> Wright must have been sure the real Satoshis would not show up and ruin the show

The sense I get of Wright, and other fraudsters, is that they gamble on outcomes. If the lie works out, they proceed to the next step. If it fails a truth test he falls back on one of:

1. The person with this information is deceased

2. The information sits with an opaque trust that I can't tell you about

3. I am eccentric and can't deal with this

4. I'll distract you by talking endlessly about something i'm more comfortable with

A further technique is that Wright never tells the complete story, he doesn't fill in the gaps - but rather he sets up the outline and then allows those around him to fill in the pieces.

Re: the specific case of how Wright would deal with the real Satoshi coming out, I think he intentionally built up the story piece by piece so that he could counter this possibility at any time.

We know that Wright began suggesting he was involved in the creation of Bitcoin very early on. He never said he did it alone, and he never told the full story from the outset but rather built it up piecemeal over time and tested the limits of how far he could go.

He would have noticed that the real Satoshi has never conclusively debunked previous Satoshi suspects. Every one of them could be dismissed as (ironically) not being cryptographically strong proof of the real Satoshi.

So if real Satoshi comes out with a comment similar to what happen when Dorian Nakamoto was profiled in Newsweek, Craig could say it's an imposter. Even in the worst case scenario - the real Satoshi comes out, he signs a message that says "Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto" and it is verified Wright still has options of where to go (as he has done)

He can say technically it's correct, that Nakamoto was a team. He can say that his keys were stolen. He can say that someone must have found Kleiman's disk drive.

Or he can do what has been common in this case: nothing, and allow others to make arguments for him based on hints he drops. For example advocates on his behalf could argue that he intentionally sabotaged himself in order to protect himself from legal liability, or because he wants to remove himself from the spotlight, or because he isn't comfortable with taking credit, or for some other reason (this scenario isn't absurd, it has happen with Wright)

Fraudsters always find a way, and more often than not it is other people doing the arguing for them and trying to fit it around the narrative where the assumption is provided by him.

A lot of it works because of confirmation bias, and you end up in a frustrating situation where nothing can be proven or disproven beyond doubt because the story can be molded to suit what is known and unknown.

The Craig Wright myth consumes the gaps in what we know and do not know about the real Satoshi. The myth is built up by people biased to believe it using small pieces of information provided by Wright.

The author does this in the article - he starts off with:

> "he appeared, from the initial evidence, to have a better claim to being Satoshi Nakamoto than anyone else"

and from there it's just a long loop of Wright dropping hints and the author struggling to piece it all together into that narrative

He's a con man... we just don't know who he's trying to con. From a confidence game perspective impersonating a recluse like Satoshi is a great choice, in fact a classic choice. Especially after that other fellow was incorrectly identified as Satoshi by national media and Satoshi didn't do anything to correct those claims.

You mean Dorian? Satoshi did correct it. That's how anyone knows he's still alive.

Satoshi did NOT correct it. His P2P foundation account was hacked, just like his gmx email.

His P2P Foundation was hacked afterwards and then locked for good; but P2P Foundation confirmed at the time that as far as they could tell, it was Satoshi.

Was it signed? I was following pretty closely and my version of history also had that as being fake. This is one instance where I would love to be wrong though.

It was not signed, because Satoshi has never signed anything ever. But it was, as far as it's possible to tell, genuine.

But there would be no need for Satoshi to turn up. Since Wright isn't Satoshi, then Satoshi knows that Wright can't provide cryptographic proof. Since Satoshi likes his anonymity he can safely sit and let Wright claim to be Satoshi with no downside.

That's what Satoshi might have been thinking, if he were alive. I am pointing to what Wright must have been thinking.

What if he's been hired to act out this part in order to draw out the real Satoshi?

Out of ignorance, I struggle to see all of the reasoning for such extreme desire of anonymity that the real Satoshi possesses?

That would depend entirely on who or what "Satoshi" actually is. If it's an altruistic individual, there are many possible reasons. If it's a group or organization, there are many others.

And whoever or whatever "Satoshi" is, there are a variety of reasons that a variety of people and organizations would like to know his identity. There may also be a variety of reasons that other, non-Satoshi entities would like it to remain a secret, depending on what the real story is. I guess most of us will never know.

Thanks, but I badly worded my question. What I mean is, I realize there's speculation, but I don't know enough about Satoshi and bitcoin to know if there's been any indication/information any which way of what the possible reasoning is for such extreme desire of anonymity because the story seems so incomplete to me. From your response it looks like it is still anyone's guess at this point though.

> From your response it looks like it is still anyone's guess at this point though.

You might be right, but you shouldn't judge from my response, because I know very little about Bitcoin and don't typically follow news about it. I would guess that someone out there would have a better idea... :)

As others have said, it's a con. I have a theory that when Satoshi gave up working on bitcoin he discarded his keys out of principle. That way there would be no way for anyone to get access to those first mined coins. It is the only fair approach.

I can't be the only person who has surmised this. So if you are a con man and you also have this idea, what you start doing is pushing the boundaries a bit and testing to see if you get any push back. If not, push farther. You won't get ridiculous press until you publicly say "I am Satoshi" and until that point, you can always back away and say, "Oh it's all just a bad joke. Sorry!"

As soon as you say "I am Satoshi and I have access to these BTC. Lend me money." and you get no argument, you know you are golden. The keys are gone. It's a risk, but a slight one if he had been pushing here and there to try and provoke a response.

The one issue I'm interested in is the PGP signed email stating that the other Satoshi (Dorian) is not the Bitcoin Satoshi. I'd really like to understand what key was used for that. Imagine if that message were actually a fake... it would have made a great test to see if the real Satoshi would respond.

If CSW had no ability to sign real messages then he simply would have left his proof at duping individuals and having them vouch for him. It would have certainly worked well enough to drum up some investors and run off with their money.

So if he had some access to the keys does that make him Satoshi or part of a Satoshi team? Personally I think the real Satoshi was happy to use him and sign some messages for him but baulked at signing public proof. It's pretty similar in outcome to having a trust that cooperated with him and then didn't but much simpler.

The BBC dictated a message to him though, which he signed live (adding his own commentary) so I don't think that theory holds up.

He'd have to have a live link to satoshi is all. I don't buy that he had the actual key and then either forgot or refused to use it for the sake of the 'trust'