Generally if you are polite and articulate WHY you are suspicious, people will cut you more slack.
I'm very reluctant to believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, but didn't have firm evidence (because he hadn't released info). Now that it appears the "signature of message" is just a signature from something else, it looks like he's actively a fraud, but I haven't validated it myself.
(The back-dated PGP key and alternate subkey from earlier was super sketch, but could have been someone else.)
You are right I should've elaborated. To me it reeked of conspiracy, it was odd for both Anderson and Matonis to come out with parallel blog posts endorsing this guy without a solid proof. He could've signed the genisis block and be done with it but no they had to go through all this trouble.
Cryptographic proofs speak for themselves, just release them to the public instead of relying on a centralized authority (Anderson and Matonis) to verify them, which is ironic.
Comments
Generally if you are polite and articulate WHY you are suspicious, people will cut you more slack.
I'm very reluctant to believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, but didn't have firm evidence (because he hadn't released info). Now that it appears the "signature of message" is just a signature from something else, it looks like he's actively a fraud, but I haven't validated it myself.
(The back-dated PGP key and alternate subkey from earlier was super sketch, but could have been someone else.)
You're probably right.
You are right I should've elaborated. To me it reeked of conspiracy, it was odd for both Anderson and Matonis to come out with parallel blog posts endorsing this guy without a solid proof. He could've signed the genisis block and be done with it but no they had to go through all this trouble.
Cryptographic proofs speak for themselves, just release them to the public instead of relying on a centralized authority (Anderson and Matonis) to verify them, which is ironic.