Given his track record one can assume that Craig Wright is lying in just about everything he says. The rest is not evidence; looks more like a list of coincidences.

People have been desperate to find Satoshi. Like you said, a lot of people want this to be true.

what makes me suspicious is that Document 187 got filed not long after the Atavast story made its rounds. So there was some time for this conspiracy to develop.

I really want it to be LeRoux. He would make an awesome Satoshi compared to Craig Wright. But I'm pretty sure the real Satoshi is dead otherwise Wright wouldn't be so noisy with his claims. Wright attracts a lot of attention so I wouldn't be surprised if he hauls himself out of a hotel window in some kind of freak accident (sooner than later).

note to self: Australia's major export in the last years was Julian Assange, Craig Wright, Paul Calder LeRoux and OpenSSL. (slowclap)

Paul LeRoux is from Rhodesia.

He was born when it was called Rhodesia, and his family left as it became Zimbabwe

> Both Le Roux and Satoshi did significant cryptography projects

The article says (emphasis mine):

"Le Roux is highly suspected to have been a part of a team of anonymous developers called the “TrueCrypt Team.”"

It also gives the fact that Le Roux has been in jail since 2012 as a possible explanation for why Satisfied Satoshi's Bitcoin fortune has gone untouched, but doesn't attempt to reconcile that with why he was able to make a forum post two years later: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/07/real-bitcoin-creator-i-am-no...

Ya, IMO the big connection is:

- Anonymous creator of significant cryptography project

How many other people like that are there? People that are known to have written important cryptographic software, but chosen to remain anonymous. I'm sure there's a few, but it's a short list.

I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and for all.

(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)

Having the "founder" anonymous and silent has been good for Bitcoin. Even if it didn't have any effect on the market (it would) everyone can fantasize and speculate about the motives for Bitcoin's creation, about the next moves, etc. So such founder is a superposition of anyone's idea. If that superposition collapses into one drug cartel boss, that would change many people's view about Bitcoin and it's purpose, legality and of course market price

> I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and for all.

Yup, I'm with you. At this point I don't care what the truth is, it would just be nice for it to be out in the open so the nonsense articles we get every single year stop.

> I mean, why does it matter?

It doesn't matter on a personal level to anyone not related, but it's a big deal for the BTC market. If sentencing ends up light, and Satoshi is free in a couple years, that's a huge number of BTC that could be then sold, crashing the market...

>(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)

Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright? Both of them have been actively craving recognition and courting notoriety of their own accord, for differing reasons ─ either due a flaw in their character or empty spots in their souls, probably not related to their genius. Regardless, they are not seeking any kind of redemption or permission from anyone, nor do they have any desire for privacy; although Paul Le Roux is already semi-anonymous due to his status as an asset.

> Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright?

Neither. I was talking about Satoshi Nakamoto.

It disturbs me that so many people are willing to unmask Satoshi.

More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?

One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy (whether or not it ever delivered, other people can debate). But there's a special kind of horribleness in working so hard to unmask someone who is in part famous because they helped build a privacy-protecting payment system.

Do people who spend time obsessing over the fact that they might not personally get to know the real world identity of one famous person understand how much it undercuts every other argument they will ever make about privacy? Shouldn't the Bitcoin community be collectively the biggest and most forceful group of advocates for leaving Satoshi the heck alone?

The hypocrisy of a website called "Invest In Blockchain" popularizing what is essentially a giant doxing campaign is apparently lost on this article's writers/editors.

"One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy"

Really? I would say that the primary, and basically only, selling point was the lack of a central authority (I think it is interesting that Bitcoin was announced during a major financial crisis that shook confidence in the banking system). Satoshi stated this in the original whitepaper and took the time to explain the concept of electronic payments without central banks on the cryptography mailing list. Privacy seems to have been unimportant to Satoshi, who basically left it as an open problem (he speculated that something like an anonymous remailer could be created for Bitcoin, and ultimately such things were created).

As I say every time this comes up, the Bitcoin whitepaper makes no mention of the work on e-cash, which is telling for two reasons. First, it means that Satoshi was probably not very familiar with the academic research on cryptography and almost certainly was not involved in the cryptography research community (so we can eliminate Hal Finney, among others). Second, it means Satoshi probably was not very interested in payment privacy, since anyone who did even a cursory review of previous work would have come across David Chaum's work on e-cash or his Digicash startup. The fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy; it just means he was a cryptography enthusiast.

> the fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy

:shrug: I would take it as a strong indicator. Who else other than someone who cares about privacy uses a remailer? I'm not sure I buy the argument, "they were just anonymously registering domains for fun because they liked cryptography."

That being said, my point wasn't that Satoshi himself listed privacy as a selling point of Bitcoin, but that the community listed privacy as a selling point (and still often does). The hypocritical part isn't about what Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be -- it's seeing people who have argued that part of Bitcoin's importance is privacy then turn around and say, "except for this guy."

>It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy.

I agree that it is unsettling to watch a once in a lifetime concept that has privacy at it's core with a potential to empower so many in the future being ripped apart. At present, there is absolutely no information available other than speculation on whether it is a person(s), group(s) or a state-actor involved. Which coupled with no movement on the genesis block, with so much at stake ─ unfortunately, the attempts to de-anonymise or the prospect of more charlatans, will only increase and become even more bizarre.

>More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?

I'll be concerned about Satoshi's privacy when privacy is a concept that applies to anyone in modern society.

As it is, Satoshi is being treated no differently than anyone else the internet finds interesting.

That's entirely my point.

What is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?

> Satoshi disappeared at about the same time Le Roux was really kicking his criminal conspiracy into gear.

Not only that but Le Roux has been in custody since 2012 which is the first credible theory at least I know of about why Satoshi never touched his treasure.

What I don't get why this article blew up now when a month ago https://news.bitcoin.com/satoshi-nakamoto-could-be-criminal-... it was already on bitcoin.com itself.

I don't think Le Roux ever lived in the Netherlands. He had or has children and an ex-wife who live there, though.

later edit: the word "bitcoin" appears only once in The Mastermind. Ratliff says he was emailed many times by people who believed Le Roux was Satoshi. He spent "countless hours" investigating the claim and found no evidence of any connection.

Atavist did a long multi-part series of articles on him:

https://magazine.atavist.com/the-mastermind

For the sheer amount of crazy stuff he was involved in all the same time, which he was able to manage quite effortlessly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was him. I would also add bitcoin would be perfect way to give him cover for many of the illegal activities he was involved in. It would give him a seamless way to move his money around without raising the eyebrows of authorities in a variety of countries.

Having said that, I can't give any credence to anything Wright says at this point. The amount of disinformation and his overt attempts to ride Satoshi's coattails to fame and fortune have discounted anything he has to say in regards to anything Bitcoin related.