Wired thinks it has unmasked Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto as an Australian security personality Craig Wright. Plenty of others beg to differ.
Curiously, I had an ugly argument with Wright and a handful of Bitcoin enthusiasts on Twitter in May 2015.
It started after I asked a simple question about why some people had started advocating blockchain for identity. I didn't get a straight answer, but instead copped a fair bit of abuse. Wright's Twitter account has since been deleted, so it's hard to reconstruct the thread (I'd love it if someone out there knows how to extract a more complete Twitter archive; I don't suppose anyone Storified the thread?).
Reproduced below is one side of the spat. I only have my own archived tweets from the time in question but you should get the gist. Wright could never stick to the point - what does blockchain have to offer identity management? Instead he took all inquiries as an attack. He's passionate about Bitcoin changing the world, and if I recall correctly, boasted of his own enormous wealth from Bitcoin mining (he's no crypto-anarchist, as is clear from his exhorbitant LinkedIn profile, one of the longest you'll ever see). Wright's arguments were all deflections; he even dredged up a PKI project from 17 years ago on which we worked together, where evidently he and I had some difference of opinion, something I honestly can't remember.
| 10/05/2015 3:32 | Blockchain-for-identity proponents: Please set out the problem to be solved, analyse it, state your proposal, and argue its benefits. |
| 11/05/2015 22:52 | .@caelyxsec: "Bitcoin is just soft certs" @matthewsinclair < Classic! |
| 11/05/2015 22:56 | .@matthewsinclair @caelyxsec "Passport", "no central authority", "no walled gardens". Same old utopian slogans. Plus blockmagic. |
| 11/05/2015 22:57 | What does a Onelogin actually mean? It's a nickname. Who vouches for it? @matthewsinclair @caelyxsec |
| 11/05/2015 23:09 | .@matthewsinclair: @caelyxsec "what does having my Twitter & GitHub usernames signed into the blockchain actually mean?"; Not much. |
| 15/05/2015 8:20 | Seems to be a first-come-first-served nickname and self-certified details saved to the #blockchain. @paulmadsen @iglazer @TechPolicy |
| 15/05/2015 8:24 | .@Chris_Skinner "Repeat after me: Bitcoin Bad, Blockchain Good"; But good for what? Time stamped archive. |
| 15/05/2015 9:27 | .@craigvallis @paulmadsen @iglazer Very little! I don't see identity specialists advocating #blockchain for pressing identity problems |
| 15/05/2015 10:28 | RT @craigvallis: @Steve_Lockstep @paulmadsen @iglazer Heard the same from BitCoin specialists, without the coin blockchain is just a database |
| 15/05/2015 10:31 | .@craigvallis Clever contribution of #blockchain is to solve the double spend problem. But not a problem in identity @paulmadsen @iglazer |
| 15/05/2015 21:26 | .@Chris_Skinner Sure, I get Bitcoin for some payments, but I don't get #blockchain for anything else. |
| 15/05/2015 22:15 | .@Chris_Skinner Nope. Blockchain special properties relate to stopping double spend. I don't see the advantages for eg contract exchange |
| 15/05/2015 22:21 | 1/2 - Thesis: #blockchain is a bit magical, so some guess it must have potential beyond payments - like identity. We need rigor here |
| 15/05/2015 22:23 | 2/2 - I liken this to the way some are enamored with Quantum Mechanics to explain eg consciousness. Even magic has limits. |
| 15/05/2015 23:16 | Turns out BTC is hard to sustain even for payments. But for non-payments, is there any business model at all? https://t.co/69eHD9ssFi |
| 15/05/2015 23:36 | .@Dr_Craig_Wright Actually I always proposed community based PKI http://t.co/DagiIx74la (2003) http://t.co/o6aYQWvqMA (2008). Going strong |
| 15/05/2015 23:40 | .@Dr_Craig_Wright There's not much to attack. I still can't find a rigorous explanation of blockchain for identity. |
| 16/05/2015 1:01 | .@Dr_Craig_Wright So most people are just guessing that blockchain has potential for identity. |
| 16/05/2015 1:09 | .@Dr_Craig_Wright But maybe you can point me to one those many sources to explain the potential of blockchain or whatever for identity? |
| 16/05/2015 1:23 | .@BitcoinBelle Please explain what blockchain does that a digital signature chained to eg a bank does not? @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 1:27 | @Dr_Craig_Wright @BitcoinBelle @Chris_Skinner Explanations please, not abuse. |
| 16/05/2015 1:29 | .@BitcoinBelle I get BTC for the unbanked. I do. But I don't get contracts or patents in that setting. @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 1:32 | @BitcoinBelle Can you follow a thread? Or a line of logic? |
| 16/05/2015 1:34 | .@BitcoinBelle So once again, explain please how a timestamp plus tamper resistance is special? @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 1:42 | 1/4: @benmcginnes Proof of what? Someone unilaterally asserted something about themselves? @BitcoinBelle @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 1:43 | 2/4: "Proof" to what standard? That word implies accreditation somewhere. @benmcginnes @BitcoinBelle @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 1:44 | 3/4: Who relies on the proof? ie what's the detailed use case? @benmcginnes @BitcoinBelle @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 1:47 | 4/4: Why/how does interfacing to blockchain give better proof than a PK cert? @benmcginnes @BitcoinBelle @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 2:40 | .@benmcginnes Math proof in identity is the easy bit. Proof of attributes and rel'ships matters more. @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 2:43 | .@benmcginnes Oh please. That's why I'm asking people to compare 2 types: blockchain and PK certs. @Chris_Skinner @Dr_Craig_Wright |
| 16/05/2015 2:46 | .@Dr_Craig_Wright I mean accred in the broadest sense: a disinterested endorsement. Self asserted means 0 @benmcginnes @Chris_Skinner |
| 16/05/2015 3:18 | .@Dr_Craig_Wright Something I said in a PKI advisory 17 years seems to still be eating you Craig. What is it? @benmcginnes |
| 16/05/2015 5:12 | .@BitcoinBelle But. Why. Bother? What's better about blockchain, compared with putting your hysterics on Twitter? @el33th4xor |
| 16/05/2015 5:16 | So I asked for an explanation of #blockchain for identity. And all I get is hippy nonsense - it's not central, not fiat, not govt. |
| 16/05/2015 8:35 | @futureidentity It's certainly the case with Bitcoin that it's more about the people than the technology. |
| 16/05/2015 10:26 | @jonmatonis @futureidentity Thanks but sorry, what do you mean by user defined privacy? |
| 16/05/2015 10:27 | @jonmatonis @futureidentity Please explain deniability of ownership. |
| 16/05/2015 11:06 | .@jonmatonis Thanks. How is that realized with blockchain where all transactions are available for all to see? @futureidentity |
| 16/05/2015 12:10 | .@benmcginnes I don't need visuals. I need blockchain-for-identity pundits to set out the problem it solves. @jonmatonis @futureidentity |
| 16/05/2015 19:52 | Twitter: Where you can be sure to find all the answers to questions you never asked. |
| 16/05/2015 19:57 | .@adam3us But why #blockchain? It was designed to stop double spend. Cheaper ways to hold immutable attributes @jonmatonis @futureidentity |
| 16/05/2015 20:04 | RT @adam3us: .@Steve_Lockstep @jonmatonis @futureidentity Well indeed identity does not belong on chain. Payment protocol is offchain |
| 16/05/2015 20:09 | .@cdelargy Which id mgt action corresponds to spending? Is it each presentation of "I am Steve"? @adam3us @jonmatonis @futureidentity |
| 16/05/2015 20:18 | .@jonmatonis Which is to say identity is not the new form of currency? .@futureidentity |
| 16/05/2015 20:21 | .@adam3us Auxillary info meaning the attributes and most importantly who vouches for them? @cdelargy @jonmatonis @futureidentity |
| 16/05/2015 22:00 | RT @adam3us: .@Steve_Lockstep @cdelargy @jonmatonis @futureidentity Yes Blockchain hasn't bandwidth for finance app msgs with identity |
| 16/05/2015 22:26 | .@Beautyon_ Not at all. I've articulated how I see the main id problem to solve: http://t.co/LPXBHieawT I ask others do the same |
| 16/05/2015 22:31 | .@Beautyon_ I'm not anti Bitcoin. I'm pro rigor. Almost nobody weighing in articulates the IDAM problem blockchain supposedly fixes |
| 16/05/2015 22:33 | .@Beautyon_ I think I agree. Names per se are not as important as the more general "Here's an attribute about me you can rely on" |
| 16/05/2015 22:36 | .@Beautyon_ So I say we need IDAM system to imbue attributes with pedigree and present them so RPs r assured of pedigree and user control |
| 16/05/2015 22:38 | .@Beautyon_ If blockchain is involved in every attribute presentation, is bandwidth ok? And isn't the 10 minute reconciliation too long? |
| 16/05/2015 22:40 | .@Beautyon_ No, I frame identity as "what do I need to know about you to be able to deal with you?" in a context. |
| 16/05/2015 22:47 | .@Beautyon_ In the lingo of IDAM, the holder of the asset you want to access is the Relying Party. They rely on your credential or key. |
| 16/05/2015 23:03 | @Beautyon_ No I don't use GPG. Maybe I might still understand if someone offers an explanation. |
| 16/05/2015 23:08 | .@Beautyon_ Why the elitism? Why can't blockchain enthusiasts explain themselves to the unwashed? You're like Freemasons |
| 16/05/2015 23:17 | .@Beautyon_ 20 years in PKI. I think I got the basics. And an allergy to people who can't explain their craft in natural language. |
| 17/05/2015 3:42 | .@WulfKhan IDAM is complicated. Many facets. Many problems. Which are addressed by blockchain? I am not on about BTC. @Beautyon_ |
| 17/05/2015 4:22 | .@Beautyon_ I advise organisations on non trivial authentication and privacy problems. DIY secrecy is not important in my world. |
| 17/05/2015 4:35 | User pseudonymity is a crude fragile measure. Privacy != secrecy. It's about what others do with info about you. https://t.co/VpiKWHTLBH |
For what it's worth, in my wildest dreams I can't imagine the confusing, self-important Craig Wright being Nakamoto.