Bitcoin 'Creator' Reneges On Promise To Provide More Proof, Says He's Sorry (bbc.com)

Craig Wright, the Australian computer scientist who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto -- the creator of bitcoin -- has backtracked on a pledge to provide more proof of his earlier claims. Wright says that he lacks the courage to face allegations. On May 1, Wright claimed that he was the creator of bitcoin, offering digital signature, signed using a private key that was thought to be held by Nakamoto. We later learned that the "proof" Wright offered was simply copied from an older transaction. At the time, Wright assured that he will be moving early bitcoins as "extraordinary evidence". On Thursday, Wright wrote in a blog post that he is "sorry," and that he cannot do this. He writes: I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot. When the rumors began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false, new allegations have already begun. I know now that I am not strong enough for this. I know that this weakness will cause great damage to those that have supported me, and particularly to Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen. I can only hope that their honour and credibility is not irreparably tainted by my actions. They were not deceived, but I know that the world will never believe that now. I can only say I'm sorry.

Comments

This won't end well

[Hognoxious]

If he's not Satoshi Nakamoto then logically he must be Spartacus.

Re:I am Spartacus !!

[KGIII]

Normally, I think you're retarded. However, in this case, I'm not sure I understand why you were moderated down. You may have said something that someone doesn't like but that doesn't mean you're incorrect or trolling. There are many non-conformists involved and, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.

You also said the experts think he's real and, from what I've read, they do seem to think he's being honest about that - if not much else. Yes, others have expressed their disbelief and I have seen the very fucking word "conspiracy" used not once but *multiple* times.

How the fuck the mods decided your post should be at down-modded is beyond me. You might be facile, ignorant, and obtuse but you're absolutely not wrong in your above statements and moderation should be done (ideally and in my opinion) based on the content and not the person. Hmm... I'm not actually sure if that was a compliment or not. It's the best you're getting.

Seriously mods... It's true that the BTC thing has faults. It's true that it is not perfect. It's true that there are problems and that people will call them out. Rather than ignore them, work to fix them. Down-voting someone just because you don't like what they said is juvenile.

Because some folks read at -1, I'm going to go ahead and "fix" that so that it IS seen.

Darinbob had this to say:

The experts think he's real though. Which means that others don't believe it and think it's a conspiracy. But of course it's Bitcoin, which means first that all sorts of non-conformists are involved, and second that it doesn't really matter anyway.

How the fuck that's worth a -1 is beyond me. And, frankly, if you feel like moderating my post down then knock yourself out - I've got karma to burn and what's the point of karma if you can't spend it. And yes, yes i will spend it on behalf of someone who decided I'm a freak and put me on their foe list. (Or did I put them on the list? I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter - the feeling is mutual.)