Blogs & Articles: The Craig Wright May 2016 Signing Sessions Debacle, In Full Context đ 3 years ago
- Category: Blogs & Articles | MyLegacyKit on Medium
- Author(s): MyLegacyKit
- Published: 29th June 2021 23:09
Thereâs a story that has never been told before in the Faketoshi sagaâŚ
Photo credits: Mark Harrison, The Economist
Written by Arthur van Pelt
ABOUT EDITS to this article: as more material might become available after publication of this article, it will have edits and updates every now and then. In that sense, this article can be considered a work in progress, to become a reference piece for years to come.
EDIT JULY 1, 2021
The highly reputable and respected WizSec Bitcoin Security Specialists outlet, well known for their Mt Gox research and Kleiman v Wright lawsuit coverage, just released an article that can be found here. It is highly recommended to pick it up also, either first, or after reading âThe Craig Wright May 2016 Signing Sessions Debacle, In Full Contextâ.
Intro
In Bitcoin, signing a message is a cryptographical way to prove control and ownership of a public bitcoin address (using the associated private key) via a feature in the Bitcoin wallet. The procedure of signing takes less than a minute to perform, and the output -a so called digital signature, a lengthy string of letters and numbers- can be used by others to verify said ownership and control.
For example, Craig Wright has been using the Bitcoin public address starting with 16cou, that once contained over 160,000 BTC, in numerous forgeries over the years since April 2013 when his Bitcoin fraud, quickly followed by a Satoshi Nakamoto cosplay, started. In these forgeries, Craig pretended to own and control the 16cou address.
Forgery from the early days of Craigâs Bitcoin fraud
However, on May 16, 2019 the real owner of the 16cou Bitcoin address had enough of this abuse of his property when he or she became aware of it, and left the following information on social media for the general public to verify.
On a related sidenote, while talking about or examining Craig Wrightâs forgeries, a list that has grown into the hundreds if not thousands by now, there is a rule of thumb that never fails so far.
This rule of thumb is:
Everything Craig Wright and Bitcoin dated before April 2013 is a forgery created after April 2013 (except for a handful of public comments online in July/August 2011 when Craig apparently had just learned about Bitcoin).
With that said, no doubt most of you will have heard, or read, bits and pieces of the story that will unfold now. But here it is, Craig Wrightâs full diary of what most now (correctly) perceive as the failed signing sessions in May 2016, as told by the insiders, the journalists and other witnesses.
With a lot of quotes from articles, many snippets from lawsuit depositions and intertwined with notes from the undersigned (always in italics), we will learn the full context of Craig Wright âsigningâ in his Faketoshi career with the 2016 sessions as a centerpiece. So brace yourself, and join me for a deep dive into this remarkable piece of Craig Wrightâs history.
And remember, after these disastrous events 5 years ago in May 2016, Craig Wrightâs reputation as a lying and forging Satoshi Nakamoto cosplayer was set in stoneâââforever.
Did Craig Wright ever sign anything Bitcoin before May 2016?
We can be brief here: never in public, as far as we know. We know, of course, of those few times that Craig has been transacting with a few handful of Bitcoin bought on the Mt Gox exchange from April 2013 onward (until Mt Gox collapsed in February 2014), so Craig must have had access to a few private keys at some point in that period. But there is no evidence known that Craig Wright ever used these private keys for a signing.
Way more telling in this context, however, is how Craig dealt with the ATO in the 2013â2015 era, as he ducked numerous requests from the ATO to show signing proof, and purported financial transactions were always done by âassigning rights to Bitcoinâ or âproviding private keysâ. In the ATO reports about Craigâs tax fraud from that period, we find several hilarious descriptions of these events.
For example, have a look at this somewhat creative way to offer, and duck, a Bitcoin message signing at the same time. ATO however quickly figured out it was another email forgery created by Craig Wright:
Source ATO report: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/
Another example is where Craig Wright was asked to sign messages on no less than 9 Bitcoin addresses, and none of them happened. None. Nada.
Source ATO report: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/
And, as said, Craig Wright is always executing Bitcoin âtransactionsâ by either âassigning rightsâ, in this case by âinstructing to put Bitcoin in a trustâ for Professor Rees, followed by the excuse that âprivate keys were providedâ to Professor Rees, followed by a mixture of these excuses. And again, the ATO didnât buy it.
Source ATO report: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/
The Prelude
June 2015âââNovember 2015
Knowing the background of how Craig Wright approaches Bitcoin âsigningâ and âtransactingâ by never doing anything, letâs move to the meat of this article. Due to the ATO troubles building since 2013, Craig needed a bailout which was provided in June 2015 by Calvin Ayre. The people fronting Calvin were Stefan Matthews and Robert McGregor, who will play important supportive roles in the upcoming period.
On June 29, 2015 a contract was signed with Craig Wright, Ramona Watts (Craigâs wife) and Stefan Matthews that contains the following paragraph about âthe exclusive rights to Craigâs life story for subsequent publication or release (suggest NewCo retain a researcher and ghost writer to begin background research and preparation, as precautionary measure).â.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/550/45/kleiman-v-wright/
We will also find an early appearance of Jimmy Nguyen, (who, after being employed by a lawyer firm, moved from CEO of nChain in the early days to Founding President of Bitcoin Association for BSV in his current employment) as we learn from The Satoshi Affair.
âA few weeks before the raid on Craig Wrightâs house, when his name still hadnât ever been publicly associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, I got an email from a Los Angeles lawyer called Jimmy Nguyen, from the firm Davis Wright Tremaine (self-described as âa one-stop shop for companies in entertainment, technology, advertising, sports and other industriesâ). Nguyen told me that they were looking to contract me to write the life of Satoshi Nakamoto. âMy client has acquired life story rights ⌠from the true person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamotoâââthe creator of the bitcoin protocol,â the lawyer wrote. âThe story will be [of] great interest to the public and we expect the book project will generate significant publicity and media coverage once Satoshiâs true identity is revealed.âââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
This makes it clear that the ghost writer from the June 29, 2015 contract will become Andrew OâHagan. It is, of course, also perfectly clear that the financial stakes are high for camp Craig Wright.
âThe plan was always clear to the men behind nCrypt. They would bring Wright to London and set up a research and development centre for him, with around thirty staff working under him. They would complete the work on his inventions and patent applicationsâââhe appeared to have hundreds of themâââand the whole lot would be sold as the work of Satoshi Nakamoto, who would be unmasked as part of the project. Once packaged, Matthews and MacGregor planned to sell the intellectual property for upwards of a billion dollars. MacGregor later told me he was speaking to Google and Uber, as well as to a number of Swiss banks. âThe plan was to package it all up and sell it,â Matthews told me. âThe plan was never to operate it.âââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
February 3, 2016
At first, the next happening appears unrelated to the upcomings events in May 2016. A copy of the siliconANGLE [the voice of enterprise and emerging tech] news website is set up under almost the same domain name, note the double âlâ used in silicon. But knowing what is going to happen in the upcoming 3 months, there is hardly any doubt (with me at least) that the setup of the forgery described is executed by Craig Wright himself.
âIt appears that Craig Wright planned this exit-strategy for the May 2016 signing sessions 3 months in advance, as on February 3, 2016 the registration of silliconangle dot com took place.
Then, a full copy of the Silicon ANGLE website was created under the newly bought domain. Would that have been a hard task for our #Faketoshi?
Nah.ââââArthur van Pelt (2)
February 16, 2016
The domain drcraigwright dot net is obtained by camp Craig Wright, and from this place Craig (and/or Robert MacGregor as we will learn from The Satoshi Affair) will publish a few blog posts in early May later this year, before taking it offline altogether after less than two weeks later. As we speak this domain is forwarded to his current blog on craigwright dot net.
The Signings
March 2016
âAs Andresen tells it, a firm representing Wright [Outside Organisation, according The Satoshi Affair] contacted him in March and invited him to London for a private, in-person demonstration designed to prove Wright created Bitcoin.ââââAndy Greenberg (3)
âTo add, in the recent court filings we learned that Craigâs media training before the failed 2016 signing sessions was provided by Milk Publicity (https://milkpublicity.com) and Outside Organisation (https://outside-org.co.uk).ââââArthur van Pelt (4)
Mockup of two Kleiman v Wright court filings
Apparently, somewhere in March 2016, Craig Wright signed block 1 for Andrew OâHagan, author of The Satoshi Affair. It appears he did not use the string âCSWâ in the text, like he did later with Gavin Andresen on April 7, 2016. From The Satoshi Affair we also learn that âAll the journalists had signed NDAs and embargos. (1)â
âJust before these sessions took place, in April, I asked Wright what had happened in Antigua. âWe discussed the whole PR strategy,â he said. âThe truth thing is going to happen.â He talked about Matonis and Andresen. âWeâre going to bring them in on reveal sessions in the next few weeks. I guess thatâs the way it has to be. Do I like it? No. But I havenât really been given a choice. Iâm between a rock and a hard place because of whoever outed me last year.â He said very clearly at a meeting with me that he would not sign with the key in public. [This is, of course, an immediate red flag!] We agreed that he would do it for me at home, signing with the private key from one of Satoshiâs original blocks. He would do for me what he was going to do for Matonis and Andresen, and this would prove beyond doubt, he said, that he was Satoshi.â
Photo credits: Andrew OâHagan
âHe was about to use the original cryptographic key to sign a message to me and it was as if he was dropping a sugar lump into my tea. He typed the words, âHere I am, Andrew,â and rested his fingers. âThis gives us that little block there,â he said, before verifying the signature. He looked sheepish and resigned in his blue checked shirt. âWelcome to the bit I was hoping to bury,â he said. He leaned back and I noticed a samurai sword by the desk. I shook his hand. Then I stared at the screen and considered how strange it would be to live with a secret for seven years and then feel no relief when it finally came out. Perhaps it never felt like a professional secret; it felt like a part of his being, and now he was giving it up. âI want it in laymanâs terms,â I said. âExplain what you just did.â
âI just digitally signed a message using the first ever mined address on bitcoin.âââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
March 6, 2016
âEarly March 2016, we notice that Craig had started to practice how to adjust the Silicon ANGLE website copy, and its articles.ââââArthur van Pelt (5)
âNote, for example, that the February 17, 2016 article âThis Time Bitcoinâs Price Increase is Both Logical and Sustainableâ by James Farrell is a full copy text-wise of a January 7, 2016 Nasdaq article by Martin Tillier.ââââArthur van Pelt (6)
March 23, 2016
The second of several signing sessions, sometimes called proof sessions, is for Jon Matonis. Note again that they are all private, with no exceptions. Jon Matonis his blog post explains on May 2, 2016:
âThen, on June 4th 2015 during a conference, I arranged to meet fellow Bitcoin advocate, Craig Steven Wright, for a cup of coffee at the top floor of the AMP headquarters building in Sydney, Australia. After discussing many technical and economic aspects of the current Bitcoin protocol debates, I returned to my hotel room after an exhausting day. I remember saying to my wife that I had this weird feeling of having just met Satoshi. Of course, I continued the dialogue with Craig in the months after returning from Sydney and leading up to a private proof session in late March 2016.â
âDuring the London proof sessions, I had the opportunity to review the relevant data along three distinct lines: cryptographic, social, and technical. Based on what I witnessed, it is my firm belief that Craig Steven Wright satisfies all three categories. For cryptographic proof in my presence, Craig signed and verified a message using the private key from block #1 newly-generated coins and from block #9 newly-generated coins (the first transaction to Hal Finney). The social evidence, including his unique personality, early emails that I received, and early drafts of the Bitcoin white paper, points to Craig as the creator. I also received satisfactory explanations to my questions about registering the bitcoin.org domain [this has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, but thatâs another story for another day] and the various time-of-day postings to the BitcoinTalk forum. Additionally, Craigâs technical working knowledge of public key cryptography, Bitcoinâs addressing system, and proof-of-work consensus in a distributed peer-to-peer environment is very strong [it isnât, itâs easily debunkable technobabble, obfuscated with rants about totally unrelated subjects, but thatâs also another story for another day].
According to me, the proof is conclusive and I have no doubt that Craig Steven Wright is the person behind the Bitcoin technology, Nakamoto consensus, and the Satoshi Nakamoto name.ââââJon Matonis (7)
Okay, Jon.
March 29, 2016
Then, the rumours that camp Craig Wright is up to something start spreadingâŚ
âDuring the last few months Craig and his accomplices have been very active quietly networking in the Bitcoin industry. Their pitch: Craig is the real thing and the press got it wrong. Their elaboration on the details would lower your IQ to hear it, so I wonât bore you with itâââneedless to say, few who are thinking critically and understand the technology would believe it and thatâs probably the point: itâs a filter. If you do listen long enough you find out that Craig, earnest creator of Bitcoin, and true heir to a MILLION BTC apparently has some procedural issues with a trust securing his funds, which could all be resolved with a bit of moneyâââbut unfortunately, the evil dictators controlling his country have frozen all of his money⌠and thatâs where you come in dear reader. You see, he just needs a bit of money to complete the paperwork to obtain the coins, andâââof courseâââsecure safe passage to free-er landsâŚââââReddit user runtrage (8)
March 31, 2016
Which even leads to an article in the Financial Times AlphaVille section.
âBitcoinland is abuzz with speculation Craig Steven Wright will out himself as Satoshi Nakamoto, the cryptocurrencyâs pseudonymous creator, within the next two weeks and that he is looking for backing in his verification from some of the industryâs biggest players.â
âNow, after nearly four months of silenceâââand a bitcoin community mostly resigned to the notion that the story was an elaborate hoaxâââconditional approaches are being made to media and other institutions in connection to an upcoming âbig revealâ of Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto.
The narrative being pitched is that on a pre-agreed dateâââranging from April 7 to April 14âââWright will publicly perform a cryptographic miracle which proves his identity once and for all. Those institutions being offered the inside scoop on his life story, meanwhile, are supposedly being asked by those claiming to be Wrightâs legal representatives to abide by strict embargoes, timed to pre-empt the stage-managed revelations and the public press conference to follow.
Screenshot from the article.
The attempt at media management, however, echoes a familiar pattern.
The dossier of leaked emails used by Wired and Gizmodo as the source for their story was also heavily circulated to rival media outlets by anonymous parties weeks ahead of its ultimate publication.ââââIzabella Kaminska (9)
April 2, 2016
The first direct contact between Craig Wright and Gavin Andresen is being established. Over the next few days, Craig and Gavin keep sending each other emails.
âIn December, after Wired published the story about Wright possibly being Satoshi, Andresen told the magazine heâd never heard of Craig Wright. But he began to believe in Wright once he started corresponding with him by email in early April.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
âQ: Okay. And justâââthis is about five days or so before the proof session in London that took place on April 7th?
A: Correct.ââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
April 6, 2016
âQ: Do you recognize this emailâââor these emails, I should say?
A: Yes.
Q: And itâs aâââitâs a series of emails between you and Craig?
A: Yes.
Q: On or about April 6, 2016?
A:Â Yes.â
âQ: And then way at the bottom, youâve told himâââand this is a paraphrase, but let me know if itâs fairâââthat youâve given some thought to the meeting with him tomorrow; youâll be bringing your laptop and a new USB stick, and youâd like a couple of things to verify, one being a PGP signed message, like you had said earlier, and you even gave the phrase âso it goesâ as what you wanted him to sign, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And then one or more messages signed using keys from the early Bitcoin blocks, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And then copies of never-before published private emails or forum posts between you and Satoshi?
A: Yes.
Q: And consistent with yourâââwould it be consistent with your testimony earlier that you may have gotten â2 [signed message from early Bitcoin block], but you did not get â1 [PGP signed message] and â3 [private emails]?
A Yes.
Q: Okay. Thank you. And this was the day before you met Craig in London for the proof session, right?
A: Yes.ââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
April 7, 2016
The Big Day. Gavin Andresen gets his signing. Or did he? Watch the red flags.
âOn the morning of April 7, Andresen took a red-eye to London and proceeded directly to a hotel in the Covent Garden district. He met Wright and two associates [Stefan Matthews, Robert MacGregor] in a conference roomââââAndy Greenberg (3)
Clockwise from top left: Hal Finney, Gavin Andresen, Robert MacGregor, Stefan Matthews (The Satoshi Affair)
âAndresen crossed the Atlantic overnight, arriving at the Covent Garden Hotel at 11 a.m. on 7 April. He went to his roomâââwhich had been booked, as had his flight, by nCryptâââand had two hoursâ sleep, after which MacGregor and Matthews turned up. âThey gave me a lot of the background and explained their involvement,â Andresen told me. When Wright turned up at the hotel, Andresen found it easy to talk to him, âalthough I was so jet-lagged at one point,â he wrote, âI had to stop him from diving deep into a mathematical proof heâd worked out related to how blocks are validated in bitcoin.â
Matthews had booked a conference room in the basement, and MacGregor could see that Wright was very emotional when he entered the room. âHe knew this was it,â MacGregor said to me. âItâs one thing to prove his identity to you and me, but the bitcoin community is something else. He knew that they would believe Gavin.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
âMr Andresen said he travelled to London to meet Mr Wright who showed him proof that he and Satoshi Nakamotoâââthe pseudonym adopted by Bitcoinâs creatorâââwere one and the same.
âHe signed in my presence using the private key from block one, the very first mined Bitcoin block, on a computer that I am convinced had not been tampered with,â he said.ââââZoe Thomas (11)
Note that this âBitcoin block oneâ anecdote is not confirmed by Gavin Andresen in his deposition (way more about that later), where Gavin only talks about Bitcoin block 9, or sometimes 10 when the Bitcoin Genesis block, many times also labelled as Bitcoin block 0, is included in the count.
âIt was about 5.30 p.m. when he finally logged on to his laptop to do for Andresen what he had done for me in his office at home, sign a message with the key and have it verified. Andresen looked on. Wright had just used Satoshiâs key. At that point, it seemed to some of those in the room that Andresenâs body language had changed; he seemed slightly awed by the situation. He reached over to his bag and took out a brand-new USB stick and removed it from its wrapping. He took out his own laptop. âI need to test it on my computer,â he said. He added that he was convinced, but that if people were going to ask him, he had to be able to say that heâd checked it independently. He pointed to Wrightâs laptop and said it could all have been pre-loaded on there, though he knew that was unlikely. But he had to check on his own computer and then they would be done. He said the key could be used on his laptop and saved to the memory stick and that Wright could keep it. But for his own peace of mind, and for due diligence, so that there wasnât a chance of fraud, he had to see it work on a computer that wasnât Wrightâs own.
Craig Wright 2016 (The Satoshi Affair)
Wright suddenly baulked. He had just signed a message to Andresen from Satoshi, he said, and had demonstrated his complete familiarity with their correspondence, but, in his mind, what Andresen was now asking for was of a different order. âI had vowed,â Wright told me, ânever to show the key publicly and never to let it go. I trusted Andresen, but I couldnât do it.â Wright got up from the table and started pacing. He had clearly believed he would be able to get through the proof session without this. In fact, he had said in my presence several times over the preceding months that he would never hand the key over to anyone or allow it to be copied or used on someone elseâs machine. âI do not want to categorically prove keys across machines,â he wrote to me in an email.â
This is TOTALLY inconceivable. It appears that Andrew OâHagan is not wording it correctly, which is not helpful in understanding what exactly is happening here. What Gavin is asking is not the private key itself to be moved from one place to the other, but the verification outcome (which does not contain the private key, but the digital signature) that can and should be independently verified everywhere. Craig obviously has big issues with this standard procedure, which, in my opinion, clearly indicates that this type of signing is only meant to work on his own controlled (read: hacked) technical environment.
âThe solution had to be a fresh computer straight out of the box. MacGregor called his assistant and gave her the task. âThis is how you get your One,â he said to her. (In his company the best score you could get in a staff appraisal was a One.) It was just before 6 p.m. on a Friday night and they needed a brand-new laptop in Covent Garden. The assistant got hold of one and rushed over from Oxford Circus to the hotel. The new laptop was lifted out of the box. It took a while to connect it to the hotelâs wifi and to load the basic software. âDuring all that time,â Andresen told me, âit was obvious Craig was still, even then, deeply hoping his secret identity could remain secret. It was emotionally difficult for him to perform that cryptographic proof.ââ
âEveryone waited with bated breath as Wright used the new laptop to open the Satoshi wallet and set about signing a new message to Andresen. It failed. It wouldnât verify. He tried it again and again, until Andresen remembered that Wright hadnât typed âCSWâ at the end of the message the way he had in the original, the one he was seeking to verify. When he put âCSWâ at the end of his message to Gavin it said: âVerifiedâ. Wright had demonstrated, on a brand-new laptop, that he held Satoshiâs private key.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
To add, note that Electrum, who builds the Python-based Electrum Wallet that, as far as we know, has been used by Craig throughout all the signing sessions, provided the following information on May 3, 2016 about April 7, 2016 on the Twitter platform. Red flag? One would think so, as a new installation of Electrum Wallet software should have been verified before any usage, especially in this high profile case! We will learn that Gavin Andresen hardly paid any attention to these important details.
Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/727366861592076288
Now letâs see how Gavin Andresen describes the whole signing session. Gavin was deposed in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit on Wednesday, February 26, 2020.
âQ: Okay. So after youâââyou met with Craig in this initial conversation, did you go right to the proof sectionâââproof session?
A: Yes. The proof session wasâââit was one continuous meeting in that room at the hotel.
Q: Can youâââcan you walk me through that proof session?
A: Sure. IâââI do recall producing a brand-new USB stick. So I had my laptop with me and aâââput a brand-new, sealed-in-the-package USB stick on the table, which I expected Craig to take and produce some digital signatures that I could then verify on my laptop. [note that Gavin indeed did not expect the private key itself!] That did not happen. Instead, a laptop was procured, a brand-new laptop was procured by an assistant [huge red flag again, it is inconceivable that a digital signature, not being the private key itself, should not be allowed on Gavinâs laptop]. I think it was an assistant for one of theâââI donât know whose assistant it was. Craig and I waited in the room while the laptop was purchased. It was then unpacked and booted up for the first time in front of me. And the proof then was Craig downloaded and installed software. And then, after someâââmany hours, I donât recall how many hours, but it took much longer thanâââthan expected [red flag again, downloading Electrum Wallet and installing it indeed takes minutes, not hours], at the end of that, I was convinced that he had taken one of the early blocks and signed a message [âGavinâs favorite number is 11-CSWâ] using its private key.
Q: Which block did he use?
A: It was the block thatâââI believe it was block 10, the block thatâââthat had the 10 transaction from Satoshi to Hal Finney.â
âQ: Did you choose the message you wanted signed?
A: Yes.
Q: Including the CSW at the end of the message?
A: No, I did not choose the including CSW at the end of the message.
Q: So he added that on his own?
A:Â Yes.â
Crucial information here. Craig Wright added âCSWâ at the end of Gavinâs message. Please keep this in mind, as I will come back to this later.
âQ: Okay. Now, you previously testified about a cryptographic proof session in London. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: And that cryptographic proof was related to either block 9 or 10, depending on how you count, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Didâââdid Dr. Wright show you any cryptographic proofs for any other blocks?
A: No.
Q: Do you have any knowledge as to whether he has the ability to control any other Bitcoin blocks?
A:Â No.â
Note that no block one is mentioned.
âQ: Okay. Do you recall the date that you had the proof session with Dr. Wright in London?
A: That was one of the things I looked at this morning, and I believe it was April 7th.
Q: Okay. All right. And do you recall what time of day it was that the actual proof was shown to you?
A: I think it was late afternoon.
Q: Okay. So would it be fair to say that, at most, you can know that in the late afternoon of April 7th, Dr. Wright could have had the private key to block 9 or block 10, correct?
A: Yeah. Yes.â
âQ: Okay. Got it. Now, I want to go to when you flew to London to attend the private proof session with Dr. Wright. You stated that you met Dr. Wright I believe it was maybe two hours after you got off the flight. Do you recall something along those lines?
A: If I recall correctly, I got a little bit of sleep at the hotel room.
Q: Um-hm.
A: And then I met with the, quote-unquote, money guys [Gavin Andresen refers to Stefan Matthews and Robert MacGregor as âthe money guys orâââmenâ several times in his deposition, as he correctly thought there was a financial motivation behind Craig Wright signing for him]; and then, yeah, an hour or two after meeting with them, Craig Wright came into the room.
Q: Okay. And do you recall how much sleep you got?
A: Just a couple of hours, one or two hours.ââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
So, question remains how Craig Wright implemented his âhackâ (I will come back to that in more detail) to do a successful signing on another machine. One of the theories is that since Craig knows how to set up fake websites (ATOâs finding of Craigâs virtual set up of a fake Al Baraka office and the siliconANGLE website forgery come to mind), that he had also prepared a fake Electrum Wallet website with the hacked software as a download.
Another theory is that Craig implemented the hack on the fly in the genuine Electrum Wallet software downloaded on the newly bought laptop, as the session took many hours, according a perplexed Gavin Andresen.
Craig Wright Signing Sessions 2016
April 11, 2016
Wired magazine (Andy Greenberg) is also sensing that something is going on.
âFOUR MONTHS HAVE passed since the world learned the name of Craig Wright, a man who, as WIRED wrote in December, either created Bitcoin or very badly wants someone to believe he did.
Now rumors are swirling through the Bitcoin world that Wright himself is poised to publicly claimâââand possibly offer some sort of proofâââthat he really is Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious inventor of Bitcoin. If he does, heâll have to convince a highly skeptical cryptography community for whom âproofâ is a serious word, and one that requires cryptographic levels of certainty.
The suggestion is that Wright, an Australian cryptographer and security professional, has arranged to perform a demonstration for media in London sometime in the next week thatâs intended to convince the world heâs bitcoinâs creator. Luckily for any legitimate claimant to the Satoshi throneâââand for bitcoiners tired of the long succession of unproven candidates and speculationâââthere are some clear, almost incontrovertible ways for Satoshi Nakamoto to prove himself.ââââAndy Greenberg
April 26, 2016
â[The journalists] would each be allowed a brief interview with Wright after he had demonstrated to them his use of the Satoshi key. These meetings would take place at the offices of the PR company in Tottenham Court Road on Monday, 24 April and Tuesday, 25 April.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
Although we can consider the information of Andrew OâHagan highly trustworthy, here is where a few typos have slipped through and made it to the final article nevertheless. Letâs first note that April 24, 2016 was on a Sunday, and April 25, 2016 was on a Monday.
But also note that we know the exact dates, Tuesday April 26, 2016 and Wednesday April 27, 2016 from an exhibit that has been filed in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit (source of the filing under the image).
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/550/4/kleiman-v-wright/ (page 209â210)
This article will continue the timeline with the dates and times from the planning above as a guideline.
April 27, 2016
The BBC was the first to arrive for their signing session with Craig Wright.
âAt our first meetingâââwithout a television cameraâââwe roamed freely over all sorts of territory.â
âIt was in a conference room above a coffee shop a fifteen minute walk from BBC Broadcasting House that we first met the man who says he is Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. As we walked in, three or four people [Stefan Matthews, Jon Matonis, Craig Wright, Ramona Watts] were waiting around a tableâââbut which one, I wondered, was the father of Bitcoin?ââââRory Cellan-Jones (12)
âWhen I turned up at Starbucks in Tottenham Court Road, Wright, Ramona and Matthews were already there. Wright was sulking a little. It had been decided that, as well as the demonstration, the journalists would be given a memory stick to take away with them, showing the signed Satoshi message. (Wright later told me the stuff he put on it was fake. There wasnât anything on there they could understand, but it certainly bore no relation to any of Satoshiâs keys.)â
And here we find another red flag. At all costs is Craig Wright avoiding that anything from the signing sessions goes to the public for further scrutiny. He even goes as far as putting âfake stuffâ on memory sticks.
Craig Wright and Rory Cellan-Jones (Photo credits:Â BBC)
âRory Cellan-Jones, the BBCâs technology correspondent, was led into a conference room with his producer, Priya Patel, and Mark Ward, a technology correspondent for the BBC News website. Wright sat at his laptop, hardly looking up, and a screen on the wall showed what he was looking at. Matonis was in the room, and so was Matthews. Ramona had gone upstairs.â
âHe then went into more detail about the cryptographic proof. âThe Genesis block is block zero,â Matonis said. âAnd you canât spend any of the blocks in that chainâââwhich means that the ones that come after that (which are spendable) can be attributed to the creator of bitcoin.â
âAnd what would they be called?â Cellan-Jones asked.
âIn succession theyâd be called block 1, block 2 etc. Now this morning, Craig is going to demonstrate signing blocks 1 through 9. I personally witnessed the signing of blocks 1 and 9, so this is not going to be a transfer of bitcoins, itâs going to involve a signing of a message, which heâll do with the private key and which will be verified by the public key. Are we clear on that?â
Eventually, Wright asked Cellan-Jones to give him a message. âUm. âHi, historic message to the BBC.ââ Wright typed the message and added a bit of commentary as he did so.
âThis message will verify, but if I change a single digit, it wonât,â Wright said as he signed the message using block 9.
âThis is the only key that we know is definitely owned by Satoshi because it was used with Hal Finney,â Matonis added.â
Note that Craig Wright âadded a bit of commentaryâ. Did he maybe add âCSWâ here (again)?
âThe BBC planned to come back the next day with cameras.â
âThen a man arrived from the Economist, Ludwig Siegele, a man in a grey suit. He was less immediately friendly but his questions were fine-grained. You could see he wasnât entirely comfortable with this very PR-managed way of outing Satoshi. Wright signed a message for Siegele using block 9, and had the private key verified by the computer. âIâm sorry,â Siegele said, âbut Iâm still a little unsure what that proves.â âIt proves I have the private keys,â Wright said. âAll the original private keys.ââ
âThat afternoon, [âŚ] Wright went off to Parsons Green to have his photograph taken for GQ.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
âMr Wright has also demonstrated this verification in person to The Economistâââand not just for block 9, but block 1 [This is not confirmed by Andrew OâHagan in The Satoshi Affair, who only talks about block 9]. Such demonstrations can be stage-managed; and information that allows us to go through the verification process independently was provided too late for us to do so fully. Still, as far as we can tell he indeed seems to be in possession of the keys, at least for block 9.ââââLudwig Siegele (13)
According the planning, the next session, with people from GQ, happened also on April 27, 2016.
â[Stefan] Matthews described what happened at the interview with the [GQ] magazineâs senior commissioning editor, Stuart McGurk. âIt actually went quite well,â Wright told me. âThe journalist was nice, but he brought along this complete wanker of an âexpertâ.â
The man they were talking about is a university lecturer in cryptology. McGurk brought him along to help verify the claims. âIt was hilarious,â Matthews said. âCraig threw the guy out.â According to one witness, heâd questioned Wright quite forcefully about his understanding of public and private encryption keys. âHe was totally in the guyâs face at one point.â
âHe was telling me he was more qualified than I am,â Wright said. âIt became a nice interview but this guy was a complete idiot and I told him to get the fuck out.â Matonisâââwho was thereâââsaid the scene was intense.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
Intense is probably a bit of an understatement, listening at the material that GQ released.
https://medium.com/media/5f8b8feed6a009486b6acf4da79daa51/href
âThe other people in the room are economist and Bitcoin Foundation founding director Jon Matonis, the expert witness for the PR agency brokering the interview, and its two representatives, attempting not to look too panicked.ââââStuart McGurk (14)
Letâs move on with The Economist session.
âThe Economistâââalong with the BBC and GQ Magazineâââhad access to Mr Wright before the publication of his post (see footnote). We interviewed him, reviewed the documents he has provided and talked to bitcoin insiders [likely Stefan Matthews, Robert MacGregor and Jon Matonis] who have communicated with Mr Nakamoto in the past and who had access to the same information.ââââLudwig Siegele (13)
April 28, 2016
It appears that BBC did not strictly follow the original planning, as they didnât do the television interview on the same day but returned the next day as Andrew OâHagan describes.
âThe second time we met, to film a television interview, the mood changed.ââââRory Cellan-Jones (12)
Which is visible in the material that BBCÂ filmed.
https://medium.com/media/d264d4725659256d6144aea862ee29ea/href
âMr Wright has revealed his identity to three media organisationsâââthe BBC, the Economist and GQ. At the meeting with the BBC, Mr Wright digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of Bitcoinâs development. âThese are the blocks used to send 10 bitcoins to Hal Finney in January [2009] as the first bitcoin transaction,â said Mr Wright during his demonstration.â (15)
April 29, 2016
Milk Publicity, one of two parties (the other being The Outside Organisation) involved with Craig Wrightâs reveal as Satoshi Nakamoto, supported by his âsigningsâ for several parties, sends the agenda around for the upcoming May 2. It is visible how meticulously, almost desperately, parties are trying to keep control of the narrative for every detail that might pop up during the reveal.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/550/4/kleiman-v-wright/
May 2016
The big month has arrived. The NDAs that all media parties had signed had a deadline of May 2, the day that the press was allowed to start publishing their material about the signing sessions they had experienced. But in the meantime, Craig was also working on his siliconANGLE website forgery.
âBut, by May 2016, Craig got it right. He knew how to add (Bitcoin related) articles by adjusting existing articles on his copy of the real Silicon ANGLEÂ website.
No more oopsies. At first glimpse, that isâŚâ
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160509152048/https://silliconangle.com/
âAs the âCraig Wright faces criminal chargesâŚâ article itself shines a painful light on how Craig performs plagiarisms: shameless, and by the boatloads.
No less then 8 sources were used to create this article, while only 1 sentence has not been copied from elsewhere.ââââArthur van Pelt (2)
Note that it is not unlikely that these quotes come from one or a few articles only, but the main message remains: it has Craig Wrightâs plagiarizing fingerprints all over it.
May 2, 2016
On this day, Craig Wright publishes the now infamous Sartre blog post. It was not received well, and that is an understatement.
âIn the remainder of this post, I will explain the process of verifying a set of cryptographic keys.ââââCraig Wright (16)
âAt 7.51 a.m. on 2 May 2016 all was quiet on the Twitter front. Well, not quiet, but the names Satoshi Nakamoto and Craig Wright were nowhere to be seen. This was the day of reckoning, the day the embargo would lift and the media outlets could run their pieces and name Satoshi. [âŚ] At 8 a.m., Wright posted a blog containing the supposed hash of the Sartre speech and various postings about himself as Satoshi. At the same moment, Gavin Andresen posted a message to his blog. Title: âSatoshiâ. âI believe Craig Steven Wright is the person who invented bitcoin,â it began.â
âBy midday the blog was receiving the wrong sort of attention. A number of researchers had studied what Wright had written and noticed that the explanation was fudgedâââworse than fudged, it was faked. Something that he said was signed with the Satoshi key had, in fact, been cut and pasted from an old, publicly available signature associated with Nakamoto. It was astonishing and the buzz quickly grew fierce.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
Gavin Andresen receives a rather crucial email from Craig Wright during the day, after things went haywire with the Sartre blog post. Craig admits he is the one adding blog posts to drcraigwright dot net.
âQ: Is this an email from Craig to you?
A: Yes.
Q: And you start off by saying to him, âIâm starting to doubt myself and imagining clever ways you could have tricked me.â Well, let me take that back. He wrote you an email on May 2nd saying, We Fâd up and I loaded the wrong post. Iâll be loading the correct one shortly.â
Next is an email from an unknown date, as the date is not mentioned during the deposition quoted, but the content appears to refer to the just-failed Sartre blog post, and âloading the correct one shortlyâ:
âQ: So I am handing you whatâs been marked as Plaintiffsâ Exhibit 24, and itâs Bates-labeled Gavin 161. And Craig saysâââthis is an email from youâââdo you recognize this email?
A: Yes.
Q: Itâs an email from Craig to you?
A: Yes, and Jon Matonis.
Q: And Stefan Matthews?
A: And Stefan Matthews.
Q: And he says, âPlease hold that thought. Iâm going to re-sign the message and post a new, never-used signature from 9.â So he has clearly committed to sign using the block keyâââusing the private key of block 9; is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he?
A: No.
Q: Even though it would have been simple for him to do so?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay.ââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
There you go, another red flag. Promising to make a public signing on a block used before for a private signing, and not doing it. Because Craig knows he canât genuinely sign, except fake a signing on his own controlled environment.
Meanwhile, on Craigâs Twitter account, a flurry of somewhat mysterious messages appear on May 2, 2016. They represent to be written by someone else, the tone and writing style is clearly Craig Wright himself, however.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160508181815/https://twitter.com/dr_craig_wright
May 3, 2016
Despite the turmoil, Craig finds time in the early morning of May 3rd to write a little, somewhat bizarre and obfuscating, article that gets an immediate publication on The Register website: âI am Craig Wright, inventor of Craig Wrightâ. A quote, where Craig shows he has relentlessly been reading the online critics:
âThere are some people who claim there is a mountain of evidence that I am the Craig Wright who edited old blog posts to make it look like he invented Bitcoin; backdated PGP keys to make it look like he is Satoshi Nakamoto; claimed he has a supercomputer partnership with SGI that SGI has never heard of; obtained two PhDs at a university that strangely canât find any record of those qualifications; and offered a worthless verification signature as proof that he is Satoshi.
Well, I am not that Craig Wright.
Nor I am the Craig Wright who published buggy bash scripts and command-line snippets to his blog for verification that simply donât workâââor quietly load files pointed to by an environment variable.â
Craig Wright also emails with Gavin Andresen on this day.
âAnd then you respond the next day, on May 3rd, saying, âToday, pretty please. Iâm starting to doubt myself and imagining clever ways you could have tricked me.â Is that accurate?
A: Yes.
Q: And what does Craig say in response?
A: Do you want me to read that?
Q: Sure.
A: He says, âThere will be a post soon. It is in review to ensure it is all okay. We are going to move coin as well, but we need to get the trust permissions in place. LawyersâŚâââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
âMacGregor said that he and Matthews had since been with Wright and indicated that the encounter had been shouty and ugly. But he said it was OK now. âWe have verbal consent from the trustees to move coin, and weâre just waiting on the written consent.â
MacGregor and Matthews had been in the meeting room for hours trying to work everything out. They thought it could all still be kept on track. MacGregor was writing new blog posts for Wright. He asked for my help with one of them and I explained that I had now to distance myself from the whole thing. I had got too close. MacGregor said they were going to âflood the blog with evidenceâ and get Wright to âmoveâ some of the Satoshi bitcoin, to transfer it to someone else in a way that only someone in possession of Satoshiâs private keys could do. Andresen had agreed to be on the other end of the coin transaction.â
âRob removed his glasses. âThe first meeting we had with him yesterday ended with: âYouâre fired. Buy a ticket to Sydney. You fucked us. Good luck with the ATO.ââ
âHe risks destroying his entire reputation.â
âHis and ours,â MacGregor said. âIâve been taking meetings with investment bankers for the last two months. Iâve pulled every string I know to get meetings with Google and Uber. If he goes down in flames, Iâll go down with him. I mean, heâs fucked me. Millions of dollars out of my pocket, nine months out of my life. But what we have now is a very pliant Craig Wright. Weâre going to drag this back from the brink.â
This is where Iâm thinking, here is the point where âthe money menâ should have stopped giving Craig Wright the benefit of the doubt. Except for Robert McGregor, who would sell his share in the whole Faketoshi endeavor and quietly leave, they didnât, and here we are. Still no proof whatsoever that Craig is Satoshi (and that will never come either, of course), a list of lies and forgeries that is still growing by the week, and Craig slowly digging his grave with numerous lawsuits with only 1 inevitable outcome: a total collapse of the Faketoshi scheme, only because of sunk cost fallacy.
âHe didnât sleep last night,â Matthews said. âHe looks fucking terrible.ââ
âWe spoke about Wrightâs possible lies. I said that all through these proof sessions, heâd acted this like this was the last thing he ever wanted.
âThatâs not true,â MacGregor said. âHe freaking loves it. Why was I so certain heâd do that BBC interview the next day? Itâs adoration. He wants this more than we want this, but he wants to come out of this looking like he got dragged into it.â He told me if everything had gone to plan, the groundwork was laid for selling the patents. It was a really big deal.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
Then, Craig Wright publishes a second blog post, in line with the promises made to Gavin Andresen.
Screenshot from the blog post
âSo, over the coming days, I will be posting a series of pieces that will lay the foundations for this extraordinary claim, posting independently-verifiable documents and evidence addressing some of the false allegations that have been levelled, and transferring Bitcoin from an early block.ââââCraig Wright (17)
May 4, 2016
âThe next day, Wednesday, 4 May, Matthews was at Wrightâs house organising the movement of coin. The new (and final) proof session was intended to blow away the doubts created by the first. Many commentators felt it was too late, that Wright was beyond the pale, but Matthews and MacGregor had agreed with Andresen that the movement of coin, to Andresen and also to Cellan-Jones at the BBC, would undo the damage. Wright spoke to Andresen on the phone from his houseâââAndresen was in New Yorkâââand told him he was worried about a security flaw in the early blockchain, a problem in the way those first blocks were constructed that would make it dangerous for him to move coin, exposing him to exploitation or theft. My sources say that Andresen understood the problem and confirmed that it was all right, it had been fixed. But Wright continued to worry and was showing great reluctance about offering the final proof. Then he left the room abruptly and didnât come back.ââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
âOn Monday evening [May 2, 2016], I suggested to Wrightâs PR firm that if he could send me a fraction of a coin from an early Bitcoin blockâââwhich of course I would returnâââthat might show he had Satoshiâs keys. But Wrightâs team [Stefan Matthews] came up with a different plan on Wednesday afternoon [May 4, 2016]. They sent me a draft blog in which he outlined a scheme that would see Matonis, Andresen and the BBC all send small amounts of Bitcoin to the address used in the first ever transaction. Then he would send it back, in what would be the first outgoing transactions from the block since January 2009. We went ahead with our paymentsâââI sent 0.017BTC (about ÂŁ5), which you can still see in the online records. Matonis and Andresen sent similar amounts. Then we waited. And waited. Then my phone rangâââwith the news that the whole operation was âon holdâ, with no reason given.ââââRory Cellan-Jones (18)
âQ: And Stefan Matthews says, âCSWââââitâs Craig Steven Wrightââââhas committed to moving a coin associated with block 9 address. The intent is for you to send a coin to that address, and then for CSW to return that coin to you.â Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And you provided the address?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you send the coin?
A: I did.
Q: And you never got âem back. We covered that already, right?
A: Correct.â
âQ: Iâm handing you whatâs been marked as Plaintiffsâ Exhibit 27; itâs Bates-labeled Gavin 18. And this is aâââdoes thisâââdo you recognize this email?
A: Yes.
Q: And does it reflect an email chain between you and Stefan Matthews and Craig Wright?
A: Yes.
Q: And you initially reach out to the two of them saying that you have sent, at the time, $50 worth of Bitcoin to the block 9 address?
A: Yes.
Q: And Stefan Matthews, the money man, writes back that he sees the transaction, and then he says, âWill let you know when we do the transfer. It could be several days before we get the necessary authorization fully documented,â et cetera. Do you see that?
A: Yes.ââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
Then something dramatic happens. Craig Wright appears to have attempted to commit suicide. Other sources told me this attempt appeared very âstagedâ, as the wounds healed within days.
âQ: And then Robert MacGregor sends a message on May 4th, 2016, youâre all waiting for Craig to send this transaction, and can you read what he says to you?
A: âAll Stop. Craig has just tried to injure himself and is bleeding badly in the washroom. Stefan is there with him and Ramona and I am en route. Ambulance is on its way.â
Q: So Craig tried to hurt himself?
A: That was my understanding, yes.
Q: Did you get any more details then beyond this email?
A: I believe there was a phone call, I donât recall with who, who said thatâââwere they at Craigâs house? I donât recall the location, but they were somewhere. Craig disappeared upstairs and then was found bleeding with cuts to his neck, and then was taken to the hospital inâââin an ambulance with an apparent suicide attempt. I think the word âsuicideâ wasâââwas used.
Q: And this was by someone who was at the locale?
A: If I recall correctly, yes.
Q: And they were describing what was going on at the time?
A: I believe this happenedâââseveral days or maybe a week or more later, the phone call happened recounting events.
Q: That hadâââthat had happenedâââ
A: That had happened in the past, on May 4th.
Q: But you donât recall who that was?
A: No, I donât recall.
Q: Did you ever talk to Craig about this?
A: No. Things get dark.
Q: This stopped the public proofâââthis stopped the transfer of Bitcoin?
A: Yes.ââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
May 5, 2016
On this day the sil(l)iconANGLE article forgery about Craig Wright kicks in. On May 3, 2016 Craig Wright had created a (shortlived) article that got picked up by the Bitcoinist website on the early morning of May 5, 2016*, allowing Craig to send this Bitcoinist article to Andrew OâHagan, which lead to an anecdote in Satoshi Affair.
* Date not visible in article, but the webpage metadata shows: <meta property=âarticle:published_timeâ content=â2016â05â05T06:58:01+00:00">
âThe next day, he sent me an email. It linked to an [Bitcoinist] article headlined âUK Law Enforcement Sources Hint at Impending Craig Wright Arrestâ. The article suggested that the father of bitcoin might be liable, under the Terrorism Act, for the actions of people who used bitcoin to buy weapons. Under the link, Wright had written an explanation: âI walk from 1 billion or I go to jail. I never wanted to be out, but if I prove it, they destroy me and my family. I am the source of terrorist funds as bitcoin creator or I am a fraud to the world. At least a fraud is able to see his family. There is nothing I can do.âââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
âThe money was sent but never returned. What was going on in the hours between us being invited to take part in this proof and the moment when we were told it was âon holdâ? The only reason we get for Dr Wrightâs bizarre behaviour, which sabotaged everything he had worked for, comes in the form of an email to OâHagan. He sends the writer a news story that suggests the father of Bitcoin might be arrested for helping to facilitate terrorism by allowing people to buy weapons anonymously.
Dr Wright, it seems, decided he would prefer to be called a fraud than risk spending years in jail. This seems unconvincing.ââââRory Cellan-Jones (19)
As we learned from The Satoshi Affair (âThat afternoon, he closed down the blogâââthe one that was intended to lead cryptocurrency fans into a new eraâââbut left a final postingâ), Craig Wright deletes everything from his blog, and posts an image with excuse on the homepage. A few days later, the whole domain goes offline.
Irony has it that the real siliconANGLE website had paid attention to Craigâs struggles during the week, which ended in the goodbye letter above, and they wrote a lengthy but very readable article on this very same day:
âThe easy way for Wright to prove his connection to Satoshi, critics say, would be for him to use private Bitcoin keys that only Satoshi would likely have access to and sign a message in a publicly verifiable way. Due to the public-private key nature of Bitcoinâs cryptographic security doing this would be trivialâââin fact, the signature and the signed message text from Wrightâs private meetings could have been released publicly as proof.ââââKyt Dotson (20)
Screenshot of the siliconANGLE article
May 6, 2016
For Gavin Andresen, the endorsement of Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto came with consequences: although Gavin hadnât been active in Bitcoin development for a long while already (and had handed daily activities to others like Wladimir van der Laan), his Github account was blocked. Wladimir explains on his blog:
âBut now something truly fishy is going on. Someone is claiming to be that creator, but is surrounded by technological and social trickery, based on backdated GPG keys, faked digital signatures, maybe classic bait-and-switch parlor tricks. Despite various red flags, many people are convinced that a certain person is the creator of Bitcoin. There is a larger confusion than ever where truth starts and where misdirection and scams end. I am extremely concerned about this.
I wasnât sure, and am still not sure how Gavin is involved in this. It is no longer likely that he was hacked, but at the very least he is confused. When we saw the blog post convinced he found Satoshi, the prudent thing to do was to revoke his ownership of the âbitcoinâ organization on github, under which the Bitcoin Core repository currently lies, immediately.
In the past he has stated that âSatoshi can have write access to the github repo any time he asks.â, so if he is absolutely convinced that this is Satoshi, there is a risk that heâd give away the repository to a scammer.â
And here we pick up the rest of the story line with Andrew OâHagan again.
âThe next morning I drove through the traffic to a London suburb. It was early in the day and the high streets were empty, the happy boutiques, the delis and the wicker-and-candle dens where people come to improve their mood or do something about their lifestyle. Craig and Ramona were sitting in the corner of a popular cafĂŠ. They were holding hands and staring at the table. He was wearing his Billabong T-shirtâââI remembered it from his description of the clothes heâd bought in Auckland when he began his long-distance run last December. He looked as heâd looked the first night I met him in Mayfair: unshaven, unslept, the scar on his face more livid, his pupils like pinpricks and his breathing heavy. He wasnât just white, he was empty-looking, and his hands were trembling. Ramona was crying.â
ââSo what happened on Monday,â I asked, âwhen it came to writing that blog?â
âI gave them the wrong thing,â he said. âThen they changed it. Then I didnât correct it because I was so angry. Which was stupid. I put up the wrong one. No one wants Satoshi Nakamoto. I will never be Satoshi Nakamoto. Iâm not personable. You can lock me in a room and Iâll write papers, Iâll never be personable.â
Ramona was crying. âThey could take us down,â she said. âThey could really take you down if they want to.âââââAndrew OâHagan (1)
Meanwhile, Bitcoinist finds out they have been citing the fake siliconANGLE website that hosted Craigâs fake article, and they feel obliged to post a public excuse.
âEditorâs Note (5â6â2â16, 2:43 AM EST): The SiliconAngle piece cited in this article was produced by an impostor site posing as the real SiliconAngle. This source article does not appear on the real SiliconAngle website, and was not written by SiliconAngle reporter Collen Kriel. Bitcoinist would like to apologize to SiliconAngle and our readers for any confusion. To ensure that you are reading articles produced by the real SiliconAngle, make sure you are using the correct URL: www.siliconangle.com.â
May 7, 2016
After 5 intense days, Craig Wright sends an excuse to Gavin Andresen that is not believed by the latter. Gavin calls the May 2 blog post âgobbledygook proofâ with which he was âbamboozledâ, and in later years Gavin will also question the legitimacy of the private signing proof.
âQ: Iâm handing you whatâs been marked as Plaintiffsâ Exhibit 31. Itâs Gavin 41. Do you recognize this email?
A: Yes.
Q: Itâs an apology email from Craig Wright to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Sent May 7, 2016?
A: Yes.
Q: And in the third paragraph down, it saysâââCraig tells you, âAt no point did I lie to you nor deceive you, but it is better that I am a hoaxerâ?
A: Yes, I see that he said that.
Q: Do you believe that?
A: No.
Q: What do you really believe?
A: He certainly deceived me about what kind of blog post he was going to publish, and that gobbledygook proof that he published was certainly deception, if not an outright lie. So at the very least, that, I consider, you know, thatâââhe bamboozled me there.ââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
The Aftermath: Other sources about the May 2016Â events
A.P. Goucher (snippet from his article: Is Craig Wright?) May 2, 2016
âAnyway, this error is just about excusable since it pertains to the obscured internal details of an algorithm which people often use simply as a âblack boxâ for generating cryptographically secure message digests. The next sentence was much more concerning, since it suggests a serious mathematical misconception:
Wright writes: The number of possible messages that can be input into the SHA256 hash function totals (2š²â¸âââ1)! possible input values ranging in size from 0 bits through to the maximal acceptable range that we noted above.
This does not even remotely resemble the correct number of possible inputs, which is:
The use of a factorial to count the number of binary strings should immediately trigger alarm bells in anyone with a rudimentary undergraduate-level understanding of discrete mathematicsâ
Nicholas Courtois, May 2, 2016
âHours after his TV interview and his coming out in The Economist and elsewhere, I can confirm beyond reasonable doubt that Craig Wright (CW) has cheated us about his ability to sign messages with Satoshiâs private key.
Here is a short executive summary of facts guaranteed to be 100% exact. This is also a short and easy to check PROOF that Craig has lied and cheated.â (21)
Nik Cubrilovic, May 2, 2016
âCraig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. He wasnât Satoshi Nakamoto before or after Wired and Gizmodo suspected him to be last year, and he still isnât Satoshi Nakamoto after trying to reveal himself to be on his own blog and to The BBC, The Economist, GQ, Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen.
There is a long and fraught history in Bitcoin of claims and counterclaims about who Satoshi is, and one would think that lessons had been learned and a high standard would be set for subsequent claims regarding Satoshi Nakamoto. The proof posted today by Wright and others does not meet any standard for identifying him as Nakamoto.â (22)
David, May 2, 2016
âWhat I will be talking about, is how Gavin Andresen, a main bitcoin developer, could have been duped into thinking Wright was Satoshi. First. How weird is it that instead of just signing something with Satoshiâs public key and releasing it on the internet, Mr. Wright decides to demo a signature verification on closed door to TV channels, magazines and some bitcoin dev on a trip to London?â (23)
Hacker News user mappum, May 2, 2016
âDebunked! The signature in Wrightâs post is just pulled straight from a transaction on the blockchain. Now the only question is how he fooled Gavin.â (24)
Letâs try to answer that question in a bit. Not only Gavin Andresen but also several other people have been shown a signing that appeared legit, but came with many, many red flags. Combining these red flags, we will learn that a signing bamboozlement is very well possible, and certainly within the technical capabilities of Craig Wright.
Ryan Castellucci, May 2, 2016Â (1)
âWrightâs post is flimflam and hokum which stands up to a few minutes of cursory scrutiny, and demonstrates a competent sysadminâs level of familiarity with cryptographic tools, but ultimately demonstrates no non-public information about Satoshi.â (25)
Ryan Castellucci, May 2, 2016Â (2)
âBy the time I had a look into Craig Wrightâs blog post that seemed to imply that he is Satoshi, others had already pointed out that the signature was copied from a 2009 transaction. The contents of the âSartreâ file, however, were still a mystery. Dan Kaminsky had a blog post up analyzing the commands from CWâs post, but hadnât been able to figure that bit out, so he asked me to have a look.
Following a screenshot of the output of sha256sum Sartre, thereâs a screenshot purportedly the file being displayed through a program called more, but only the first 14% can be seen, making it impossible to verify. How convenient.â (26)
Dan Kaminsky, May 2â3, 2016
âThe guy took an old Satoshi signature from 2009 and pretended it was fresh and new and applied to Sartre. Itâs like Wright took the final page of a signed contract and stapled it to something else, then proclaimed to the world âSee? I signed it!â. Thatâs not how it works. Say what you will about Bitcoin, itâs given us the worldâs first cryptographically provable con artist.â (27)
Kastalia Medrano, May 3, 2016
Writing for Inverse online magazine, Kastalia brings together several responses to Craig Wrightâs failed reveal as Satoshi Nakamoto in her article âMEET THE BITCOIN EXPERTS WHO DONâT BELIEVE CRAIG WRIGHT IS SATOSHI NAKAMOTOâ. A few quotes:
âWright is lying,â security researcher Dan Kaminsky writes to Inverse. âItâs rare I can be so definitive, but the math isnât subtle. He says he (as Satoshi) signed some writings from the French philosopher Sartre, but the signature is seven years old and comes from Bitcoin itself. I have no idea why Wright would say these things, and I wouldnât normally care. Lots of people lie. But very credible people in the Bitcoin community are backing Wright in unusual ways and frankly theyâre becoming less credible.â
âThere are a lot of people trying to get their name out there,â Green says when asked why someone would claim to be Nakamoto if, in fact, he is not. âEven if a small percentage of people believe the claim, thatâs more than zero. Maybe you come out of it better off. Doesnât mean the rest of us have to pay him the attention. Thereâs always the possibility he does come along with some real proof, but that will still require him answering why heâs fooling around and not responding to the real questions. If he doesnât, I think we pretty much just forget about him. But even if he does, it leaves a lot of questions still about his credibility. By pussyfooting around so much, heâs raised the bar for what he has to prove.â
Kaminsky contacted Inverse to say that Andresen responded to him on his website. The Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist appears to backtrack in his support of Wright:
âI was as surprised by the âproofâ as anyone, and donât yet know exactly what is going on. It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw hisâââI assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify. And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi. If Iâm lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.â
Guardian Magazine, on May 3, 2016, is ruthless.
âCraig Wrightâs claim to be bitcoin founder labelled a âscamââ
âSecurity researchers say that the discrepancy, combined with the absence of any other public technical evidence, suggests that Wrightâs post is a âscamâ. âThatâs how Craig Wright tried to fool us,â writes security researcher Robert Graham. âCraig Wright magically appears to have proven he knows Satoshiâs private-key, when in fact heâs copied the inputs/outputs and made us think we calculated them. It wouldâve worked, too, but thereâs too many damn experts in the blockchain who immediately pick up on the subtle details.â
Dan Kaminsky, another security researcher, is equally damning.
âYes, this is a scam. Not maybe. Not possibly,â he says. âWright is pretending he has Satoshiâs signature on Sartreâs writing. That would mean he has the private key, and is likely to be Satoshi. What he actually has is Satoshiâs signature on parts of the public Blockchain, which of course means he doesnât need the private key and he doesnât need to be Satoshi. He just needs to make you think Satoshi signed something else besides the Blockchainâââsuch as Sartre. He doesnât publish Sartre. He publishes 14% of one document. He then shows you a hash thatâs supposed to summarise the entire document. This is a lie.ââ
Robert Graham, May 5, 2016
âNotice that the algorithms are the same. Thatâs how Craig Wright tried to fool us.â (28)
Gavin Andresen
And even Gavin Andresen already had serious reservations about his signing session back then. From his February 26, 2020 deposition in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit, where they discuss a private email from 2016 (send by Gavin shortly after the May debacle), he cites:
âQ: And then you sayâââwell, why donât you read the second paragraph for me, of your email.
A: âGiven his extreme efforts to avoid releasing a public signature, Iâm starting to doubt that Craig actually possesses the key he claims he has, and he did somehow manage to trick me and, perhaps, has been deceiving people for many years.â
Q: What do you think now? Wasâââlet me take a step back. Was that an accurate statement whenâââwhen you made it?
A: Yes.
Q: And what do you think now?
A: Iâm not sure what to think. I amâââI might have been bamboozled.â
From the same deposition:
âQ: Okay. So would it be fair to say that regardless of what conversation you had with Craig Wright inâââin London, which, you know, we understand thereâs some clouds surrounding it, but whatever had happened, at a minimum, you still believe that Craig Wright was the brain child, the one who came up with the idea?
A: I have my doubts at this point.ââââVel Freedman, Gavin Andresen (10)
June 20, 2016
One day earlier, on June 19, 2016, Andrew OâHagan published his long form article The Satoshi Affair. Weâve seen many quotes in this piece from that from a historical viewpoint very interesting write up. Gizmodo wrote a review of The Satoshi Affair a day later, under the title âCraig Wrightâs Claims About Inventing Bitcoin Still Donât Make Any Goddamn Senseâ. AÂ quote:
âWhen it comes to the supposed hack of Wrightâs personal emails that link him to Bitcoinâs creation, Wright says they were leaked from a hard drive stolen by a disgruntled employee. That seems dubious, considering Wrightâs noted obsession with encryption and security (the story details Wrightâs multiple encrypted computers and his history as a security specialist). Itâs hard to imagine that someone who walked away with a hard drive belonging to Wright would be able to access the contents.ââââWilliam Turton
Source: https://gizmodo.com/craig-wrights-claims-about-inventing-bitcoin-still-dont-1782303576
This anecdote about the âdisgruntled employee that stole a hard driveâ has now become one of the most prolific âthe dog ate my homeworkâ memes surrounding Craig Wright, as he constantly claims to have been hacked (specifically when his Faketoshi proof is failing for the umpteenth time), meanwhile never having started an inquiry let alone put someone in court for any of the alleged hacks.
Stuart McGurk, May 2, 2016
Youâve not seen many quotes yet from Stuart McGurk, author employed by GQ Magazine. Reason is, his articles were published much later and more importantly, they deserve an individual highlight. It started with some background information in (now deleted, link goes to Wayback Machine) âDR CRAIG WRIGHT OUTS HIMSELF AS BITCOIN CREATOR SATOSHI NAKAMOTOâ and the announcement that the interview would become available later.
âVia Mr Wrightâs representatives, GQâs Senior Commissioning Editor Stuart McGurk was afforded a remarkably rare and candid interview with Dr Wright to verify his claims: an encounter that was also occasionally fractious and incredibly heated.
âLook, Iâm doing this, then Iâm disappearing,â he said at one point. âIâm not doing this to try and get in the media. This will never happen again. Youâve got this one thing. If you donât like it, fuck off.â
The interview will appear in a forthcoming issue of GQ.â
Stuart McGurk, August 3, 2016
Readers of GQ Magazine had to wait till August before Stuart put âIS CRAIG WRIGHT THE BITCOIN GENIUS?â (now deleted) online, but it was worthwhile the wait. As it contained the now infamous recording of a heated Craig Wright and a full transcript of it.
Stuart McGurk, September 13, 2016
Then, his first article came out in the UK: âBitcoin: inside the ÂŁ8bn swindleâ.
âOccasionally, it looked dangerously close to spilling over into physical violence. I dreaded having to explain it for the police report. But the gist was clear: in his expert opinion, Dr Courtois didnât feel Wrightâs evidence was conclusive. Wright, in turn, was not pleased about this.â
Stuart McGurk, November 18, 2016
Stuart published his most damning piece about the signing sessions debacle only by November 2016 in Australia, under a title that leaves no room for doubt about his opinion: âCraig Wright: The Man Who Didnât Invent Bitcoinâ. In it, we find nuggets like these:
âKleimanâs former colleague at Computer Forensics LLC, Patrick Paige, contacted for his input, asks after Craig Wright: âIs he on suicide watch yet?â
His tone doesnât suggest concern.â
Jimmy Nguyen Deposition
As said earlier, Robert McGregor would abandon the Faketoshi endeavor. From Jimmyâs deposition on April 30, 2020 in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit we learn more about how that went.
âQ: Iâll just go where Iâm getting to maybe you can help me make it easier which is Iâm trying to find out how Robert MacGregor ended up out of the picture. Because you told me he was the one that purchased everything from Craig then you told me he no longer has interest in nChain. How did he get removed?
A: He became unhappy with Craig at a certain point and again Iâm telling you this all second hand because I wasnât there. So itâs what Iâve heard from other people and he thought about closing the nChain operation at one point. Stefan Matthews wanted to continue it and there was a transaction which was announced in 2017 about a public investment fund in Malta acquiring the nChain set of companies from Robâs company. Basically he was unhappy with Craig and didnât necessarily want to be involved any more.
Q: Do you know why he was unhappy with Craig?
A: Yes. Well, Craig isâââcan be a difficult business colleague. You know, has been widely reported in the media there was an effort in the spring of 2016 I believe it was or in 2016 to show that Craig is Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of Bitcoin. It happened after there was some media articles that tried to out Craig as Satoshi I believe in the December before that this process to establish Craig as Satoshi at the end did not go well and as I understand it Rob was upset with Craig.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/600/16/kleiman-v-wright/
Q: Can you explain what you mean âdid not go well?â
A: Well, Iâm telling you all that from reports obviously because I wasnâtâââI knew it was happening because this was when I was in talks with Rob to start working for nChain but I wasnât directly involved with it. Craig did not media interviews to come out and say I am Satoshi Nakamoto creator of Bitcoin. The Bitcoin community, you know, theyâre very technical people involved in cryptography. They would not believe a statement like that without some other proof and there was supposed to beâââI canât remember the date it was a date in May where he was supposed toâââI am not exactly sure what he was supposed to do. I think he was supposed to either sign a transaction using private keys from one of the early Bitcoin blockchain blocks which the Bitcoin community would recognize as only being held or owned or accessible by Satoshi Nakamoto and he did aâââI donât know if he was supposed to sign a transaction or move a coin, Iâm not entirely sure but something using private key associated with one of the first early Bitcoin blocks. He did something butâââthat the Bitcoin community then quickly thought well, thatâsâââitâs usingâââit wasnât using that private key of Satoshi. It was using information he could have found publicly so people thought well, heâs justâââthat doesnât prove he is Satoshi.
Q: Itâs fair to say it was a pretty big issue at the time, right?
A: Yes, very much. There was a lot of news about both his claim coming forward saying Iâm Satoshi and then there was a lot of news that came when the proofâââproof, you know, session, proof providing not believed by the Bitcoin community and I think he posted something on the blog he had at the time saying Iâm sorry.ââââVel Freedman, Jimmy Nguyen
The Analysis
Signing Sessions List of Excuses
Before we dive into Craigâs bamboozlements during the signing sessions themselves, letâs first list how he is trying to avoid signing in the first place. What is notable, before, during and after the signing sessions debacle, Craig has been using an impressive list of excuses to explain away the reluctance to, or failure of the (public) signing of any early block address or sending back the BTC that Rory Cellan-Jones, Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen send to the Bitcoin address of block 9 in May 2016 (where they remain till today).
Dorian Nakamoto, who was wrongly identified as Satoshi Nakamoto in March 2014
- Refusing without any reason given
- Making empty promises
- Trust permission not in place
- Security flaw in the early blockchain
- Suicide attempt
- siliconANGLE article (forgery) that Craig might have to go to jail
- No courage
- Only in combination with other (social) evidence (which up till today was never delivered)
- Hard drive with keys is destroyed
- Wouldnât prove ownership anyway (only possession)
- Wouldnât prove identity anyway (but does not register public Bitcoin addresses with private keys at notary followed by a signing or transaction to make his point)
- Never agreed to do the exercise (was forced by Robert MacGregor)
As one of my friends once said: either you have 1 good excuse, or you have no excuse at all. This long list of mostly lame excuses of Craig Wright only leads to one conclusion: the guy just canât genuinely sign. He canât, and he wonât, ever.
Technical debunk of the Gavin Andresen and other signings
But knowing now that several people have reported about Craig Wright signing several early Bitcoin addresses between blocks 1 and 9 (mostly block 9), letâs try to find out how it is possible to bamboozle a signing. First, letâs run down the most important red flags in this article.
¡ Signing only in private sessions, never releasing the signature to the public
¡ Craig Wright adds his own text, for example âCSWâ
¡ Only Electrum Wallet is used
¡ Only Craigâs laptop is used (with 1 exception)
¡ When Gavin wanted to verify the signing results on his laptop, this was refused and a new laptop was needed, which took âmany hoursâ to set up (without verification on the Electrum website, as it appears)
Since Gavin mentioned in deposition Kleiman v Wright that during the signing session Craig added âCSWâ to the text that Gavin proposed, it is worthwhile to explore this a bit more. As it appears, Gavin mentioned this red flag already to Emin GĂźn Sirer on May 4, 2016:
âGavin Andresenâs social authentication carries a lot of weight. And that is the implicit reason why Craig Wrightâs latest claim to Satoshiâs crown caught public attention: people assumed Gavin had vetted Satoshi using multiple factors. Yet when I asked Gavin about how he certified Wright, he described the process he used:
âIt is possible I was tricked, but it wouldnât be an eclipse/hijack of the chainâââI brought a list of the first 100 blockâs keys with me and verified the public key against that list. That was the only connection to the chain.
A hijack of the wifi used to download Electrum is possible; if we were running an Electrum that reported âverifiedâ for any message ending with âCSWâ and not verified for anything else that would fit what happened. I didnât bring checksums of Electrum downloads with me.â (29)
So how to hack a signing with Electrum Wallet? Twitter user âZectroâ figured out, Electrum Wallet can be hacked with a few lines of code. Here an example how to change the BTC address in the background (green rows).
Source: https://twitter.com/Zectro1/status/1192576225413222405
This finding, the missing link between private signing sessions and (not) publicly releasing the signing sessions' outcome, is crucial in understanding how Craig Wrightâs bamboozlements with âsigningâ works. And knowing about Zectroâs finding, it makes it understandable how a man-in-the-middle type of hack like this could also easily be made with a few lines of code that looks for a fixed string (like: just one of the letters of the alphabet, one of the numbers 0 to 9, or, indeed: the text âCSWâ) in the text to be signed. The consequence of such type of hack however, is that a successful verification of the signing can only be performed with the Electrum Wallet on the device it is installed upon.
And make no mistake, this text-to-be-signed hack would be an extremely simple yet powerful hack, as it would enable fraudulently signing any -fake or real- random BTC address from any Bitcoin block header, with any -fake or real- random private key! To add, as noted before, any fixed text string could be put in the code hack before any (private) signing session to make the text that Craig Wright is using give the appearance of randomness.
But is Craig Wright even able to execute such hack on the Electrum Wallet? Most of his forgeries are quite sloppy and not very sophisticated. On the other hand, Craig does know his way in digital metadata, and earlier in his career he hacked a coffee machine in 2008 and in 2011 he even hacked a Boeing 747 airplane!
Since this type of fraudulent signing would, of course, not survive public scrutiny, it now starts to make sense why Craig Wright never performs public signings, but reportedly only private signings where he fully controls the technical signing environment.
And since Craig Wright fails to deliver on any of his other empty promises over the years, it appears he is ramping up the performance of his only trick left from the Faketoshi bamboozle box: he is now signing âfor manyâ and even âfor groupsâ these days, according Calvin Ayre on Twitter on March 11, 2021.
And letâs not forget about the announcement that Calvin Ayre made in August 2020: he started filming a documentary on Craigâs life.
Will Craig Wright perform a signing in front of the camera? Will we finally see the Bitcoin whitepaper with rusty staples and coffee stains? The explanation how Microsoft patch Tuesday (released January 13, 2009) made Craigâs Bitcoin network reboot 10 days earlier on January 3, 2009? Will we meet the bonded courier that Dave Kleiman hired, and witness the unlocking of encrypted Tulip Trust files? Will we get a close up of the famous Pineapple Wifi from where 110,000 BTC was hacked from Craigâs network?
Or will Craig his Faketoshi scheme have collapsed before this documentary is going to see the day of light? To be continuedâŚ
The end
Photo credits: Kristina Uffe, The Economist
Sources:
(1) https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v38/n13/andrew-o-hagan/the-satoshi-affair
(2) https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1362173057289375754
(3) https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-creator/
(4) https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1373178214441451524
(5) https://web.archive.org/web/20160306234354/https://silliconangle.com/
(6) https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/time-bitcoins-price-increase-both-logical-and-sustainable-2016-01-07
(7) https://jonmatonis.medium.com/how-i-met-satoshi-96e85727dc5a
(8) https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4cdsna/craig_wright_nigerian_prince_and_other_unlikely
(9) https://web.archive.org/web/20160331155411/https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/31/2158024/craig-wrights-upcoming-big-reveal/
(10) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/599/3/kleiman-v-wright/
(11) https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36185622
(12) https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36185267
(13) https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/05/02/craig-steven-wright-claims-to-be-satoshi-nakamoto-is-he
(14) https://www.gq.com.au/entertainment/tech/craig-wright-the-man-who-didnt-invent-bitcoin/news-story/d17a269e4b2aeb331dad51e1c3e2d7cf
(15) https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
(16) https://web.archive.org/web/20160502203734/https://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/
(17) https://web.archive.org/web/20160503160003/https://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/
(18) https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588
(19) https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36575524
(20) https://siliconangle.com/2016/05/05/craig-wright-most-recent-alleged-inventor-of-bitcoin-says-im-sorry-and-quits/
(21) https://blog.bettercrypto.com/?p=2614
(22) https://nikcub.me/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto
(23) https://www.cryptologie.net/article/350/how-gavin-andresen-was-duped-into-believing-wright-is-satoshi/
(24) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609707
(25) https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification
(26) https://rya.nc/sartre.html
(27) https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-provable-con-man/
(28) https://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-deception.html#.YM0H62gzbb0
(29) https://hackingdistributed.com/2016/05/04/logical-fallacies-hunt-satoshi/