We’ve all heard of Craig Wright. Over the course of 2019, Wright has been in the news quite a lot in regards to his lawsuit between him and the late Dave Kleiman who allegedly worked on Bitcoin in 2008/09.
Wright has often made the claim that he is, in fact, the face behind the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto but the thing is, no one believes him. Wright thinks he knows why too.
Actions Maketh the Man
Wright is a big believer in on-chain scaling as he has proposed a more extreme version than most, with 2GB blocks already live on what is mostly an empty vacant network.
Bitcoin Cash isn’t necessarily opposed to larger blocks, nor are they opposed to looking at other scaling solution when the time comes. Both projects generally view the reluctance of Bitcoin to simply raise their blocksize as a failure of tech and governance.
Wright is a believer that the majority of those take a disliking to him, have an issue with what he views as his legitimate claim to be Nakamoto himself.
Wright has laid out the following in a blog post that he posted in June.
“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.”
The abrasive personality of Wright is probably what puts people off wanting to believe that he is Nakamoto.