Talk:Craig Steven Wright/Archive 1

Contested deletion
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)

Qualifications and references don't agree. Lacking References.
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sans.org/mentor/details.php?nid=7316
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unitingfinancial.com.au/resource/summer07-08_Lr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This article MUST BE DELETED
I have tried to delete known false information in this page and I explained why on the appropriate special page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.


 * If no one can find an error in the article above, then I'll add a 4th vote that this article should be deleted as it appears to have been started as the result of a hoax by a theological nut with no writings indicating he has Satoshi's level of skill in cryptography or the importance of smart contracts. Ywaz (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Two PhD's and Eight masters
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)

Lead paragraph
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)

Bitcoin capitalization
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.

The Wall Street Journal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Oxford English Dictionary advocate use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases. The same convention is used by The Economist 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)

Craig Steven Wright as founder Satoshi Nakamoto
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)

CIA
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)


 * Per WP:RUMOUR, speculation and rumour, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053713/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/09A6CB6295F90825CA256ECF00096E34/%24File/16-99.pdf to https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/09A6CB6295F90825CA256ECF00096E34/%24File/16-99.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303222104/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-glj15n.html?skin=text-only to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-glj15n.html?skin=text-only
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151124214822/http://www.panopticrypt.com/about.html to http://panopticrypt.com/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Second Ph.D awarded
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151211132041/http://www.acs.org.au/networking-and-events/events/upcoming-events/event-details?eveID=30222863167243 to http://www.acs.org.au/networking-and-events/events/upcoming-events/event-details?eveID=30222863167243

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Publications / Bibliography section?
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)

Claims he was satoshi. Did he?
"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)


 * "Identified" seems to claim not just that he announced to be the main part of the team, but also that he was the main part of the team, which is not accepted as a fact by the majority of available sources. That is why I prefer to replace the term "identified" by something more subjective, such as "announced to be". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Frankly, this is the correct occasion for the word "claimed" - he made a claim, one that is widely disbelieved - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 25 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)

Content move
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." 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.

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. 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.

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". 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."

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." .

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. 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."

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.

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. 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.

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.

If you have any comments, please ping me. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * +1 - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Source checks, edits
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)

Extended confirmed protection, 1 week
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)

Craig Wright Satoshi legal letters, Bitcoin SV delisting
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.


 * Another Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-18/self-described-bitcoin-creator-wright-sues-a-podcaster-for-libel
 * Binance delisting: https://support.binance.com/hc/en-us/articles/360026666152-Binance-Will-Delist-BCHSV
 * Kraken delisting: https://blog.kraken.com/post/2274/kraken-is-delisting-bsv/
 * Shapeshift delisting: https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/1117842010793099265 + https://www.coindesk.com/kraken-exchange-joins-binance-shapeshift-in-delisting-bitcoin-sv
 * Legal fund for @hodlonaut: https://twitter.com/starkness/status/1116782036168011776 - * https://weareallhodlonaut.com/
 * What is Hodlnaut? Who are they and what do they look like? – http://ohmysatoshi.com/hodlonauts
 * https://twitter.com/PeterMcCormack/status/1116733748794540033 - letter with lawsuit
 * https://twitter.com/PeterMcCormack/status/1117448742892986368 - response to lawsuit
 * https://coingeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-17_Claim-Form_Peter-McCormack.jpg - actual legal papers
 * https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1119266178927681541 - "Wright is better positioned than most people to pose as a Satoshi candidate, but I've yet to find any convincing evidence to support his claims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefek99 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Craig Wright’s side of the courtcase: https://web.archive.org/web/20190503134306/https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1123946538131251200.html - *https://twitter.com/oudekaas3/status/1123946538131251200

Citizenship
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)


 * That's a site where Wright claimed it. See the Copyright Office press release above - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * David above answered your question. Please also see my revert summary the next time, it should have the information you need to determine why your edit was reverted. --Molochmeditates (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue
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)


 * That press release is golden. (It started as an email to crypto news site Decrypt; I'm told the Copyright Office put it up as a press release after Decrypt asked them to, presumably as Decrypt was wary of defamation risk.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

CSW Libel case vs Roger Ver thrown out
Page probably should be updated: Shhh101 (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a better source? Retimuko (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this got any coverage outside the crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit of RS coverage of the suit being brought, none have bothered mentioning it was thrown out. Closest I can find is a couple of legal blogs that found it notable for exercising section 9 part 2 of the Defamation Act 2013, which doesn't get much workout - so it may be a slightly noteworthy event in the field. I am unsure the extent to which they count as Wikipedia RSes, though: - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If the initial case is deemed noteworthy then surely the result should also be noteworthy, or at least mentioned. I suggest updating the article text should be updated to something like. "A libel case Wright brought against Roger Ver, an early bitcoin entrepreneur and advocate, was dismissed, due to lack of jurisdiction." As it stands, the text gives the impression the Ver case is ongoing. Shhh101 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is what can we cite as a source. Noteworthy for Wikipedia means that reputable sources bothered to report it. Retimuko (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There are many crypto news sources for this info, but for RS, how about Yahoo Finance which came from Coindesk  or *The Next Web* Shhh101 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are not RS. Retimuko (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me why TNW is not RS? Shhh101 (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me why it is? I have not heard much about it. The Wikipedia article looks like a stub and barely meets notability policy in my view. From RS I see only one article in Entrepreneur cited there and a few passing mentions (Wired and HuffPost).
 * TNW is prrrrobably a somewhat-RS, but TNW Hardfork is very much crypto press with all the problems of crypto press (especially unapologetic boosterism), which is why I'm super reluctant to use it. Maybe it'd be better than nothing, but I'd rather have a better something - David Gerard (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I'll leave it up to you. A better source might come along when the main case is decided, but it does seem weird to have it unresolved. Shhh101 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

RS for crypto news
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), 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)
 * I'd suggest not, certainly none that are up to BLP quality. We can wait for the MSM, if it is indeed more broadly notable - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am now literally at the stage of asking MSM journalists to please cover it ... should be easier now the order is out - David Gerard (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Guardian wrote it up: - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, SMH and Bloomberg.No mention of the Ver case though :-( Shhh101 (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give it a go. Wish me luck.Shhh101 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2019
Adding WP:RS sources 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.


 * So, that source is not quite correct - the judge didn't order Wright to hand over or transfer anything. Check Remedy 4 on page 28-29. Having a MSM source is excellent, but I think we shouldn't attribute trivially erroneous statements using it - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right. I'll give it another go tomorrow, or if you feel like doing it yourself... 00:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhh101 (talk • contribs)


 * ArsTechnica seems to have it about right, I'll put in something from that based on your text - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I put in a longer version, including quotes that make the judge's findings on Wright's trustworthiness clear. I think the quotes count as noteworthy enough for a BLP - multiple sources ran them - David Gerard (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks. Shhh101 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2019
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)
 * There are already plenty of in-line sources for the "hoax" statements. I have added this link to a new Further reading section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A Bitcoin Magazine OpEd doesn't pass as a WP:RS for a crypto article, let alone a WP:BLP --Molochmeditates (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The hoax claim in the lead section
The hoax claim in the lead section introduced by 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."

Note, however, that the source uses the "hoax" term with a "probably" reservation meaning that it does not say the claim is a hoax, the source 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 just asks whether the claim is true or whether it is a hoax and finally, the source 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 in the lead section is a misrepresentation of the sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Ladislav Mecir. Thanks for the details. I admit I had a lapse in judgement with some of the older and less reliable sources, which I can see now have not all directly labeled the statements a hoax. I've cleaned that up with newer sources that are unambiguous about the fact that Craig Wright's claims are indeed widely regarded as a hoax. The only old source the remains from the above list is the 2015 article by Sarah Jeong.
 * Wired: "Since then, however, three new inconsistencies have cast doubt on that evidence, and added weight to the "hoax" side of the scale" and "The two major holes in Wright's resume that have come to light since, however, point to a hoaxer who may have planted clues of his purported bitcoin creation". The Next Web: "[...] although subsequent reporting raised serious concerns that his claims were part of an elaborate hoax to impersonate Bitcoin‘s mysterious creator". The Australian: "Australian authorities are understood to firmly believe Mr Wright is not the creator of Bitcoin and that he may have created the hoax to distract from his tax issues." Motherboard: "Satoshi's PGP Keys Are Probably Backdated and Point to a Hoax". Motherboard says Vitalik Buterin called him a "fraud" onstage a large blockchain conference, to which the audience applauded; while hoaxter is not exactly synonymous with fraudster (the latter is worse), the fact that the audience "went wild" after Buterin ousted him proves that the hoax regard is not merely a journalist bias. This one may not be appropriate however because of WP:SYNTH. Finally, Forbes: "Time To Call A Hoax?", and "[...] it's becoming increasingly likely the media madness of this week was the result of a hoax."  84percent (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "I admit I had a lapse in judgement..." – actually, you still do not judge the sources correctly. None of the sources confirms that "it is widely regarded as a hoax". None of the sources even confirms that it regards it as a hoax, they just see such an alternative as having some probability or likelihood, besides the alternative that Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. That is why the best alternative still remains to revert the formulation to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What wording exactly are you suggesting? I understand your points. Do you think it would be satisfactory to replace "a hoax" with "a possible hoax" and leave the sentence intact otherwise? 84percent (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't replace it. Mecir just tried to remove one reference that documents extensively the perception of Wright as a fake, but that doesn't use the precise word "hoax". But "hoax" is a perfectly good, accurate and correctly-communicating word for what Wright is extensively documented as having attempted - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , the WP:STATUSQUO version, which, as far as I remember, was a result of an extensive discussion I did not take part in is "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." 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)
 * I've just made the edit for the latter ("a possible hoax" with the rest intact).

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)
 * Do you have a proposal? Claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto is what Craig Wright is most notable for. If you hear his name, the first thing that comes to mind is "Satoshi Nakamoto" or (much more often) "hoax". 84percent (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the arguments over this claim, it probably does need to be cited to that extent. And it's not a BLP violation if it's in a ton of RSes - what bit in particular are you claiming appears to be a BLP violation? - David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Widely regarded as a hoax", those widely regarding it are stating (as the sources make clear) it's a hoax, and those not are not "widely regarding" it as a possible hoax. There's no middle ground, at least not in any of the sources you've cited. Jakesyl (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited to "These claims are regarded as a false by much of the media and crypto community", as I'm not seeing any consensus around this change/indications not to. This reads to me as more accurate and specific — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur - the previous wording was grammatically-questionable weasel wording - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * btw - someone expanded "crypto" to "cryptocurrency", also I agree re: WP:OVERCITE, but strongly disagree on WP::BLP because the notability is derived from the hoax claims (see Erica Feldman on List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia) Jakesyl (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal Website Redirect
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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020
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)
 * Done, thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2020
Please add www.craigwright.net to the infobox. LewisMCYoutube (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Fix grammar in intro
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)
 * ✅--FeralOink (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up uncited sections
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)

Correction concerning the fake Silicon Angle article
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'.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160504165446/http://silliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.html

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

His unusual education claims
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)

PhD claims
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)


 * Removed it for now, WP:BLP after all. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Jury Decision Rendered in Kleiman Case
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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2021
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)
 * ❌ The link is available in the citation / reference list. I disagree that an additional hyperlink to an external site should be created. --SVTCobra 14:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Section about co1n
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
 * https://www.zdnet.com/article/sgi-denies-links-with-alleged-bitcoin-founder-craig-wright/
 * https://twitter.com/alistairmilne/status/1141967574344843264
 * https://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius
 * https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/uyen-t-nguyen-young-vietnamese-womans-satoshi-nakamoto-court-case-involvement/
 * https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08248988/officers
 * https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/07/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-3.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.177.128 (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture addition: podcast series Dr Bitcoin - The Man Who Wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto
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)

Degree in Theology sources.
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 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)


 * ✅ I added United Theological College per his profile at his booking agent. BTW, the YouTube link did not work for me. --SVTCobra 14:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * A booking agent isn't a reliable source, nor is YouTube. I will try to find something better.--FeralOink (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Coinmarketcap a reliable source for the latest edit?
- I'm not sure Coinmarketcap is a reliable source here. 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)


 * My edit that made this addition has been reverted. Other sources can be found, such as direct coverage of the court proceedings by news outlets such as Yahoo: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/craig-wright-won-t-cryptographic-001254448.html

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)


 * Unfortunately that Yahoo link is syndicated content from Coindesk, who aren't a reliable source per WP:RSP JaggedHamster (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I will investigate this and find a source that satisfies WP:RS for the content. If I am successful, I will insert the removed content back into the article.--FeralOink (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2023
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. Hrichson (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Antiguan nationality
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)