Craig Wright Promises ‘Extraordinary Proof’ Of Bitcoin Credentials, But Big Questions Remain
David Gilbert
The search for bitcoin's creator has been an intriguing mystery for
awhile now, perhaps more interesting than the highly technical and
complex developments of the cryptocurrency itself. Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Craig Wright, seen here in a video talking about his security company Panopticrypt, claims that he created bitcoin. Photo: YouTube
Previous
Next
Here we go again.
In December, Wired and Gizmodo told
the world that Craig Steven Wright was the founder of bitcoin, thanks
to documents and emails leaked to those outlets. Nearly immediately, the
claims were widely debunked
as a huge hoax. Then on Monday, the burning question of who created
bitcoin was supposed to be settled once and for all. Him again.
The same Craig Steven Wright, an Australian
businessman and computer scientist, stepped into the limelight with a
series of interviews with the Economist, the BBC and GQ, claiming he is the mythic creator of bitcoin, a person who has been known by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.
Wright also published a blog post backing up his claim and
managed to convince two of the most senior figures in the bitcoin
community that he's the real thing. But in the space of just minutes,
Wright’s claims were being debunked, and over the past 24 hours, major
holes have appeared in Wright’s "proof," leading to the conclusion that
Wright is, once again, just trying to fool us.
Wright on Tuesday addressed the skeptics, saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
He promised that in the next few days he “will present what I believe
to be 'extraordinary proof' and ask only that it be independently
validated.” For one piece of proof, he says, he'll move bitcoin from a
location believed to be controlled by Satohsi Nakamoto. But he's aware
that still might not be enough to convince some people.
“For some, there is no burden of proof high
enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or
manipulation,” Wright said. “This is the nature of belief, and swimming
against this current would be futile.”
The search for Satoshi has been an intriguing
mystery for awhile now, perhaps more interesting than the highly
technical and complex developments of the cryptocurrency itself. It
matters because whoever created the cryptocurrency is the person
who controls the very first bitcoin block — the so-called Genesis
Block — which could be used to conclusively prove the identity of
Satoshi Nakamoto as well as controlling a vast fortune estimated at some
500,000 to 3 million coins, worth somewhere between $2.2 million and $1
billion-plus, at today's exchange rate.
While the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto isn't
crucial to the future of the cryptocurrency — many, frankly, see it as a
distraction — it may be crucial to the scale of its growth. A split
within the bitcoin community over how the digital currency should be
progressed is threatening to cripple its development, but a signal from the creator of bitcoin in either direction could sway the argument.
Aware that he's failed to conclusively
convince the world he is Satoshi Nakamoto, Wright now plans to offer
even more proof. Until then, there are holes big enough in his story to
keep the doubters busy:
Here's 'Proof'
The first indication that Wright’s claims were
not going to hold water came within 90 minutes of his blog
post proclaiming “Satoshi is dead” and carrying a message signed with a
cryptographic key long believed to belong to the creator of bitcoin,
coming from the ninth bitcoin block ever mined, back in 2009.
In the blog, Wright claims to have used the
key to sign a message containing text about French philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre. However, as Reddit user JoukeH points out,
the key was in fact from the first ever bitcoin transaction, between
Satoshi and Hal Finney, an American cryptographic pioneer, carried out
in 2009 and publicly available for anyone knowing where to look.
Not only was the “proof” shown to be
inconclusive, but there were several other technical problems with
Wright’s blog post, which Adam Goucher,
a mathematics student at Trinity College, Cambridge,
calls “suspicious.” The post “contains various misconceptions that one
would not expect from an expert in the field, let alone the originator
of bitcoin,” Goucher said, concluding “As the evidence stands, I would
not like to bet any money, cryptographic or otherwise, on the validity
of Wright’s claim.”
Wright is now prepared to provide more
evidence by moving a coin from an early bitcoin block, but if it's not
from the first bitcoin block ever mined — the so-called Genesis Block —
then the skeptics are likely to remain skeptical.
The Power of Endorsements
To further support his claims, Wright secured
the endorsement of two major figures within the bitcoin community. Gavin
Andresen, who has been a vocal skeptic of all previous claims to the
Satoshi name, is the most compelling. After being flown to London and
spending time with Wright, during which he witnessed a separate
demonstration of Wright signing a message with a key believed to be
controlled by Satoshi — Andresen was convinced.
A beer sits next to a Bitcoin sign on display at a bar in central Sydney, Sept. 29, 2015. Photo: REUTERS/David Gray/File photo
“After spending time with him, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt: Craig Wright is Satoshi,” Andresen wrote on Monday.
Andresen took control of the development of bitcoin from Satoshi when
the creator of the cryptocurrency stepped aside to work on other things.
While he has since passed the baton, he remains a key figure in the
community and continues to contribute code to the project.
Wright has also convinced Jon Matonis,
an economist and a founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation, who was
also flown to London last month. “I had the opportunity to review the
relevant data along three distinct lines: cryptographic, social and
technical. Based on what I witnessed, it is my firm belief that Craig
Steven Wright satisfies all three categories.”
The problem for the rest of the world: The
proof provided to Matonis and Andresen (as well as journalists from the
Economist, the BBC and GQ) is that it has not been made public. Andresen
has said he was not allowed to take the key with him as it could have
leaked and broken the news earlier than Wright wanted.
There are also questions about the validity of the test carried out by Andresen and Matonis. Describing the procedure to Wired,
Andresen said he was provided with “a factory-sealed” laptop onto which
he downloaded a fresh install of a program called Electrum, software
that can be used to validate bitcoin transactions.
However, Electrum has revealed
that no download of its software took place on April 7, the day of the
test, from a computer based in the UK. While this is certainly not
conclusive proof it does call into question the method used, and raises
the question of why Andresen could not use his own laptop or why Wright
could not have downloaded a copy of the bitcoin blockchain (which is now
approaching 70GB in size) in order to validate his signature.
Both Andresen and Matonis say they reached
their decision based not only on the technical proof provided but also
on the basis of conversations they had with Satoshi over email when
bitcoin was just starting out, which matched the way Wright conversed
with them in person. But for the rest of the bitcoin community, this is
simply not enough.
Bitcoin Community Speaks
Despite Andresen and Matonis coming out in
support of Wright’s claims, the overwhelming majority of opinions
expressed since the revelation on Monday have been questioning the
validity of the claim.
“It would be like if I was trying to prove
that I was George Washington and to do that provided a photocopy of the
Constitution and said, 'Look, I have George Washington’s signature,”
bitcoin developer Peter Todd told Motherboard two weeks after he'd been contacted by someone using the same signature as proof. Todd ignored the email.
Oleg Andreev, a bitcoin blogger and architect at blockchain startup Chain, has called Wright “a brilliant troll”
while saying that so far no one has provided real proof that he or she
is Satoshi Nakamoto. “It’s quite easy to prove that all claims by Mr.
Wright regarding his link to Satoshi are either irrelevant (such as
general knowledge of how bitcoin works) or outright fabricated,” Andreev
said in a blog post.
The news about Wright’s claim broke during
Consensus 2016, a major conference about the blockchain technology that
underpins bitcoin. At one of the high-profile panels there on Monday, a
vote was taken to see who believed Wright was Satoshi. Of the four
people on the panel, just one (Brian Hoffman, who operates the
decentralized eBay OpenBazaar) said Wright was the creator of bitcoin,
with the other three (ShapeShift CEO Erik Vorhees, Blockstak Labs
co-founder Ryan Shea and Lightning CEO Elizabeth Stark) all indicating
they didn’t believe Wright’s claims.
Also speaking at Consensus 2016 was Vitalik
Buterin, the co-founder of public blockchain platform Ethereum, who
questioned Wright’s choice of proof.
“He had the opportunity to take two different paths of proof,” Buterin said, according to CoinDesk. “One
would have been that exact same proof [that he showed Gavin], make the
signature and then put it into the blog post. And then let the
cryptographic community analyze it. The other path is to try to show
that signature to only a few people. Signaling theory says if you have a
good way or a noisy way to prove something and you choose noisy, it
could mean that you can’t do the good way."
Gone Again
Having published his claim, Wright has made it very clear he's not willing to do any more interviews or provide any more proof.
“Look, I’m doing this, then I’m disappearing,”
Wright told GQ in what the magazine describes as a fractious and
incredibly heated interview. “I’m not doing this to try and get in the
media. This will never happen again. You’ve got this one thing. If you
don’t like it, f--- off.”
He told the Economist he was “not going to
keep jumping through hoops,” while he told the BBC: “I would rather not
do it. I want to work, I want to keep doing what I want to do. I don’t
want money. I don’t want fame. I don’t want adoration. I just want to be
left alone.”
Wright claims he came forward now to set the
record straight and correct misinformation (his word) in the media
that's impacting not only him but his family, friends and colleagues.
It remains to be seen whether his latest
moves will help: He has orchestrated a huge media circus by providing
three outlets with access to him, while he has also failed to set the
record straight by providing enough proof to his claims.
The situation is further clouded by the fact
he approached writer Andrew O’Hagan, who previously wrote an unofficial
biography of Julian Assange, about writing a long-form account of Wright’s journey to become Satoshi Nakamoto
back in December. O’Hagan has spent the last six months with access to
Wright as he traveled from Australia to the U.S. and U.K., suggesting
that the businessman was seeking to out himself as the creator of
bitcoin before he was forced to do so by media reports. The account will
be published by the London Review of Books later this month.
Tax Evasion
The day Wired and Gizmodo published their
investigations into Wright last December, his home in Sydney was raided
by the Australian Taxation Office. The officials claimed it was in
relation to a long-running tax payment issue, not to Wright’s bitcoin
connection. Local reports suggest the ATO investigation could be looking
into allegations of fraud while Wright himself claims it concerns how
bitcoin should be taxed, something the Australian authorities are unable
to figure out.
Officers
from the Australian Government Tax Department, along with Australian
Federal Police, walk down the driveway after searching the rented home
of probable creator of cryptocurrency bitcoin Craig Wright in Sydney's
north shore, Australia, December 9, 2015.Photo: REUTERS/David Gray/File photo
Wright left Australia for London in December
and has not returned, prompting some to suggest he is avoiding the
investigation, and using the claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto as a smoke
screen to deflect attention.
Well-known internet security blogger Nik Cubrilovic
has looked into Wright’s various companies in Australia
(including Hotwire, DeMorgan, CloudCroft, Panopticrypt, Coin-Ex
and Denariuz) and found a strange web of connections where one company
paid $29 million for software belonging to the Wright Family Trust —
effectively Wright paid himself for software he already owned. The
companies also sought to take advantage of an Australian tax break which
Cubrilovic suggests was not entirely on the level.
“One can come away from reading about his
firms with the conclusion that their primary business was to seek tax
refunds from the government, and that most of the businesses were set up
precisely for this.”
Post a Comment