Craig Wright has a theory about why almost nobody will capitulate to his demands to be worshiped as Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.
Standing on the wrong end of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit, he believes that his persona has led to attacks on him personally, as opposed to the ideas he has presented to the blockchain space.
Wright and others are firm believers in on-chain scaling. Wright proposes a more extreme version than most, with 2GB blocks already activated on the mostly vacant network.
Bitcoin Cash is not necessarily opposed to larger blocks, nor are they opposed to looking at other scaling solutions when the time comes. Both projects generally view the reluctance of Bitcoin to simply raise its blocksize as a failure of governance and technology.
In any case, Wright believes that his detractors employ specific fallacies in their hatred of him. He believes that, for the most part, people take issue with him, and transfer that issue onto what he views as his legitimate claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Wright laid out his case in a lengthy blog post published last month (emphasis added):
“In one specific case, it comes down to arguments about the people. Bitcoin is technology. You know the other side of the argument is failing when it has moved to attacking a person rather than the argument itself. It is a common tactic in the world of social media. Proof of social media is not about truth but rather about a deception that can change and mutate over time. It is one of the aspects of Bitcoin that have been developed that allows for a system of truth. If you view my videos and presentations from 2014, you will see that I have the same outlook and concept of Bitcoin. […]”
“The attack comes down to the individual. You end with diatribes of YouTube videos, gut feelings, and the general ranting of social justice warriors. In many ways, it is designed to take you away from the issue at hand. The fallacy can be used in creating a red herring. The genetic fallacy is commonly presented in a continued argument as a matter of creating misdirection. It allows the arguer to slip in a red herring (ignoratio elenchi) in a relevant conclusion or relevant thesis, for example. They avoid refuting the point being argued, and cloud the issue.”
Wright’s often abrasive personality conflicts with the person we knew as Satoshi Nakamoto, and he’s repeatedly backtracked or altered ideas presented by Satoshi himself. Cryptographic proof does not yet exist of Wright’s claims.
Nevertheless, as a journalist, it’s this reporter’s job to remain neutral on the subject. If Wright or anyone prove their identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, it’s our job to report the news, not interpret it. That said, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to claim you’re Satoshi Nakamoto unless you have a way to prove it.
The claim isn’t just a trivia question, it’s a history-altering assertion. It puts you among the world’s wealthiest people, and your Bitcoin holdings would quickly make you one of the most influential people in crypto.
If you were Craig Wright, for example, and you dumped your massive Bitcoin horde in favor of Bitcoin SV, it could potentially move all the volume to your fork.
Would such a move be a securities violation?
If Satoshi Nakamoto becomes a known quantity, can Bitcoin thus be considered a security?
These questions will arise if proof of Wright’s claims is ever presented. Until such a time, we can only speak hypothetically.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are solely those of the author and do not represent those of, nor should they be attributed to, CCN.
Last modified: January 11, 2020 1:00 AM UTC