difference is the trade-off between decentralization on the one hand (BTC), and utility or TPS on the other (BSV).
What do you think?
Do YOU think Satoshi is, in reality, BSV’s Craigh Wright?
What about BCH’s role in all of this, and what about your position in Bitcoin wars?
Whatever your opinion is, you got to admit, this is pretty interesting stuff!
