![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this person could be worth more than 300 million dollars (U.S.). This is not just anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senoranandmanikutty ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The article says he has a PhD in computer science but the given reference says his "PhD is in theology". (Note - Wiki article now corrected).
The article also says he is a "researcher at Charles Sturt University" but there is no reference or source.
There is no reference to having authoring or coauthored several books. One book is mentioned.
Based on the Wiki article his actual achievements seem to be "18 SANS Institute courses", "information systems manager", working on a incomplete PhD, and starting two failed private companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiejohn ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Craig Steven Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I have tried to delete known false information in this page and I explained why on the appropriate special page ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Steven_Wright) but somebody always revert my change saying I did not exeplained why.
This news if now a know hoax, verified by http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax. If you have not YOURSELF fresh information tahat a=your are able to confirm (not just a rumor copy/paste from a forum), please do not add any information known as FALSE.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto-the-myth-lives-on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.39.45 ( talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to throw this out there as a retired editor, the lead paragraph of this entry makes almost no sense. 63.118.185.98 ( talk) 18:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no uniform convention for bitcoin capitalization. Some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network and bitcoin, lowercase, to refer to the unit of account. [1]
The Wall Street Journal, [2] The Chronicle of Higher Education [3], and the Oxford English Dictionary [4] advocate use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases. The same convention is used by The Economist [5] and the main Bitcoin article. The second of the cited articles and the Talk:Bitcoin archives explain the reasons why. I propose to adjust the capitalization in this article to use the same convention. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 16:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Standards vary, but there seems to be a consensus forming around Bitcoin, capitalized, for the system, the software, and the network it runs on, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the currency itself.
News continues to break relating to Craig Steven Wright's claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I suggest we keep this page as Wright claiming to be Nakamoto, until at least the dust settles. I changed the wiki entry to reflect his claim.
The Economist "Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Is he?". Economist. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin
BBC "Craig Wright revealed as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto". BBC. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
This might develop later into a whole section entitled controversy, so until that happens suggest keeping it as "claims to be the creator" rather than "is the founder."
For what is worth, no technical person and no one in the cryptography field is believing him. So far the only two people he convinced are two bitcoin developers after a private demo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debman3 ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Shall we mention that some believe he was a decoy sent from the CIA? 89.241.63.114 ( talk) 20:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Craig Steven Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears to have been awarded at last in February 2017. "Craig S. Wright. “The quantification of information systems risk: A look at quantitative responses to information security issues” (doctoral thesis). Charles Sturt University, February 2017." You can find it in the CSU thesis search on "Craig Wright". Glancing through it, it's definitely written as badly as everything else Wright has written, pretty sure it's him - David Gerard ( talk) 00:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Craig Steven Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Satoshi claims notwithstanding, Wright has some corpus of published literature out there. Any consensus on if we should have a section for published books/articles, instead of just in the body of the text? (Just ran across " DNS Security in Australia" - incidentally).
PvOberstein ( talk) 07:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
"He has publicly said to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin". This edit does not make any sense. Is it supposed to be "He has publicly said that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin"? Because I'm not sure he has ever done that and I cannot find it in the linked source. Even his blog post is a bit wishy washy about it.
I initially edited to read "He has publicly identified himself as pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.", which I accept is a bit clunky, but it is the direct quote from the BBC news article.
On further examination of the video, his claim is "I was the main part of it [Satoshi Nakamoto], other people helped me." So maybe it should read:
"He has publicly identified himself as the main part of the team that created Bitcoin, also known by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Epideme12 ( talk) 06:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Did he actually claim to be Satoshi? He posted a blog which never explicitly said he was and in the BBC and economist stuff, all I can actually find his claim is "I was the main part of it [Satoshi Nakamoto], other people helped me."
115.187.165.37 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I am moving a large block of content (mostly duplicate) from the Satoshi Nakamoto article to this talk page per WP:UNDUE weight to wright as Satoshi and leaving it here per WP:PRESERVE.
- On 9 December, only hours after Wired claimed Wright was Nakamoto, Wright's home in Gordon, New South Wales was raided by at least ten police officers. His business premises in Ryde, New South Wales were also searched by police. The Australian Federal Police stated they conducted searches to assist the Australian Taxation Office and that "This matter is unrelated to recent media reporting regarding the digital currency bitcoin." [1] According to a document released by Gizmodo alleged to be a transcript of a meeting between Wright and the ATO, he had been involved in a taxation dispute with them for several years. [2]
On 2 May 2016, Craig Wright posted on his blog publicly claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. In articles released on the same day, journalists from the BBC and The Economist stated that they saw Wright signing a message using the private key associated with the first bitcoin transaction. [3] [4] During his BBC interview (which was also video recorded, aired and published by BBC News) Wright said:
Some people will believe, some people won't, and to tell you the truth, I don't really care. ... I didn't decide [to reveal my identity now]. People decided this matter for me. And they're making life difficult not for me but my friends, my family, my staff. ... They want to be private. They don't want all of this to affect them. And I don't want any of them to be impacted by this. None of it's true. There are lots of stories out there that have been made up. And I don't like it hurting those people I care about. So I am going to do this thing only once. And once only. I am going to come in front of a camera once. And I will never, ever, be on the camera ever again for any TV station, or any media, ever.
Wright's claim was supported by Jon Matonis (former director of the Bitcoin Foundation) and bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen, both of whom met Wright and witnessed a similar signing demonstration. [5]
On 4 May 2016, Wright made another post on his blog intimating his intentions to publish "a series of pieces that will lay the foundations for this extraordinary claim". [6] [7] But the following day, he deleted all his blog posts and replaced them with a notice entitled "I'm Sorry", which read in part:
I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot. [8] [9]
On Thursday 5 May 2016 shortly before closing his blog, Wright sent around an email link to a news story from an impostor site resembling SiliconAngle saying "Craig Wright faces criminal charges and serious jail time in UK". Wright stated that "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." [10].
In June 2016, the London Review of Books published an article by Andrew O'Hagan about the events, based on his book "The Secret Life: Three True Stories" in which O'Hagan spends several weeks with Wright at the request of Wright's public relations team; which, as revealed in the book, was set up as a result of a business deal between Wright and various individuals including Calvin Ayre after bitcoin was created. All of those involved in the described business deal seemed to agree that they wanted a significant event in human history to be documented by a writer with complete impartiality and freedom to investigate. O'Hagan was with Wright during the time of his various media interviews. O'Hagan also interviews Wright's wife, colleagues and many of the other people involved in his claims. [11] [12] [13] It also reveals that the Canadian company nTrust was behind Wright's claim made in May 2016 (perhaps referencing nTrust as being the same entity which created the public relations team for Wright). Further, O'Hagan suggests that Wright provided an invalid private key because he was legally unable to provide the valid one as a result of legal obligations agreed as part of a Seychelles trust deal previously reached. O'Hagan's book also corroborates the suggestion that both Wright and David Kleiman were the identies of the moniker "Satoshi Nakamoto".
Following O'Hagan's article, BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones (who interviewed Wright on camera for the BBC) wrote a follow up article citing O'Hagan's account as the possible reasons for Wright's apparent unwillingness to declare himself as Nakamoto:
To me, the key revelation is about this motivation.
He had told the BBC that he had not wanted to come out into the spotlight but needed to dispel damaging rumours affecting his family, friends and colleagues.
But O'Hagan shows us something rather different - a man under intense pressure from business associates who stood to profit from him if he could be shown to be Nakamoto. [14]
This is in reference to O'Hagan's firsthand account, which describes business associates as being furious when they learned that Wright had provided invalid proof (despite showing them valid proof privately) and for his failure to disclose the details of the Seychelles Trust deal which meant that he could neither provide said proof publicly or yet gain access to the bitcoin attributed to Nakamoto. Cellan-Jones concludes his article by expressing doubts about Wright but admits "It seems very likely he was involved, perhaps as part of a team that included Dave Kleiman and Hal Finney, the recipient of the first transaction with the currency."
The 2017 Netflix documentary titled Banking on Bitcoin concluded with an extract of Wright's 2016 interview with the BBC. [15] [16]
On February 14, 2018 a suit against Wright (said to be living in London) for more than US$10bn was lodged in a Florida court on behalf of David Kleiman's estate, alleging that Wright has fraudulently appropriated Kleiman's share of the bitcoins that he and Kleiman mined together. [17] [18] The suit sets out much detail of the collaboration between Wright and Kleiman, but does not speculate on whether they or either of them created bitcoin. [19]
New Liberty Dollar issuer Joseph VaughnPerling says he met Wright at a conference in Amsterdam three years before publication of the bitcoin white paper and that Wright introduced himself as Satoshi Nakamoto at that time. [20] [21]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
gizmodo
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
If you have any comments, please ping me. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I cut the second para of the intro - it was fine detail that was already covered in the body, and not suitable for the intro summary of an article.
I cut a pile of primary sources and non-RS sources - if these details aren't in RSes, they're not notable enough to mention in a BLP (this is an encyclopedia article, not a resume). The article needs serious going-over - it's still got a ton of rubbish sources in it. - David Gerard ( talk) 11:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I realise there's strong feelings on Wright, but we can't set his occupation to "conman" in the text. Per WP:BLPADMINS, I've put this on ECP for a week. I must note that I've been editing and opining on "hoax" versus "possible hoax" myself, so other admins should feel free to remove this if they feel it's inappropriate. Or, indeed, extend it - David Gerard ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Mainstream RS coverage: FT, Bloomberg - any others? This may rate mention - David Gerard ( talk) 13:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I came here to update the page, specifically for that reason. The trouble - there is so much media (crypto and mainstream) coverage, difficult to describe all the matters in a wikipedia-friendly style.
Hello, Molochmeditates reverted my change about his citizenship. In my reference I included a link to an OFFICIAL US government site where it was stated that he is an Antiguan and Barbudan citizen. You can find it here. On the line "Authorship on Application" there is written "Citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda.". There are also lots of people in the cryptocurrency space who acquired this citizenship (You can buy the citizenship for $250k I think) like Roger Ver and Calvin Ayre. Emil Engler ( talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be an attempt to misrepresent this information in the article. Yes, Craig Wright submitted an application for registration. However, the US copyright office doesn't recognize Wright as Satoshi, it just means he was able to fill the forms and pay a nominal amount of money. There was no determination of truth made. In fact, the copyright office explicitly put out a press release to clarify this: https://www.copyright.gov/press-media-info/press-updates.html?loclr=twcop. Making a note here as I suspect more attempts to manipulate the article. -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 03:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Page probably should be updated: [1] Shhh101 ( talk) 02:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, are there any sources in crypto media that meet RS on WP? It seems likely that news about people in crypto may never filter out to the MSM, though it would qualify as notable news about the topic. For example, you are probably aware that CSW has lost the Klieiman case (see Google News) [7], but it hasn't filtered out to the MSM yet, and may never do so. Yet, it's certainly a notable event. Thoughts? Shhh101 ( talk) 11:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adding WP:RS sources [11] about verdict on Kleiman case, as discussed in the talk page, with User:David Gerard.
Shhh101 ( talk) 16:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Text to be inserted:
Ruling in Kleiman's favour, the court ordered Wright to hand over half of the bitcoin holdings that were mined in partnership with Kleiman during their partnership from 2009-2013, an amount reported to be worth up to $5bn. Wright was also ordered to transfer half of the partnership's intellectual property. The judge said that the court was not required to decide, and would not decide whether Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, and was not required to decide and did not decide how much bitcoin Wright controls. [1]
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the intro sentence: "These claims are widely regarded as a possible hoax." I think it would be good to cite Op Ed: How Many Wrongs Make a Wright? from April 19, 2019, which provides a factual historical account of Craig Wrights claims and actions compared to that of the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym. Daniel.himmelstein ( talk) 15:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The hoax claim in the lead section introduced by 84percent is
He has publicly claimed to be the main part of the team that created bitcoin, and the identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. These claims are widely regarded as a hoax. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Note, however, that the source [1] uses the "hoax" term with a "probably" reservation meaning that it does not say the claim is a hoax, the source [2] mentions that "the most likely answer to this mystery is that Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin, and that the second most likely answer is that he’s staged an elaborate, strange and long-planned hoax.", i.e. it does not say that the claim is a hoax, the source [3] just asks whether the claim is true or whether it is a hoax and finally, the source [4] also says things such as "So were Andresen, the Economist, and other observers tricked by the digital equivalent of a magic trick? No one other than Wright knows for sure.", not saying that the claim actually was a hoax, just warning that the readers should be skeptical. Therefore, the formulation used by 84percent in the lead section is a misrepresentation of the sources. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The sources mention a hoax as one of the probable alternatives, mentioning the possibility that Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto as the other. Knowing that there was a consensus on the status quo wording, as opposed to the present misrepresentation of the sources, we could very well revert to the status quo without misrepresenting the sources, in fact. Another variant of the text that would not misrepresent the cited sources would be to replace "a hoax" with "a possible hoax" and leave the sentence intact otherwise. I do not think we shoud misrepresent the cited sources so much as to say that they claim that the statement was a hoax when they clearly mention that as just one of the possible alternatives. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)He has publicly identified himself as the main part of the team that created bitcoin, and has stated he is the identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. This statement has been widely regarded with scepticism.
Lede is WP:OVERCITE and appears to be a WP:BLP violation. If this guy is a hoax or not might be fun for us to debate on the talk page, but seems out of line for a BLP article. Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Can we perhaps find some reasoning to why www.drcraigwright.net redirects to www.craigwright.net ? I see that the website with DR in the name is mentioned in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.199.146 ( talk) 20:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone fix this error? (just an uncontroversal language thing)
"associated business premise in Ryde, New South Wales" Should be: "associated business premises in Ryde, New South Wales" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.88.42 ( talk) 12:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add
www
Hi, can someone please fix this grammatical mistake in the intro: "These claims are regarded as a false by much of the media..." Midnight whisper ( talk) 07:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
It has been 17 months since the uncited claim "On 2 May 2016, the BBC and The Economist published articles claiming that Wright had digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of bitcoin's development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or "mined" by Satoshi Nakamoto" was written and no one has provided a source. This section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.76.245 ( talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This sentence in the Bitcoin section of this page, "The article Wright mentioned to O'Hagan has since been retracted.[38]" needs to be changed as the article was not 'retracted' because it was never on the legitimate Silicon Angle tech-news site in the first place. As detailed in David Gerard's book 'Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain' https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L7hEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=craig+wright+%22silliconangle%22&source=bl&ots=qP7Q6N3nsk&sig=ACfU3U3rjqv4oZtFZN8WxbLY2Ft_buKhEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju0fqT5sbvAhWNXsAKHV_dAFoQ6AEwDHoECBUQAw#v=onepage&q=craig%20wright%20%22silliconangle%22&f=false
The, supposed, news article Craig Wright linked to in his email as his reason for not moving the Satoshi-era coins, a purported 'Silicon Angle' piece with the headline "Craig Wright faces criminal charges and serious jail time in UK after claiming to be Bitcoin’s founder Satoshi Nakamoto", was actually linked to a mis-spelled domain which, while appearing to be that of the actual 'Silicon Angle' website 'siliconangle.com', was in fact 'silliconangle.com'.
The fake Silicon Angle website was a near-identical copy of the genuine website, bar a few differences which included the fabricated article Craig Wright had claimed was his reasoning for refusing to do the 'proving session' of moving the coins.
This twitter thread evidenced the full details of the duplicitous 'silliconangle.com' fakery here: https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1362173080060243971 if you need any further information.
109.154.113.193 ( talk) 16:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)MrG
In this talk he claims to have been enrolled in 25 university degrees (3 undergraduate degrees, 5 doctoral degrees, and 17 masters' degrees) during 2020. https://youtube.com/XCkXWm2wJ7Q?t=161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.5.35 ( talk) 12:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not convinced he actually claimed to have a PhD as of 2015 based on Forbes (with this archive). To me, it suggests he was working on a PhD between 2009–2012 rather than necessarily saying he achieved a doctorate in that time. His PhD entry on LinkedIn is written as will so clearly out of date if he discontinued his studies in 2012, but given the ambiguity with LinkedIn entries I think it's a stretch to say absolutely that it was "claimed" he completed one rather than noted his years of study. Given he got it in 2017, it seems unnecessary to include this drama. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 20:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
A Florida jury has determined that Wright did not owe any Bitcoin to the estate of David Kleiman, but he did owe $100 million to a joint venture between Wright and Kleiman.
Washington Post article regarding decision in Kleiman case
Co096392 ( talk) 19:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the below quotation, the phrase drcraigwright.net should be hyperlinked appropriately, as that address now redirects to craigwright.net.
“The same day a blog post on the website www.drcraigwright.net associated Wright with Satoshi and posted a message with a cryptographic signature attached.”
The phrase 5.90.206.251 ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Can a section and its relation to Craig Wright be added about the "CO1N" (letter 'i' stylized with the number one) be added?
i seem to be reading about this all over, and have no clue what CO1N is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.60.225.102 ( talk) 11:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
These mentions the CO1N Ltd, a company and super computer which Craig had
I would like to submit adding the podcast series Dr Bitcoin - The Man Who Wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto to the popular culture section. The series started in November last year and covers Wright's experiences and controversies since 2011 to the present day. It now has monthly episodes and has over 10,000 listens across multiple platforms. It remains the first and only podcast series dedicated to Craig Wright. 86.9.210.104 ( talk) 09:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.210.104 ( talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
In this interview (time stamp included in link https://youtube.com/0JvDauIX5lg?t=1477) Craig claims to have a degree in theology. Im not sure how of if youtube interviews are a good source but found that. Additionally, I found this source [12] citing him having a "Doctor of Theology (ThD) degree from United Theological College" which I assume is located in Australia https://www.utc.edu.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.177.218 ( talk) 00:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
[13] - I'm not sure Coinmarketcap is a reliable source here. Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) suggests "More broadly, there is strong consensus that cryptocurrency-focused sources (such as CoinDesk or Bitcoin Magazine) should generally not be used on Wikipedia articles". I had a look for an alternative source for the information but the only ones I could find were similar cryptocurrency focused sources. JaggedHamster ( talk) 12:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Whether this is deemed "reliable" or not is beyond me. Public record summaries of the court proceedings that name Granath can be found as well. — JivanP ( talk) 19:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The below is stupid to include in someone's wiki. This is just a tweet from a business owner and includes no substantive information. There are reams of disparaging remarks made against people on twitter every day. I don't understand why someone included one arbitrary one. This is clearly a biased, unnecessary inclusion. Please keep Wikipedia clean.
In response to Wright's actions preceding the Hodlonaut lawsuit, Changpeng Zhao, founder of crypto exchange Binance, called Wright out as a fraud. [1] [2] Hrichson ( talk) 08:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
References
does anyone have sources as to how, why and when Craig managed to get a Antiguan nationality?
To me it seems as if he managed to obtain the nationality via the Antigua and Barbuda Citizenship by Investment Programme . When and how he obtained this seems interesting, and I'm not sure what jurisdiction benefits Craig sought out by getting this, and if this was done in connection to avoiding the law.
I know in the Kleiman vs Wright case he used his Antiguan nationality. I dont think he's even ever visited the island. eyeCommented ( talk) 12:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this person could be worth more than 300 million dollars (U.S.). This is not just anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senoranandmanikutty ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The article says he has a PhD in computer science but the given reference says his "PhD is in theology". (Note - Wiki article now corrected).
The article also says he is a "researcher at Charles Sturt University" but there is no reference or source.
There is no reference to having authoring or coauthored several books. One book is mentioned.
Based on the Wiki article his actual achievements seem to be "18 SANS Institute courses", "information systems manager", working on a incomplete PhD, and starting two failed private companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiejohn ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Craig Steven Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I have tried to delete known false information in this page and I explained why on the appropriate special page ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Steven_Wright) but somebody always revert my change saying I did not exeplained why.
This news if now a know hoax, verified by http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax. If you have not YOURSELF fresh information tahat a=your are able to confirm (not just a rumor copy/paste from a forum), please do not add any information known as FALSE.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto-the-myth-lives-on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.39.45 ( talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to throw this out there as a retired editor, the lead paragraph of this entry makes almost no sense. 63.118.185.98 ( talk) 18:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no uniform convention for bitcoin capitalization. Some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network and bitcoin, lowercase, to refer to the unit of account. [1]
The Wall Street Journal, [2] The Chronicle of Higher Education [3], and the Oxford English Dictionary [4] advocate use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases. The same convention is used by The Economist [5] and the main Bitcoin article. The second of the cited articles and the Talk:Bitcoin archives explain the reasons why. I propose to adjust the capitalization in this article to use the same convention. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 16:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Standards vary, but there seems to be a consensus forming around Bitcoin, capitalized, for the system, the software, and the network it runs on, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the currency itself.
News continues to break relating to Craig Steven Wright's claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I suggest we keep this page as Wright claiming to be Nakamoto, until at least the dust settles. I changed the wiki entry to reflect his claim.
The Economist "Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Is he?". Economist. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin
BBC "Craig Wright revealed as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto". BBC. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
This might develop later into a whole section entitled controversy, so until that happens suggest keeping it as "claims to be the creator" rather than "is the founder."
For what is worth, no technical person and no one in the cryptography field is believing him. So far the only two people he convinced are two bitcoin developers after a private demo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debman3 ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Shall we mention that some believe he was a decoy sent from the CIA? 89.241.63.114 ( talk) 20:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Craig Steven Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears to have been awarded at last in February 2017. "Craig S. Wright. “The quantification of information systems risk: A look at quantitative responses to information security issues” (doctoral thesis). Charles Sturt University, February 2017." You can find it in the CSU thesis search on "Craig Wright". Glancing through it, it's definitely written as badly as everything else Wright has written, pretty sure it's him - David Gerard ( talk) 00:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Craig Steven Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Satoshi claims notwithstanding, Wright has some corpus of published literature out there. Any consensus on if we should have a section for published books/articles, instead of just in the body of the text? (Just ran across " DNS Security in Australia" - incidentally).
PvOberstein ( talk) 07:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
"He has publicly said to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin". This edit does not make any sense. Is it supposed to be "He has publicly said that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin"? Because I'm not sure he has ever done that and I cannot find it in the linked source. Even his blog post is a bit wishy washy about it.
I initially edited to read "He has publicly identified himself as pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.", which I accept is a bit clunky, but it is the direct quote from the BBC news article.
On further examination of the video, his claim is "I was the main part of it [Satoshi Nakamoto], other people helped me." So maybe it should read:
"He has publicly identified himself as the main part of the team that created Bitcoin, also known by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Epideme12 ( talk) 06:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Did he actually claim to be Satoshi? He posted a blog which never explicitly said he was and in the BBC and economist stuff, all I can actually find his claim is "I was the main part of it [Satoshi Nakamoto], other people helped me."
115.187.165.37 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I am moving a large block of content (mostly duplicate) from the Satoshi Nakamoto article to this talk page per WP:UNDUE weight to wright as Satoshi and leaving it here per WP:PRESERVE.
- On 9 December, only hours after Wired claimed Wright was Nakamoto, Wright's home in Gordon, New South Wales was raided by at least ten police officers. His business premises in Ryde, New South Wales were also searched by police. The Australian Federal Police stated they conducted searches to assist the Australian Taxation Office and that "This matter is unrelated to recent media reporting regarding the digital currency bitcoin." [1] According to a document released by Gizmodo alleged to be a transcript of a meeting between Wright and the ATO, he had been involved in a taxation dispute with them for several years. [2]
On 2 May 2016, Craig Wright posted on his blog publicly claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. In articles released on the same day, journalists from the BBC and The Economist stated that they saw Wright signing a message using the private key associated with the first bitcoin transaction. [3] [4] During his BBC interview (which was also video recorded, aired and published by BBC News) Wright said:
Some people will believe, some people won't, and to tell you the truth, I don't really care. ... I didn't decide [to reveal my identity now]. People decided this matter for me. And they're making life difficult not for me but my friends, my family, my staff. ... They want to be private. They don't want all of this to affect them. And I don't want any of them to be impacted by this. None of it's true. There are lots of stories out there that have been made up. And I don't like it hurting those people I care about. So I am going to do this thing only once. And once only. I am going to come in front of a camera once. And I will never, ever, be on the camera ever again for any TV station, or any media, ever.
Wright's claim was supported by Jon Matonis (former director of the Bitcoin Foundation) and bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen, both of whom met Wright and witnessed a similar signing demonstration. [5]
On 4 May 2016, Wright made another post on his blog intimating his intentions to publish "a series of pieces that will lay the foundations for this extraordinary claim". [6] [7] But the following day, he deleted all his blog posts and replaced them with a notice entitled "I'm Sorry", which read in part:
I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot. [8] [9]
On Thursday 5 May 2016 shortly before closing his blog, Wright sent around an email link to a news story from an impostor site resembling SiliconAngle saying "Craig Wright faces criminal charges and serious jail time in UK". Wright stated that "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." [10].
In June 2016, the London Review of Books published an article by Andrew O'Hagan about the events, based on his book "The Secret Life: Three True Stories" in which O'Hagan spends several weeks with Wright at the request of Wright's public relations team; which, as revealed in the book, was set up as a result of a business deal between Wright and various individuals including Calvin Ayre after bitcoin was created. All of those involved in the described business deal seemed to agree that they wanted a significant event in human history to be documented by a writer with complete impartiality and freedom to investigate. O'Hagan was with Wright during the time of his various media interviews. O'Hagan also interviews Wright's wife, colleagues and many of the other people involved in his claims. [11] [12] [13] It also reveals that the Canadian company nTrust was behind Wright's claim made in May 2016 (perhaps referencing nTrust as being the same entity which created the public relations team for Wright). Further, O'Hagan suggests that Wright provided an invalid private key because he was legally unable to provide the valid one as a result of legal obligations agreed as part of a Seychelles trust deal previously reached. O'Hagan's book also corroborates the suggestion that both Wright and David Kleiman were the identies of the moniker "Satoshi Nakamoto".
Following O'Hagan's article, BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones (who interviewed Wright on camera for the BBC) wrote a follow up article citing O'Hagan's account as the possible reasons for Wright's apparent unwillingness to declare himself as Nakamoto:
To me, the key revelation is about this motivation.
He had told the BBC that he had not wanted to come out into the spotlight but needed to dispel damaging rumours affecting his family, friends and colleagues.
But O'Hagan shows us something rather different - a man under intense pressure from business associates who stood to profit from him if he could be shown to be Nakamoto. [14]
This is in reference to O'Hagan's firsthand account, which describes business associates as being furious when they learned that Wright had provided invalid proof (despite showing them valid proof privately) and for his failure to disclose the details of the Seychelles Trust deal which meant that he could neither provide said proof publicly or yet gain access to the bitcoin attributed to Nakamoto. Cellan-Jones concludes his article by expressing doubts about Wright but admits "It seems very likely he was involved, perhaps as part of a team that included Dave Kleiman and Hal Finney, the recipient of the first transaction with the currency."
The 2017 Netflix documentary titled Banking on Bitcoin concluded with an extract of Wright's 2016 interview with the BBC. [15] [16]
On February 14, 2018 a suit against Wright (said to be living in London) for more than US$10bn was lodged in a Florida court on behalf of David Kleiman's estate, alleging that Wright has fraudulently appropriated Kleiman's share of the bitcoins that he and Kleiman mined together. [17] [18] The suit sets out much detail of the collaboration between Wright and Kleiman, but does not speculate on whether they or either of them created bitcoin. [19]
New Liberty Dollar issuer Joseph VaughnPerling says he met Wright at a conference in Amsterdam three years before publication of the bitcoin white paper and that Wright introduced himself as Satoshi Nakamoto at that time. [20] [21]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
gizmodo
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
If you have any comments, please ping me. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I cut the second para of the intro - it was fine detail that was already covered in the body, and not suitable for the intro summary of an article.
I cut a pile of primary sources and non-RS sources - if these details aren't in RSes, they're not notable enough to mention in a BLP (this is an encyclopedia article, not a resume). The article needs serious going-over - it's still got a ton of rubbish sources in it. - David Gerard ( talk) 11:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I realise there's strong feelings on Wright, but we can't set his occupation to "conman" in the text. Per WP:BLPADMINS, I've put this on ECP for a week. I must note that I've been editing and opining on "hoax" versus "possible hoax" myself, so other admins should feel free to remove this if they feel it's inappropriate. Or, indeed, extend it - David Gerard ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Mainstream RS coverage: FT, Bloomberg - any others? This may rate mention - David Gerard ( talk) 13:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I came here to update the page, specifically for that reason. The trouble - there is so much media (crypto and mainstream) coverage, difficult to describe all the matters in a wikipedia-friendly style.
Hello, Molochmeditates reverted my change about his citizenship. In my reference I included a link to an OFFICIAL US government site where it was stated that he is an Antiguan and Barbudan citizen. You can find it here. On the line "Authorship on Application" there is written "Citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda.". There are also lots of people in the cryptocurrency space who acquired this citizenship (You can buy the citizenship for $250k I think) like Roger Ver and Calvin Ayre. Emil Engler ( talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be an attempt to misrepresent this information in the article. Yes, Craig Wright submitted an application for registration. However, the US copyright office doesn't recognize Wright as Satoshi, it just means he was able to fill the forms and pay a nominal amount of money. There was no determination of truth made. In fact, the copyright office explicitly put out a press release to clarify this: https://www.copyright.gov/press-media-info/press-updates.html?loclr=twcop. Making a note here as I suspect more attempts to manipulate the article. -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 03:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Page probably should be updated: [1] Shhh101 ( talk) 02:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, are there any sources in crypto media that meet RS on WP? It seems likely that news about people in crypto may never filter out to the MSM, though it would qualify as notable news about the topic. For example, you are probably aware that CSW has lost the Klieiman case (see Google News) [7], but it hasn't filtered out to the MSM yet, and may never do so. Yet, it's certainly a notable event. Thoughts? Shhh101 ( talk) 11:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adding WP:RS sources [11] about verdict on Kleiman case, as discussed in the talk page, with User:David Gerard.
Shhh101 ( talk) 16:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Text to be inserted:
Ruling in Kleiman's favour, the court ordered Wright to hand over half of the bitcoin holdings that were mined in partnership with Kleiman during their partnership from 2009-2013, an amount reported to be worth up to $5bn. Wright was also ordered to transfer half of the partnership's intellectual property. The judge said that the court was not required to decide, and would not decide whether Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, and was not required to decide and did not decide how much bitcoin Wright controls. [1]
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the intro sentence: "These claims are widely regarded as a possible hoax." I think it would be good to cite Op Ed: How Many Wrongs Make a Wright? from April 19, 2019, which provides a factual historical account of Craig Wrights claims and actions compared to that of the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym. Daniel.himmelstein ( talk) 15:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The hoax claim in the lead section introduced by 84percent is
He has publicly claimed to be the main part of the team that created bitcoin, and the identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. These claims are widely regarded as a hoax. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Note, however, that the source [1] uses the "hoax" term with a "probably" reservation meaning that it does not say the claim is a hoax, the source [2] mentions that "the most likely answer to this mystery is that Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin, and that the second most likely answer is that he’s staged an elaborate, strange and long-planned hoax.", i.e. it does not say that the claim is a hoax, the source [3] just asks whether the claim is true or whether it is a hoax and finally, the source [4] also says things such as "So were Andresen, the Economist, and other observers tricked by the digital equivalent of a magic trick? No one other than Wright knows for sure.", not saying that the claim actually was a hoax, just warning that the readers should be skeptical. Therefore, the formulation used by 84percent in the lead section is a misrepresentation of the sources. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The sources mention a hoax as one of the probable alternatives, mentioning the possibility that Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto as the other. Knowing that there was a consensus on the status quo wording, as opposed to the present misrepresentation of the sources, we could very well revert to the status quo without misrepresenting the sources, in fact. Another variant of the text that would not misrepresent the cited sources would be to replace "a hoax" with "a possible hoax" and leave the sentence intact otherwise. I do not think we shoud misrepresent the cited sources so much as to say that they claim that the statement was a hoax when they clearly mention that as just one of the possible alternatives. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)He has publicly identified himself as the main part of the team that created bitcoin, and has stated he is the identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. This statement has been widely regarded with scepticism.
Lede is WP:OVERCITE and appears to be a WP:BLP violation. If this guy is a hoax or not might be fun for us to debate on the talk page, but seems out of line for a BLP article. Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Can we perhaps find some reasoning to why www.drcraigwright.net redirects to www.craigwright.net ? I see that the website with DR in the name is mentioned in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.199.146 ( talk) 20:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone fix this error? (just an uncontroversal language thing)
"associated business premise in Ryde, New South Wales" Should be: "associated business premises in Ryde, New South Wales" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.88.42 ( talk) 12:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add
www
Hi, can someone please fix this grammatical mistake in the intro: "These claims are regarded as a false by much of the media..." Midnight whisper ( talk) 07:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
It has been 17 months since the uncited claim "On 2 May 2016, the BBC and The Economist published articles claiming that Wright had digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of bitcoin's development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or "mined" by Satoshi Nakamoto" was written and no one has provided a source. This section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.76.245 ( talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This sentence in the Bitcoin section of this page, "The article Wright mentioned to O'Hagan has since been retracted.[38]" needs to be changed as the article was not 'retracted' because it was never on the legitimate Silicon Angle tech-news site in the first place. As detailed in David Gerard's book 'Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain' https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L7hEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=craig+wright+%22silliconangle%22&source=bl&ots=qP7Q6N3nsk&sig=ACfU3U3rjqv4oZtFZN8WxbLY2Ft_buKhEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju0fqT5sbvAhWNXsAKHV_dAFoQ6AEwDHoECBUQAw#v=onepage&q=craig%20wright%20%22silliconangle%22&f=false
The, supposed, news article Craig Wright linked to in his email as his reason for not moving the Satoshi-era coins, a purported 'Silicon Angle' piece with the headline "Craig Wright faces criminal charges and serious jail time in UK after claiming to be Bitcoin’s founder Satoshi Nakamoto", was actually linked to a mis-spelled domain which, while appearing to be that of the actual 'Silicon Angle' website 'siliconangle.com', was in fact 'silliconangle.com'.
The fake Silicon Angle website was a near-identical copy of the genuine website, bar a few differences which included the fabricated article Craig Wright had claimed was his reasoning for refusing to do the 'proving session' of moving the coins.
This twitter thread evidenced the full details of the duplicitous 'silliconangle.com' fakery here: https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1362173080060243971 if you need any further information.
109.154.113.193 ( talk) 16:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)MrG
In this talk he claims to have been enrolled in 25 university degrees (3 undergraduate degrees, 5 doctoral degrees, and 17 masters' degrees) during 2020. https://youtube.com/XCkXWm2wJ7Q?t=161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.5.35 ( talk) 12:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not convinced he actually claimed to have a PhD as of 2015 based on Forbes (with this archive). To me, it suggests he was working on a PhD between 2009–2012 rather than necessarily saying he achieved a doctorate in that time. His PhD entry on LinkedIn is written as will so clearly out of date if he discontinued his studies in 2012, but given the ambiguity with LinkedIn entries I think it's a stretch to say absolutely that it was "claimed" he completed one rather than noted his years of study. Given he got it in 2017, it seems unnecessary to include this drama. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 20:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
A Florida jury has determined that Wright did not owe any Bitcoin to the estate of David Kleiman, but he did owe $100 million to a joint venture between Wright and Kleiman.
Washington Post article regarding decision in Kleiman case
Co096392 ( talk) 19:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the below quotation, the phrase drcraigwright.net should be hyperlinked appropriately, as that address now redirects to craigwright.net.
“The same day a blog post on the website www.drcraigwright.net associated Wright with Satoshi and posted a message with a cryptographic signature attached.”
The phrase 5.90.206.251 ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Can a section and its relation to Craig Wright be added about the "CO1N" (letter 'i' stylized with the number one) be added?
i seem to be reading about this all over, and have no clue what CO1N is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.60.225.102 ( talk) 11:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
These mentions the CO1N Ltd, a company and super computer which Craig had
I would like to submit adding the podcast series Dr Bitcoin - The Man Who Wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto to the popular culture section. The series started in November last year and covers Wright's experiences and controversies since 2011 to the present day. It now has monthly episodes and has over 10,000 listens across multiple platforms. It remains the first and only podcast series dedicated to Craig Wright. 86.9.210.104 ( talk) 09:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.210.104 ( talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
In this interview (time stamp included in link https://youtube.com/0JvDauIX5lg?t=1477) Craig claims to have a degree in theology. Im not sure how of if youtube interviews are a good source but found that. Additionally, I found this source [12] citing him having a "Doctor of Theology (ThD) degree from United Theological College" which I assume is located in Australia https://www.utc.edu.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.177.218 ( talk) 00:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
[13] - I'm not sure Coinmarketcap is a reliable source here. Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) suggests "More broadly, there is strong consensus that cryptocurrency-focused sources (such as CoinDesk or Bitcoin Magazine) should generally not be used on Wikipedia articles". I had a look for an alternative source for the information but the only ones I could find were similar cryptocurrency focused sources. JaggedHamster ( talk) 12:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Whether this is deemed "reliable" or not is beyond me. Public record summaries of the court proceedings that name Granath can be found as well. — JivanP ( talk) 19:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Craig Steven Wright has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The below is stupid to include in someone's wiki. This is just a tweet from a business owner and includes no substantive information. There are reams of disparaging remarks made against people on twitter every day. I don't understand why someone included one arbitrary one. This is clearly a biased, unnecessary inclusion. Please keep Wikipedia clean.
In response to Wright's actions preceding the Hodlonaut lawsuit, Changpeng Zhao, founder of crypto exchange Binance, called Wright out as a fraud. [1] [2] Hrichson ( talk) 08:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
References
does anyone have sources as to how, why and when Craig managed to get a Antiguan nationality?
To me it seems as if he managed to obtain the nationality via the Antigua and Barbuda Citizenship by Investment Programme . When and how he obtained this seems interesting, and I'm not sure what jurisdiction benefits Craig sought out by getting this, and if this was done in connection to avoiding the law.
I know in the Kleiman vs Wright case he used his Antiguan nationality. I dont think he's even ever visited the island. eyeCommented ( talk) 12:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)