Craig Wright speaking to the BBC in what he said will be his only television appearance.BBCOn Monday, Craig Wright published “proof” that he is Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto, but experts debunked the claim within hours.
That led to Wright publishing a second blog post yesterday, entitled “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” Wright says he’ll show just such proof—soon:
Over the coming days, I will be posting a series of pieces that will lay the foundations for this extraordinary claim, which will include posting independently-verifiable documents and evidence addressing some of the false allegations that have been levelled, and transferring bitcoin from an early block.
For some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation… You should be sceptical. You should question.
I would.
I will present what I believe to be ‘extraordinary proof’ and ask only that it be independently verified. Ultimately, I can do no more than that.
The post promises more, but it doesn’t address the damning facts of Wright’s initial disclosure.

The problem isn’t just that his proof wasn’t sufficient—experts like Dan Kaminsky, chief scientist at White Ops, called it out as an intentional fraud, with Wright trying to pass off a 2009 Satoshi signature as something new.
UC Berkeley computer scientist Nicholas Weaver came to the same conclusion, calling Wright’s use of an old signature “provably fraudulent.”
Monday’s story continued to confound, however, because Wright had two powerful allies in his corner—former lead Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen and former Bitcoin Foundation Director Jon Matonis.
But yesterday Andresen backed away from Wright, saying he vouched for the Australian investor too quickly.
In an e-mail exchange with Kaminsky, published on Kaminsky’s blog, Andresen said he was “as surprised by the ‘proof’ as anyone, and [doesn’t] yet know exactly what is going on.” He continued:
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his—I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I’m lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
To say Wright’s behavior looks sketchy at this point would be an understatement.
It would take minutes to publicly sign a new message with one of Satoshi’s keys.
“Scammers always have more to say, but all that matters now is math,” wrote Kaminsky. “Say what you will about Bitcoin, it’s given us the world’s first cryptographically provable con artist.”