So: now that Wired and Gizmodo have outed Australian Craig Wright, and Wright has owned up to it...is he really Nakamoto? Has the question of the origins of bitcoin been put to rest?
Dan Kaminsky, a computer security researcher, has said that he and other researchers who've looked into this "have got him dead to rights." That is: that Wright is pulling a con.
Jerry Brito, the executive director of a nonprofit research organization that studies currency issues, agrees. Wright has "provided no cryptographic evidence verifiable by the public, and many of his answers sound plain fishy."
Even Wired seems to have changed sides.
The cryptographic evidence adduced one way or the other is difficult for a non-expert to follow. Here is a simple point, though. Wright's company, Cloudcroft, a data analytics concern, has claimed to own two supercomputers, one of which was manufactured by SGI, the company formerly known as Silicon Graphics. But ... SGI denies it ever sold any such computer to Cloudcroft. It told Wired, one of the two media outlets that broke the Wright-is-Makamoto scoop last year, that Cloudcroft "has never been an SGI customer."
It's a small piece of evidence, but it does tend to show that Wright wants to make himself out to be a bigger deal than he is. A phonied up connection with SGI would be perfectly compatible with a phonied-up past as the founder of Bitcoin.
Nonetheless, my bottom line right now is I DON'T KNOW.
In tomorrow's entry, I hope to discuss Bitcoin from a very different angle. Its pre-history, if you will.