Difference between revisions of "Craig Wright"

From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(wired article)
(April 1st)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
These claims, despite being echoed by media worldwide, are very quickly collecting evidence to the contrary. On December 12th Wired<ref>[http://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-suspect-craig-wright-may-be-a-hoaxer Craig Wright is not Nakamoto Wired]</ref> published a new article suggesting that the weight of the evidence is against Wright being Satoshi.
 
These claims, despite being echoed by media worldwide, are very quickly collecting evidence to the contrary. On December 12th Wired<ref>[http://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-suspect-craig-wright-may-be-a-hoaxer Craig Wright is not Nakamoto Wired]</ref> published a new article suggesting that the weight of the evidence is against Wright being Satoshi.
 +
 +
On April 1st 2016 the FT published a story titled "Craig Wright’s upcoming big reveal"<ref>[http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/31/2158024/craig-wrights-upcoming-big-reveal/ FT Big Reveal April 1st]</ref> hinting at his soon-to-come outing as Satoshi. Some sources ignored the date, setting off the rumour mill again<ref>[http://www.wired.com/2016/04/prove-youre-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto/ Wired: How to Prove you are Satoshi]</ref>.
  
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references />
 
<references />

Revision as of 16:09, 11 April 2016

Craig Wright is an Australian Bitcoin enthusiast. On December 9 2015 articles in Wired[1] and Gizmodo[2] pointed to him as a possible candidate for the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

These claims, despite being echoed by media worldwide, are very quickly collecting evidence to the contrary. On December 12th Wired[3] published a new article suggesting that the weight of the evidence is against Wright being Satoshi.

On April 1st 2016 the FT published a story titled "Craig Wright’s upcoming big reveal"[4] hinting at his soon-to-come outing as Satoshi. Some sources ignored the date, setting off the rumour mill again[5].


References