For trying to establish a Bitcoin bank, but since he can’t handle rules and regulations it failed. I guess that’s where the anti-bank sentiment comes from. 
Wright was the CEO of the technology firm Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence Group (Hotwire PE),[20][21] which planned to launch Denariuz Bank, the world’s first bitcoin-based bank, though it encountered regulatory difficulties with the Australian Tax Office and failed in 2014.
We are all well aware of this charlatan.
Are we?
Dude, this is an obvious fraud. He is the only person I’m 100% sure is not Satoshi
https://www.craigwright.online/
Satoshi had seriously good opsec. It’s not even clear from which country he is by his remarks. But the whole point of Bitcoin is that it work without trust, because you can cryptographically verify everything. And one of the most important reasons why we can trust the protocol is exactly because Satoshi is unknown and removed himself from the equation. There is no leader anymore who’s advice is worth more than others and that can go crazy. It’s up to the community of Bitcoin users now to decide how it goes forward, and because they can’t agree on anything it’s super static and stable unless there is something super obvious and uncontroversial that has been contemplated on for years. This is Bitcoin’s strength.
They controll the fiat off/on-ramps, as they should. The part of the money that is important they can’t control. They can’t print more of it to steal value from the people and give it to their friends or finance wars.
I highly recommend you read at least the whitepaper, even just the introduction to understand the motivation for the creation of all of this https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Yeah why should they have to do this in the first place
I don’t get this point. Because it enables ransom ware? It’s not Bitcoins fault our IT security is hot garbage, it would be an issue with or without crypto.
Also, I’m not sure why I have to mention this, but powerful technology enables all sorts of people. Knives are a weapon in the had of a murderer and an instrument to save lives in the hand of a surgeon. The first cars where used as a get away vehicle for bank robberies. Do I need to continue?
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”
Benjamin Franklin
And now I know and checked out his shady past.
So what is your opinion on his banking failures?
What is your opinion on him having to sue people to get the money he owns?
It sounds logical as he’s not used to work with rules and regulations and ends up having to go to court to prove he owns what he owns.
An IT specialist that lives in the legal dark ages. lol.
This topic is strange, I’ll have to investigate more before responding.
He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar.
It’s a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.
It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security.
#TheMoreYouKnow
The topic is complex, we all try to talk with the information we have.
Every person who is Satoshi and is willing to reveal himself could cryptographically prove it by producing a valid signature for an address we know to be historically associated with Satoshi.
Every single person could prove for himself that this is true and that person is Satoshi.
It’s literally one of the simplest things to demonstrate if you are actually Satoshi. Yet Craig Wright can’t do it. He is a fraud who tries to lawyer the Bitcoin that are attributed to Satoshi into his pockets. Yet even that attempt shows that he doesn’t understand how Bitcoin works. Even if he could sue every single Bitcoin dev to add a rule with an exception for those addresses to the code (which is what he is actually trying), the network would not accept it, it was designed that way by Satoshi, how obvious does it have to get?
Even Forbes are publishing articles which explain interest in the topic is dropping - Interest In NFTs And The Metaverse Is Falling Fast
You’re right, if he can’t do it then he isn’t Satoshi.
It’s so simple to do, we’ve been doing it for decades using OpenPGP and asymetric signatures (it is basically encrypting a hash of the message with the private key, proof you control the private key of a public/private key pair, and decrypted by the public key. It is the reverse process used for public key encryption, asymetric encryption works both ways).
In the context of crypto the public key is the address you send to, the private key controls the address. Well, actually the public address you send to is a “form”/“representation” of public key (it can take many forms for convenience and easier validating and address representation have evolved over time).
Prove you control the public address, that is all that is being asked.
From a BBC news article:
With more proof. Many, including the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones, have called on Craig Wright to spend some of the bitcoins locked up in those early blocks to demonstrate that he has control of them.
However, as others have pointed out, all this would show is that he has access to the private keys for these bitcoins, not that he was Satoshi.
Some suggest the confusion around Satoshi’s identity has arisen because it was a name adopted by the small group of developers that worked on Bitcoin in its early days. This group involved Mr Wright, Hal Finney and David Kleiman. As the only surviving member of that group Mr Wright could claim to be Satoshi but would not have access to all the data that could be used to definitively prove this assertion.
You don’t have to spend to prove it, you just sign a message.
Some companies actually do this, ask for a signed message as proof for some things (refunds/reembursement for example to an address).
From a BBC news article:
Some. In demonstrations to the Bitcoin experts, the BBC and the Economist, he used the Electrum Bitcoin wallet to sign a message using private keys from early Bitcoin blocks widely assumed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto.
But as the Economist said in its report about Mr Wright, such demonstrations can be “stage-managed” and many doubters have said it was poor practice to let him use his own laptop and software of his choosing for this demonstration.
However, Mr Andresen’s encounter with Mr Wright was more rigorous. In that case, a Windows laptop was bought from a nearby shop, unboxed and the Electrum wallet software installed on it.
Mr Wright then signed an arbitrary message - “Gavin’s favorite number is eleven. CSW” - with a key from an early block. The signed message was put on a USB stick, moved to the new laptop and checked. This revealed the signature to be valid.
Craig Wright might be part of the team who worked on BTC, does anyone have an explanation as to how he was able to sign a key from an early BTC block?
AKA Proxy data.
–Helpful Gadget
Because what you claim is logic, is just not.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept your scenario is ■■■■ ?
It would be less exhausting if you were not actually claiming ■■■■.
Because objectivity is in the eye of people you convince, not people who already agree with you.
You have your bias, and you are looking for confirmation of those biases in an echo chamber. That’s the opposite of acquiring information.
I , on the opposite, tried to read other people opinion. Turns out aaron is just too ignorant to realize if he makes a mistake, and dodged the important question of the actual economical impact of BTC (it’s zero) then went to superetard.
If I would be Satoshi, I wouldnt even admit it, knowing what it brought to people. Its a failed experiment.
So many people hace seen thru it, but even more have suffered while few get rich, inaqualities rising as before.
Nothing changed.
I saw a youtube video yesterday it was dated that day and was titled “Elon Musk buys 167,999 BTC, send 100 BTC and we send you back 200 BTC”
The video was presented as a live event and it looked like elon musk and 3 other business leaders were having a “live” chat. there was no live comments. I saw through it straight away and I knew Elon musk did not just purchase lots of BTC. So yes there is always going to be people fishing to BTC scam people in a blatant manner.
It’s hard to say people have suffered as they were aware of BTC’s volatile nature, If people were scammed out of BTC in a way similar to above then BTC can’t be blamed.
Also spending a large sum of money on a volatile investment is risky, ultimately they shouldn’t have lost the BTC they will still have the same amount, it’s just some of the value that was lost. Also there are millions of people who purchased or mined BTC when the value was lower than £10k the fact it is around £32k now means they are still in profit.
If we look at the price history we can see that the boom started late in 2020, we saw the value jump from £10k to £40k per BTC. So trust me when I say practically everyone who owned BTC made money around that time and lots of it.
If there are people who lost money then they must have purchased the BTC when it was over £40k and they may have another year to wait before it gets back to £40k so they can get their original investment back.
This is my assessment based on facts.