By CCN Markets: Danny Knight, a Twitter user, posted a video of Craig Wright talking about when he first read about Bitcoin – in 2008.
#faketoshi slipping up here like he always does:
“I remember reading about it”
Is not what you say when you wrote it….
Because he didn’t#bitcoin pic.twitter.com/9meuIn6cQB
— Danny Knight (@danny_knight) June 14, 2019
In the 15 second video, Wright talks about reading about Bitcoin for the first time.
Bitcoin’s Several Futures
The tweet asks the obvious question: If you wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper and invented the thing, how could that be your first introduction to it?
Without passing judgment on Craig Wright’s claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, objectively it’s a good question to ask. If you’re going to claim you’re Satoshi Nakamoto, how could some paper about identity in Bitcoin be your first introduction to the thing?
There have been other videos where Wright spoke questionably on the subject of Bitcoin or Satoshi Nakamoto. In one instance, he refers to Satoshi as another person. That video seems to have been taken down from YouTube.
Craig Wright’s Failed Evidence
Jumbled in with the failed evidence that Wright has submitted so far, it paints a worse picture than he might hope. Nevertheless, things seem to progress as he would like in the courtroom dramas he’s engaged in. People zeroed in on the case when a researcher raised the alarm that Wright had submitted an obviously false e-mail as court evidence in his defense against the Kleiman estate, who believes he stole his Bitcoin wealth from Dave Kleiman.
The story goes that some guys contacted Craig Wright in 2015 or so and asked him if he would be willing to come out as Satoshi Nakamoto. In exchange, they would pay his debts. The party line has evolved: he is Satoshi Nakamoto and can prove it; it doesn’t matter who Satoshi Nakamoto is; he is Satoshi Nakamoto, can prove it in court, and will sue everyone who calls him a fraud for saying so.
No one’s sure what happens in a world where Wright can rightfully call himself Satoshi Nakamoto. If it were the case, at this point, what would become of the Bitcoin community?
The Nakamoto Gambit
One argument that carries significant water is that it doesn’t matter who Satoshi Nakamoto is. It’s not because we’re asserting that someone is Satoshi but can’t prove it but because at this point there are plenty of developers with more work on the protocol than Satoshi. In effect, Satoshi’s skills would be rusty if he suddenly began development again – assuming he ever stopped.
If Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, then forking away into a chain worth hundreds of millions of dollars would seem to be reward enough – beyond the money he has already, in early bitcoins, that is.
Claiming and indeed spending this money would eventually be essential to the claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. All of this has been provided to him by the bitcoin bull market, which is partly made up of the people who support him now but mainly made up of people who’ve called him a “fraud.” Thus the situation would become quite interesting if Wright emerged victorious with the right to call himself Nakamoto.
Yet, if “Bitcoin SV is the real Bitcoin,” then why not dump the old coins into it? The price of SV would pump significantly, at least for a spell, and it would shock the regular bitcoin market. Shock is perhaps an understatement.
And, if we were in such a scenario, the obvious next question would be why he waited so long.
What becomes of Bitcoin Core at that point?
These are all hypothetical questions. They’re all raised by one rich man’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Wright’s brash and combative personality far from fit the bill, but he’s been willing to put his money where his mouth is, taking the matter to court on multiple fronts.
Is there a future where Bitcoin gets the super villain it deserves rather than the hero it wants? We’ll have to stay tuned to find out.
Article First Published here