The Verdict on Craig Wright: A Closer Look at Satoshi Nakamoto’s Claimant
Since becoming a widely followed topic in 2008 with the release of the innovative Bitcoin whitepaper, an anonymous entity known as Satoshi Nakamoto has been a constant subject of speculation and debate. Recently, paper-harborer Craig Wright has periodically surfaced as a potential candidate thus propelling himself into the limelight. This article delves into the recent legal revelations, expert opinions, and inconsistencies surrounding Wright's claims of being the true Satoshi Nakamoto.
Recent Legal Revelations
On July 3, during a legal hearing in Florida, documents revealed by Stephen Palley on Twitter stirred controversy. These documents were claimed as proof of a trust deed between Wright and David Kleiman, but were found to be fraudulent. Specifically, the document presented as dated October 23, 2012, was created long after Kleiman's death in 2013. Even more revealing, the metadata of the document indicated a 2015 copyright notice related to the Microsoft word font, Calibri. This inconsistency and the apparent dishonesty demonstrated by Wright further undermine his claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto.
Critical Analysis by academics and Experts
Academic Emin Gun Sirer, an associate professor of Computer Science at Cornell University, has provided a critical perspective on Wright's claim. Sirer, who has expertise in evaluating technical understanding, observes that Wright lacks the specific technical knowledge expected of a consensus protocol designer. Sirer's argument is based on several points:
Wright's technical misconceptions and lack of clear understanding of fundamental concepts in consensus protocols, such as the FLP impossibility result and the Byzantine Generals Problem.
Wright's disjointed claims about his background, including his claimed PhD, supercomputer, and support letters that do not align with his narrative.
Inconsistencies in the language and constructs in his early blog entries, which indicate he was not following the trends or technical vocabulary of the time.
His apparent ignorance of Bitcoin's core mechanisms and lack of a content signature befitting the true inventor of the protocol.
Commentators and non-technical readers will find him holding the view that Craig Wright does not fit the technical profile of Satoshi Nakamoto. These findings seem to suggest that it is increasingly improbable for Craig Wright to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto.
Comparison of Statements and Conduct
The complete set of statements available under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto and comparisons with Craig Wright's public statements are particularly revealing. Satoshi's writings displayed a specific technical understanding and signatures that are unique yet consistent over time. Wright's statements and behaviors, particularly his recent public blunders, diverge significantly from these expectations.
For instance, Wright was seen forgetting that he had invented Bitcoin, a moment exposing a lack of self-awareness that contrasts sharply with the reflective and mature Satoshi Nakamoto depicted in the historical records.
Moreover, his recent legal efforts to prove his case by seeding fraudulent documents to show his cooperation with David Kleiman further highlight inconsistencies with the purported Satoshi Nakamoto's actions and statements, which were often calculated and persistent in their anonymity.
Conclusion
The evidence collected and analyzed points to a diminishing likelihood that Craig Wright could be Satoshi Nakamoto. His recent actions, such as providing fabricated documents, and the critical dissections of his claims by technical experts, collectively paint a picture of an individual who does not possess the necessary background, expertise, or consistency to justify the title of Bitcoin's creator.